Where shall we consult for our answers?....Saturday, May 23, 2009 7:10 PM
From: "Carlos Burman"
To:
Dear eiko onoda,
I hope you are fine today.
As i spoke yesterday evening,earlier this week i was busy..however, now im fine,so please if you wish to reply quickly to this email,feel free.
With regards to your many understandings about various bible doctrines that you brought out in your previous email, what both need to remember is:
The Hebrew scriptures were especially written for the Jewish people.
The Christian scriptures were especially written for the Christian people which could be from any nation on the earth.
Thus,keeping this in mind helps us to see really which doctrines, laws, principles and regulations are for us TODAY to keep.
You mentioned in your previous email that Cultures seem to be so interwoven that its difficult to define which doctrines are Christian and which are not.
Yes,understandably, especially for someone who doesnt read the bible on a regular basis it can be difficult to distinguish from right and wrong.
In the Hebrew scriptures, when Jehovah appointed a king to rule over his people,Israel,notice what Jehovah God said they must do:
Jehovah said to Joshua at Joshua 1:8 " This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you must in an undertone read in it day and day, in order that you may take care to do all that is written in it, for then you will make your way successful and then you will act wisely"
David sang as Psalm 1:1-3: "Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked ones...but his delight is in the law of Jehovah,and his law he reads in an undertone day and night."
This was not just a requirement for kings written in the Hebrew scriptures though...Acts 17:11 tell us that the Beroeans:"...Recieved the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the scriptures daily as to whether these things were so"
Apart from these accounts,we know that Jesus Christ himself quoated from the Holy writings.
Thus the point i am making is: To know what teachings are truly christian and which truly are not,consult the Bible...especially the Christian Greek scriptures of the Bible.
Just to illustrate...If i said to you, "draw a mark on the walk where you think its about 2 metres".... then i myself do the same...i draw a mark on the same wall where i personally think 2 metres is.
How would we measure who is closest to 2 metres in reality?
of course we would get a ruler and measure the height of our marks on the wall...then we know which one is truly correct.
Likewise, no matter how intelligent either of us are,it would be an amazing thing or just pure chance if either of marked 2 metres exactly with out measuring...and if you tryed to do it many times with different measurements everyday...surely the majority are the marks you and i put on the wall are going to be incorrect.
Thus, thats why we NEED the Bible.
Its the Standard and Gods word of truth...i Thus implore you to bring your own Bible to the meeting and follow along when a scripture is cited.
Since its the Bible that tells us what is Christian and what is not..we can now consider fairly confidently as to why Jehovahs witnesses dont use blood wrongly, why we dont believe in the trinity, why we dont hold Sunday especially a Holy day today, why fat is not prohibited etc..
Of course,i will go one by one..and i think for today..i will skip much about the Trinity..since this is a large and at times quite a deepish topic to go into...so i will speak about this in a future email.
However,you said that other Christian Denominations do not have trouble with Blood and transfusions...you kind of quoted "Catholic Council of Florence 1442, session 11.
Did you know, that same Catholic Council of Florence in 1439 with regards to a different doctrine...that of PURGATORY( a kind of intermediete probation between heaven and so called hell) existed.
However,the doctrine of purgatory is not mentioned at all in the Bible...it was formulated in the 6th century AD....
Interestingly, the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA admits:" The Catholic doctrine on Purgatory is based on traditon,not on sacred scripture."
Furthermore,Rome's cardinal Ratzinger admits that it is "only a theological hypothesis".
Thus,would you take to heart the words of a Catholic council that seems to change its ideas every so often to please themselves ??
So,when we come to see that these people do not really read Gods word and measure there teachings by it,its of little wonder that they often have wrong teachings that confuse many sincere worshipers in the world.
The use of blood in the Catholic church does not make there doctrine correct...Today the Catholic church in Ireland recently have been taken to court and sued for sexual abuse of there laity....would you trust a group of people who act in such a way and also teach doctrine that is not wrirrn in the Bible?
I certainly wouldnt.
Like you also mentioned about the Nicene council 325 about Arianism...at that time Sincere Christians couldnt see any scriptural basis for the Trinity doctrine..
Sincere students of the bible today also can cannot see any basis at all for the Trinity doctrine.
I personally have made my own examination and i am convinced that what i believe in a non trinity is absolutely true.
It does sound abit presumptous,but i assure you that my conviction is based on accumulated knowledge and the application of what i learn in my life.
Blood..is Sacred in Gods eyes and only he can tell us what to correctly do with it.
Thus we can do what we want ,Jehovah wont force us to take in blood,however, hes doing it for our best interests..he wants us to be happy..to have a good conscience and to be free of disease and other complications that result from the misuse of blood.
However,Hiroshi,if you decide to have a blood transfusion,please be assured no one can physically stop you.
Now, with regards to why we dont celebrate or keep Sunday as a holy day...i think you already know the answer to this.
Please tell me anywhere in the Bible where CHRISTIANS were supposed to keep Sunday as sacred?
Once again the Bible,the measuring stick for knowing what is truth and reality is our guide.
