'Its Blood You Must Not Eat'--Not Jus...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#61 Dec 3, 2012
Ezekiel 4:14 establishes that dead foul unbled flesh is a sort of flesh: "neither a body [already] dead nor a torn animal have I eaten from my youth up, even until now, and into my mouth there has come no foul FLESH.”"

Deuteronomy 14:21 establishes that Israelites "must not eat any body [already] dead" because it is flesh with blood.

Therefore, in conjunction with this prohibition, Leviticus 17:14 establishes that it is GOD'S VIEW, rather than simply a law in the Mosaic Law, that the blood of animals INCLUDING unbled animals found dead represent the soul of the animal: "YOU must not eat the BLOOD of ANY SORT OF FLESH(including unbled flesh of animals found dead--Deut 14:21), because the soul of EVERY SORT OF FLESH (INCLUDING UNBLED ANIMAL FLESH FOUND DEAD as already established--Ez 4:14) is its blood."

And Genesis 9:4 establishes that "flesh with its blood you must not eat".

Because animal flesh found dead is a "sort of flesh" with blood and because blood represents the soul of "ANY SORT OF FLESH" including unbled animal flesh found dead then Genesis 9:4 prohibits the eating of "ANY SORT OF FLESH" and "EVERY SORT OF FLESH" WITH BLOOD.

You have been unable to address these facts with anything other than irrelevant Marvus Bulshiddus.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62 Dec 3, 2012
The reason God did not specifically spell out that unbled animals found dead are prohibited is because unbled animals found dead constitute a "sort of flesh" "with its blood" that "you must not eat".

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#63 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 62[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
The reason God did not specifically spell out that unbled animals found dead are prohibited is because unbled animals found dead constitute a "sort of flesh" "with its blood" that "you must not eat".


Noah had no knowledge whatsoever of something written nearly 1,000 years after the flood.

But Noah did have knowledge that prior to the flood there was absolutely no stipulation that taking in meat was anyways wrong.[2]

Right, Thirdwitness?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 62: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 60: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#64 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 61[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
Ezekiel 4:14 establishes that dead foul unbled flesh is a sort of flesh: "neither a body [already] dead nor a torn animal have I eaten from my youth up, even until now, and into my mouth there has come no foul FLESH.”"
But not flesh AS SOUL.

The text at issue says “the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it”.—(Lev. 17:14)

The text you cite does not suggest carrion dead of natural cause as “THE SOUL of every sort of flesh is its blood BY the soul in it” because it speaks of something non-soul.

Carcass meat found dead of natural cause is NOT SOUL so that its “flesh IS its blood BY the soul in it”.[2]
Thirdwitness wrote:
Deuteronomy 14:21 establishes that Israelites "must not eat any body [already] dead" because it is flesh with blood.
Israelites, yes. Worshippers of God of non-Israelite nationality, no. Worshippers like Job, Cornelius and Cornelius’ household were free to eat unbled carrion dead of natural cause as a provision from Jehovah. Deuteronomy 14:21 says so. Right?
Thirdwitness wrote:
Therefore, in conjunction with this prohibition, Leviticus 17:14 establishes that it is GOD'S VIEW, rather than simply a law in the Mosaic Law, that the blood of animals INCLUDING unbled animals found dead represent the soul of the animal: "YOU must not eat the BLOOD of ANY SORT OF FLESH(including unbled flesh of animals found dead--Deut 14:21), because the soul of EVERY SORT OF FLESH (INCLUDING UNBLED ANIMAL FLESH FOUND DEAD as already established--Ez 4:14) is its blood."
God’s view for Israelites, yes. God’s view for non-Israelite worshippers of Him of other nationalities, no.
Thirdwitness wrote:
And Genesis 9:4 establishes that "flesh with its blood you must not eat".
.
Because animal flesh found dead is a "sort of flesh" with blood and because blood represents the soul of "ANY SORT OF FLESH" including unbled animal flesh found dead then Genesis 9:4 prohibits the eating of "ANY SORT OF FLESH" and "EVERY SORT OF FLESH" WITH BLOOD.


