JW Question

Originally posted by galveston75
Any half witted fool knows what the command to abstain means. It has to take someone way down on the nitt-witt scale to miss that one.

Speaking of what "the command to abstain" means, was robbie corrobie right or wrong when he said that it's OK for a JW to eat the residue of blood that you find in meat?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually all that Gods law stipulated to the Israelites was that the animal was properly
bled, they were not to eat the blood but pour it out, now obviously a residue would
have been left. Yes its entirely up to the individual, that is what exercising ones
conscience means.

I thought that Mosaic Law no longer applied? I remember in debates gone by when i put to you the wearing of clothes made from more than one fibre was a sin, your response was something like 'i'm not Jewish and the Mosaic law has been fulfilled'. Why does that law not apply but this one does?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually all that Gods law stipulated to the Israelites was that the animal was properly
bled, they were not to eat the blood but pour it out, now obviously a residue would
have been left. Yes its entirely up to the individual, that is what exercising ones
conscience means.

Here we go, words spoken by Mr Galveston himself 11/12/09 in the Noah's Ark thread

There is the perfect example that you have not gotten any of the very basic points from Jesus's teachings. He made it very clear we are no longer bound by those laws as he himself fulfilled them. Matt 5:17.

and from the man himself, Mr Carrobie -

........the Mosaic law, is in practice, obsolete, we are under a new covenant agreement and a new law, the Law of the Christ.

and again -

......we are Christian, we are no longer under the ordinances of the Mosaic law.....

and agin -

Your a fraud, your are unable to discuss anything in a truthful manner, 'you shall not kill', is part of the Mosaic law, given to Jews, not binding on Christians.

Now i've found what i was looking for, i brought up Leviticus 19:19 for you on 19/10/09 this is what you said -

yes, but these edicts that were given to the nation of Israel in he form of the Mosaic law are now no longer binding on Christians, we are under a different 'covenant', or agreement.

So, why does this law not apply yet the law regarding blood abstinence still does?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here we go, words spoken by Mr Galveston himself 11/12/09 in the Noah's Ark thread

There is the perfect example that you have not gotten any of the very basic points from Jesus's teachings. He made it very clear we are no longer bound by those laws as he himself fulfilled them. Matt 5:17.

and from the man himself, Mr Carrobie -

te]

So, why does this law not apply yet the law regarding blood abstinence still does?

So, why does this law not apply yet the law regarding blood abstinence still does?

because even though the law has been annulled in practice, the principles remain
binding. For example, we do not offer up animal sacrifices, as the law stipulates, our
sacrifices are our time and effort in preaching and teaching the application of biblical
truths, the law was merely a typical representation of the reality, thus it is clear
that in the case of blood, a representation of life, that although we do not pour it out as
to God when we kill an animal as stipulated in the Mosaic law, blood representing the
life remains sacrosanct to God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So, why does this law not apply yet the law regarding blood abstinence still does?

because even though the law has been annulled in practice, the principles remain
binding. For example, we do not offer up animal sacrifices, as the law stipulates, our
sacrifices are our time and effort in preaching and teaching the application of biblical
tr ...[text shortened]... animal as stipulated in the Mosaic law, blood representing the
life remains sacrosanct to God.

So why does the principle of wearing clothes made from two or more fibres not apply?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So why does the principle of wearing clothes made from two or more fibres not apply?

I am sure that if i research the law i may find a principle which correlates to
Christianity, but i would need to research it, its not something that i have really thought
about, to be honest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sure that if i research the law i may find a principle which correlates to
Christianity, but i would need to research it, its not something that i have really thought
about, to be honest.

'Cherry picking' is the phrase that springs to mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sure that if i research the law i may find a principle which correlates to
Christianity, but i would need to research it, its not something that i have really thought
about, to be honest.

That is your problem, you don't think. All your thinking is done by the
Watchtower Society.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
'Cherry picking' is the phrase that springs to mind.

is that you or me? ill research it if you want.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is your problem, you don't think. All your thinking is done by the
Watchtower Society.

were awesome, you warmongers suck, everyone knows it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is that you or me? ill research it if you want.

What i would like to know is this, if the laws are now obselete who decides which 'principles' remain?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What i would like to know is this, if the laws are now obselete who decides which 'principles' remain?

everyone as an individual is free to use principles as they wish, this is the beauty of
a principle, for its not actually dependent on the original application.

God’s law to the people of Israel commanded: “You must not wear mixed stuff of
wool and linen together.” (De 22:11; see also Le 19:19.) Regarding this, the
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1973, Vol. 14, col. 1213) remarked: “The clothing
of the priests was notably exempt from the prohibition of sha'atnez [a garment of
two sorts of thread, NW]. Exodus 28:6, 8, 15 and 39:29 prescribe that various
pieces be made of linen and colored wool interwoven. . . . This suggests that the
general prohibition was grounded on the taboo character of such a mixture,
pertaining exclusively to the realm of the sacred.”

Now what this actually means therefore becomes open to interpretation, is it that it
it wrong to mix the sacred and the mundane? again, we can establish a principle on
this basis which has its application in all sorts of ways.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
everyone as an individual is free to use principles as they wish, this is the beauty of
a principle, for its not actually dependent on the original application.

God’s law to the people of Israel commanded: “You must not wear mixed stuff of
wool and linen together.” (De 22:11; see also Le 19:19.) Regarding this, the
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jer n, we can establish a principle on
this basis which has its application in all sorts of ways.

Too bad the Encyclopaedia Judaica does not comment on the New Testament
and your belief in the "TOTAL" abstaining from blood. It is clear you do NOT have
good logic skills.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Too bad the Encyclopaedia Judaica does not comment on the New Testament
and your belief in the "TOTAL" abstaining from blood. It is clear you do NOT have
good logic skills.

can this really be happening to me? am i in some sort of nightmarish forum setting
where time looms high on the wall, effusing from a melting clock, where jack in the
boxes pounce menacingly from the shadows and manikins laugh shrilly into the black
night? someone bring me back to reality!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
can this really be happening to me? am i in some sort of nightmarish forum setting
where time looms high on the wall, effusing from a melting clock, where jack in the
boxes pounce menacingly from the shadows and manikins laugh shrilly into the black
night? someone bring me back to reality!

That's the 47th best chess player on this website for you. 🙄