You used the expression.."isnt it Heretic not to celebrate the Lords day"... a Heretic is one who holds controversial opinions not controversial FACTS.
The Bible factually shows that the sabbath is no longer to be regarded...Please read this excerpt about the facts of why Sunday is now used as a day of worship:
Sabbath laws given to the nation of Israel some 3,500 years ago stipulated: “Six days may work be done, but on the seventh day is a sabbath of complete rest. It is something holy to Jehovah. Anyone doing work on the sabbath day will positively be put to death.” (Exodus 31:15) The Sabbath was also an opportunity for Israelite parents to attend to the spiritual needs of their families.
The Jewish Sabbath went from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. However, according to The World Book Encyclopedia, professed Christians “made Sunday a day for special worship, because they believed that the resurrection of Jesus occurred on that day. By the A.D. 300’s, both the church and the state officially recognized it as a day of rest in Europe.”
Interestingly, stretching the rest period beyond just one day is a rather recent development. Starting in Britain in the 1870’s, the workweek drew to a close at lunchtime on Saturday. The afternoon half-day holiday combined with Sunday to make up the weekend. Saturday afternoon began with a family meal, which, according to Atlantic Monthly magazine, “was often followed by a weekly bath in the neighborhood bathhouse.”
In the United States, the weekend was stretched even more, into a two-day holiday. According to one source, the first five-day workweek was adopted by a factory in New England in 1908. The arrangement was acceptable to both Jewish and “Christian” workers, since each group had its own rest day—Saturday for Jews and Sunday for “Christians.” The five-day workweek caught on quickly. Automobile producer Henry Ford promoted it, since he astutely concluded that weekend family outings would push up the demand for cars.
The idea that Sunday is to be kept for worship is NOT scriptural or Biblical for a Christian today..the Mosaic law was for the Jews thousands of year ago and is no longer in force.
The underlined parts show that is was not God who instituted this rule of Sunday as being LORD'S DAY but as with many ideas and doctrines in Christendom,human ideas and doctrines.
Nowhere in the Bible is it said that Christians in the apostolic era viewed the first day of the week, now called Sunday, as a kind of Christian sabbath, a day set aside exclusively for their regular meetings for worship. It was only after the death of the apostles that Sunday came to be viewed in this way and came to be called “the Lord’s day.” This was part of the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles themselves.—Matthew 13:36-43; Acts 20:29, 30; 1 John 2:18.
Now going on to your final and likely main question...Leviticus 7:22-26 which shows that Fat was not to be eaten by the Israelites under the mosaic law.
The fat of a sacrificial animal was viewed as its richest or best part, and so it could be burned on the altar as a sacrifice to God. (Lev. 3:3-5, 16)
Below i have copied an attachment from The "Insight into the scriptures" book under the heading "FAT".
FAT
The English word “fat” is used to translate various Hebrew words that describe not only the substance called fat but also that which is full-fleshed and plump. These terms may also be used in a figurative sense to express that which is rich or fertile (just as in the English expression “fat of the land”) or to convey the idea of insensibility or dullness of mind and heart.
Che′lev is ordinarily used to refer to the substance “fat,” either of animals (Le 3:3) or of men (Jg 3:22). The “suet,” or hard fat about the kidneys or loins, in the burnt offerings is also expressed by another word, pe′dher. (Le 1:8, 12; 8:20) Che′lev first appears at Genesis 4:4 in connection with Abel’s sacrifice to Jehovah of “fatty pieces” from the firstlings of his flock. Most references to che′lev thereafter simply relate to sacrificing. Che′lev is also used metaphorically for the best or richest part of anything. For instance, at Genesis 45:18, Pharaoh tells Joseph that his family is welcome to eat “the fat part of the land.” Thus, too, Numbers 18:12 reads: “All the best [che′lev] of the oil and all the best [che′lev] of the new wine and the grain . . . I have given them to you.”—See Ps 81:16; 147:14.
The Law Regarding Fat. In the third chapter of Leviticus, Jehovah gave the Israelites instructions concerning the use of fat in communion sacrifices. When offering cattle or goats, they were to make the fat around the loins and intestines and that over the kidneys, as well as the fatty appendage upon the liver, smoke upon the altar. In the case of sheep, the entire fatty tail likewise was to be offered. (The sheep of Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt have fat tails, often weighing 5 kg [11 lbs] or more.) The Law specifically said, “All the fat belongs to Jehovah . . . You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.”—Le 3:3-17.
Fat would burn fiercely and would be quite thoroughly consumed upon the altar. Any fat offered on the altar was not to be left over until the next morning; it was likely to corrupt and become offensive, something very unseemly for any part of the sacred offerings.—Ex 23:18.
Not incumbent on Christians. After the Flood, when permission was given to Noah and his family to add flesh to their diet, nothing was stated regarding fat. (Ge 9:3, 4) However, the eating of blood was prohibited. This was more than 850 years before the Law covenant, with its prohibitions against the eating of both blood and fat, was made with Israel. In the first century C.E. the governing body of the Christian congregation confirmed the prohibition against blood as remaining in force for Christians. (Ac 15:20, 28, 29) As in the case with Noah and his family, however, nothing was stated concerning the eating of fat by Christians. Thus, the law against eating fat was given only to the nation of Israel.