Aside from you continuing an attempt to transpose a tenet uniquely stated in the Mosaic Law onto the Noachian Decree, it remains the case that carcass meat found dead of natural cause is NOT SOUL so that its “flesh IS its blood BY the soul in it”.[2]

You have yet to prove your initial conclusion is true beyond your own speculation.[3] So far you’ve offered circular argument[4-5] and asked readers to read things out of their immediate context[6]. That’s very poor evidence, not to mention fallacious reasoning.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 61: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 48: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

3. Post 1: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

4. Post 13: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

5. Post 14: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

6. Post 19: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#65 Dec 3, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
From post 62[1]:
<quoted text>
Noah had no knowledge whatsoever of something written nearly 1,000 years after the flood.
But Noah did have knowledge that prior to the flood there was absolutely no stipulation that taking in meat was anyways wrong.[2]
Right, Thirdwitness?
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:
1. Post 62: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
2. Post 60: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
And this is exactly what you have failed to prove. You have not shown Noah ate flesh or that he was even permitted to eat flesh. Your whole premise is based on the silly notion

If bug then man.

This of course is a unproven and absolutely ridiculous premise.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#66 Dec 3, 2012
" not flesh AS SOUL. The text at issue says “the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it”.—(Lev. 17:14)"--Marvin.

The text at issue plainly states that it is God's view that "the blood of ANY sort of flesh" (including animals found dead that were prohibited) is the "soul of every sort of flesh".

14 "YOU&#8203; must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh), because the soul of every sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh) is its blood"

No amount of Marvus Bulshiddus will change God's view. The question is, do you agree with God's view?

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#67 Dec 3, 2012
14 "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh), because the soul of every sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh) is its blood"

If you can honestly and straightforwardly answer this question you will have exposed your fallacy.

According to God's view as found in this scripture, why should unbled animals found already dead not be eaten?

Let the dancing begin!
Teleologist

Phoenix, AZ

#68 Dec 3, 2012
Thirdwitness, regarding Deuteronomy 14:21 it is important to remember that while the pagan worshippers in Israel were not under the Mosaic law they were under the Noachian law which was binding on all mankind. It makes no sense to me that Jehovah would have unilaterally provided unbled animal carcasses precisely for purposes of eating to those HE viewed as under the Noachian law if in fact it was forbidden under the Noachian law to eat animals that died of themselves. That would mean that for no apparent reason Jehovah would have encouraged those he viewed as still under the Noachian law to break it!

Because I do not believe God would for no apparent reason encourage persons to break HIS own law there is no question in my mind that His provision for certain unbled flesh as food to non-Israelites is sure proof that the Noachian law did not forbid the eating of animals that died of themselves. Those under the Mosaic law were forbidden from eating animals that died of themselves but those under the Noachian law were not forbidden from eating animals that died of themselves. This to me is the most reasonable explanation for what is stated at Deuteronomy 14:21.

You attempt to refute my position thusly:
Thirdwitness wrote:
God permitted Israelites to sell unbled carcasses to foreigners even though they were prohibited as food by the Noachian Decree because:

God was permitting the 'nations to go in their own way' and do as they chose because they were not part of his holy nation.(Acts 14:16)

The text does not speak of God permitting unbled flesh as food -- it speaks of Him providing unbled flesh as food! Had God wanted simply to allow this to non-Israelites all he had to do was say nothing.
Thirdwitness wrote:
God was granting concession to Israel for financial needs, in selling an animal that died, just as he granted concessions to them in marriage because of their hardheartedness.(Deut 24:1, Matt 19)
God allowing Israelite men to divorce is presented in the Bible as a response to a particular circumstance (i.e., hard-heartedness) to explain God allowing something contrary to His own standards. But the Bible offers no particular circumstance to explain giving or selling unbled carrion flesh to non-Israelite children of Noah as though it was somehow against God’s own standards.

God allowing Israelite men to divorce is clearly stipulated as a concession by God in need of identification whereas the providing of unbled carrion flesh to non-Israelite children of Noah is not clearly stipulated as a concession by God of any kind whatsoever as though it needed identification as such.

According to Jesus, God granted divorce as an option under the Mosaic Law as a concession. We know this was a concession made by God because the scriptures say so in explicit language.

Do you think we should presume that God has acted contrary to His own standards when we do not have an explicit biblical statement saying just that?
Teleologist

Phoenix, AZ

#69 Dec 3, 2012
The last sentence in my previous post should read:

Do you think we should presume that God has granted a consession to His own standards when we do not have an explicit biblical statement saying He has done so?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#70 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 65[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
Noah had no knowledge whatsoever of something written nearly 1,000 years after the flood.
.
But Noah did have knowledge that prior to the flood there was absolutely no stipulation that taking in meat was anyways wrong.
.
Right, Thirdwitness?
And:
Thirdwitness wrote:
And this is exactly what you have failed to prove. You have not shown Noah ate flesh or that he was even permitted to eat flesh. Your whole premise is based on the silly notion
If bug then man.
.
This of course is a unproven and absolutely ridiculous premise.