Reason for the law. Under the Law covenant, both the blood and fat were looked upon as exclusively Jehovah’s. The blood contains the life, which only Jehovah can give; therefore it belongs to him. (Le 17:11, 14) The fat was viewed as the richest part of the flesh of the animal. The offering of the fat of the animal would evidently be in recognition of the fact that the best parts belong to Jehovah, who provides abundantly, and it would demonstrate the desire of the worshiper to offer the best to God. Because it was symbolic of the Israelites’ devotion of their best to Jehovah, it was said to smoke upon the altar as “food” and for “a restful odor” to him. (Le 3:11, 16) To eat fat, therefore, was an illegal appropriation of what was sanctified to God, an invasion of the rights of Jehovah. Eating fat would incur the death penalty. Unlike blood, however, fat could be used for other purposes, at least in the case of an animal that died of itself or was killed by another beast.—Le 7:23-25.
Extent of the law’s application. Because of this latter text, many commentators have sought to limit the prohibition of Leviticus 3:17 only to the fat of those kinds of animals that were acceptable for offering in sacrifice, such as bulls, sheep, and goats. Rabbinic Jewish teaching is divided on this subject. However, the injunction on fat at Leviticus 3:17 is linked with the one regarding the eating of blood, a law that clearly included the blood of all animals. (Compare Le 17:13; De 12:15, 16.) It seems more consistent, therefore, that the law on fat should also have embraced the fat of all animals, including those killed for the Israelites’ common use.
The view that the prohibition applied to all fat is not controverted by the text at Deuteronomy 32:14, which speaks of Jehovah as giving Israel “fat of rams” to eat. This is a figurative expression referring to the best of the flock, or as The Jerusalem Bible renders the phrase, “rich food of the pastures.” (See also Da ftn and Kx.) This poetic sense is indicated by later portions of the same verse referring to “the kidney fat of wheat” and “the blood of the grape.” So, too, with Nehemiah 8:10, where the people are commanded, “Go, eat the fatty things,” we are not to conclude that they literally consumed whole fat. “Fatty things” refers to rich portions, things not skinny or dry, but luscious, including tasty items prepared with vegetable oils. Thus, Knox’ translation here reads “regale yourselves with rich meat,” while Moffatt’s translation says “eat the dainty pieces.”
The Mosaic Law restriction did not prevent the feeding or fattening of sheep or cattle for the table. We read of the “fattened young bull” slaughtered for the prodigal son. (Lu 15:23) Solomon’s food included “fattened cuckoos” and cattle. (1Ki 4:23) The Hebrew ‛e‧ghel-mar‧beq′, translated “fattened calf,” occurs at 1 Samuel 28:24; me′ach and meri’′ refer to a ‘well-fed animal’ or a ‘fatling.’ (Isa 5:17; Eze 39:18) However, this does not mean that this ‘fattening’ was for the purpose of producing suet or layers of fat; rather, the sense again is that the animals became full-fleshed (“beefy”), not skinny.—Compare Ge 41:18, 19.
Mr Miyazaki, the rule to know whether we should drink or use something as a Christian today is..if the law is only the Mosaic law but not in the law of Christ then it was a Law only for the Jews.
If its in Both the Mosaic law and in the law of christ set out in the Christian Greek scriptures, then it is for Christians today to keep.
While im sure its taken you quite a while to read all this information..i have made sure that i have included all relevant information for your reference.
Please remember its the Bible that is our Guide not any human tradition or opinion.
Speak to you at the meeting an i look forward to your next points and questions.
CARLOS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:29:16 -0700
From:
Subject: Blood and fat
To:
Hello good evening Br Carlos..
As I stated in my previous reply it's up to you whether to consider transfusion is a violation.
Other denominations don't have such troubles, in Catholic Council of Florence 1442, Session 11, already issued a decree which says his word was uttered to ease tensions between congregations of Jews and Gentiles and ought to be taken its validity temporarily.
In Nicene Council 325 Arianism was thought pagan. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses take a standpoint of nontrinitarian view.
You use the term stake instead of cross.
This is correct, since stauros means in Greek a upright pole, not a cross. It was Constantine who connects Babylonian tradition and Christianity.
It's OK, but are you the one who don't celebrate Sunday as Lord's Day? Even if not so still you take holiday in this day. Isn't it a heretic tradition?
I think many cultures are interwoven together, so it's hard and meaningless to define which is Christian and which is not.
Leviticus 7: 22 -26 says fat is also prohibited. I have never heard fat is banned in the meeting though. Do you regard this prohibition is not valid any more because it's a Mosaic law - the same theory as swine?
I'm not sure whether blood was on the table in ancient times, but if it's so this prohibition counts a lot. And it counts a lot today since blood transfusions are common.. so it's up to you. But I think it's more practical to obey the order of abstaining from fat in our times since it causes various diseases.
I think I am much better now..
See you soon,
mer
No comments:
Post a Comment