I’ve proven what you object to as quoted above.

Do you doubt that Noah had no knowledge whatsoever of something written nearly 1,000 years after the flood”

Do you doubt that Noah did have knowledge that prior to the flood there was absolutely no stipulation that taking in meat was anyways wrong?

And, finally, the “If bug then man” premise you assert above is dicto simpliciter.

Here: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

And, here: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Look it up.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 65: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#71 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 66[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
The text at issue plainly states that it is God's view that "the blood of ANY sort of flesh" (including animals found dead that were prohibited) is the "soul of every sort of flesh".
The text does not simply say “every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it”.

Here: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Look it up.
__________

You have yet to prove your initial conclusion is true beyond your own speculation.[2]

So far you’ve offered circular argument[3-4] and asked readers to read things out of their immediate context[5].

That’s very poor evidence, not to mention fallacious reasoning.

You’ve laid an egg, Thirdwitness, and you’re staining to pass another one.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 66: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 1: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

3. Post 13: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

4. Post 14: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

5. Post 19: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#72 Dec 3, 2012
Teleologist wrote:
Thirdwitness, regarding Deuteronomy 14:21 it is important to remember that while the pagan worshippers in Israel were not under the Mosaic law they were under the Noachian law which was binding on all mankind. It makes no sense to me that Jehovah would have unilaterally provided unbled animal carcasses precisely for purposes of eating to those HE viewed as under the Noachian law if in fact it was forbidden under the Noachian law to eat animals that died of themselves. That would mean that for no apparent reason Jehovah would have encouraged those he viewed as still under the Noachian law to break it!
Because I do not believe God would for no apparent reason encourage persons to break HIS own law there is no question in my mind that His provision for certain unbled flesh as food to non-Israelites is sure proof that the Noachian law did not forbid the eating of animals that died of themselves. Those under the Mosaic law were forbidden from eating animals that died of themselves but those under the Noachian law were not forbidden from eating animals that died of themselves. This to me is the most reasonable explanation for what is stated at Deuteronomy 14:21.
You attempt to refute my position thusly:
<quoted text>
The text does not speak of God permitting unbled flesh as food -- it speaks of Him providing unbled flesh as food! Had God wanted simply to allow this to non-Israelites all he had to do was say nothing.
<quoted text>
God allowing Israelite men to divorce is presented in the Bible as a response to a particular circumstance (i.e., hard-heartedness) to explain God allowing something contrary to His own standards. But the Bible offers no particular circumstance to explain giving or selling unbled carrion flesh to non-Israelite children of Noah as though it was somehow against God’s own standards.
God allowing Israelite men to divorce is clearly stipulated as a concession by God in need of identification whereas the providing of unbled carrion flesh to non-Israelite children of Noah is not clearly stipulated as a concession by God of any kind whatsoever as though it needed identification as such.
According to Jesus, God granted divorce as an option under the Mosaic Law as a concession. We know this was a concession made by God because the scriptures say so in explicit language.
Do you think we should presume that God has acted contrary to His own standards when we do not have an explicit biblical statement saying just that?
God allowing humans to do something contrary to his standards is not the same as God acting contrary to his own standards. Thus the divorce certificate contrary to the Genesis account.

If your claim is correct then by God granting Israel a concession to divorce he actually held the nations to a higher standard than Israel because he did not grant the nations concessions for divorce.

Is this what you believe?

Also you didn't answer my question. Why?

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#73 Dec 3, 2012
Of course as usual you like Telee did not answer the question.

14 "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh), because the soul of every sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh) is its blood"

According to God's view as found in this scripture, why should unbled animals found already dead not be eaten?

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#74 Dec 3, 2012
Of Marvin's premise, if bug then man.

You have yet to prove your initial conclusion is true beyond your own speculation.

So far you’ve offered circular argument and asked readers to read things out of their immediate context.

That’s very poor evidence, not to mention fallacious reasoning.

You’ve laid an egg, Marvin, and you’re staining to pass another one.

See how rhetoric works Marvin. Its useless to your argument.

Now are you going to answer the question or deflect and divert as usual?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#75 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 72[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
God allowing humans to do something contrary to his standards is not the same as God acting contrary to his own standards. Thus the divorce certificate contrary to the Genesis account.
God did not simply allow non-Israelites to eat unbled meat found dead of natural cause.

God provided unbled meat found dead of natural cause specifically for purpose of eating to non-Israelites, which would have included faithful non-Israelite worshippers like Job, Cornelius and Cornelius’ household.
Thirdwitness wrote:
If your claim is correct then by God granting Israel a concession to divorce he actually held the nations to a higher standard than Israel because he did not grant the nations concessions for divorce
Here: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Those Israelite men were, after all, hardhearted. Men like Abraham, Lot, Noah, Job and Cornelius don’t strike me as hardhearted. What do you think?

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 72: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#76 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 73[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
14 "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh), because the soul of every sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh) is its blood"
.
According to God's view as found in this scripture, why should unbled animals found already dead not be eaten?


1. I’m no Jew under Mosaic Law. Hence no provision stated uniquely by the Mosaic Law has anything whatsoever to do with me. Jews were required to treat blood as a sacred substance. Noah was not required to treat blood as a sacred substance.

2. I don’t see any biblical text suggesting it wrong to take in meat of animal carcasses dead of natural cause.

3. The text you cite associates a soulical correlation between creatures and blood. A soul is a creature that a man can kill. Carrion dead of natural cause is not something any man can kill. The text you keep citing is said of living and walking around animals. The statement’s opening conjunction shows this.[2] It’s the following verse (15) that speaks to carrion flesh dead of natural cause and it makes no soulical correlation with blood of this meat.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 73: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 19: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#77 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 74[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
Of Marvin's premise, if bug then man.
.
You have yet to prove your initial conclusion is true beyond your own speculation.
.
So far you’ve offered circular argument and asked readers to read things out of their immediate context.
.
That’s very poor evidence, not to mention fallacious reasoning.
.
You’ve laid an egg, Marvin, and you’re staining to pass another one.
.
See how rhetoric works Marvin. Its useless to your argument.
Wow! Laying this egg of yours[2] must have really burned!

Get over it! As soon as I read it I knew you’d wish you never hit the “Post Comment” button.
Thirdwitness wrote:
Now are you going to answer the question or deflect and divert as usual?


I don’t know of a single question you’ve asked me in this discussion that’s unanswered, though I can name a few answers you didn’t like!

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 74: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

2. Post 1: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#78 Dec 3, 2012
Again

14 "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh), because the soul of every sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh) is its blood"
.
According to God's view as found in this scripture, why should unbled animals found already dead not be eaten?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#79 Dec 3, 2012
-

From post 78[1]:
Thirdwitness wrote:
Again
.
14 "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh), because the soul of every sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh) is its blood"
.
According to God's view as found in this scripture, why should unbled animals found already dead not be eaten?
I’ve answered your question.

Here: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

The text you cite DOES NOT give a reason not to eat carrion dead of natural cause because carrion dead of natural cause is not something a man is capable of killing, namely a soul.

The text you cite DOES give a reason not to eat blood of something a man is capable of killing, namely a soul.

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
__________
References:

1. Post 78: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
Thirdwitness

United States

#80 Dec 3, 2012
14 "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh), because the soul of every sort of flesh (including unbled carcass flesh) is its blood"
.
According to God's view as found in this scripture, why should unbled animals found already dead not be eaten?
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
-
From post 78[1]:
<quoted text>
The text you cite DOES NOT give a reason not to eat carrion dead of natural cause
So it is your opinion that the "blood of any sort of flesh" that is prohibited is not really the blood of any sort of flesh.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
meaning of immortal 3 min PrufSammy 124
1914 made simple (Oct '16) 8 min rsss11 587
Nomi 11 min rsss11 61
The Bible Jehovah`s Witnesses main text Book 29 min pcloadletter 76
king of salem witches (Oct '15) 43 min red blood relative 89
henrietta m. riley trust (Feb '10) 54 min pcloadletter 102
The WTS is part-owner of more than 3 MILITARY C... (Oct '15) 1 hr pcloadletter 29
should a Christian fight in war? 1 hr His Eminency dr S... 40
Yet, Another New Forum... 2 hr Templelijah 212
Is smoking a sin? 12 hr TempleBBQ 64