I know my post are long and can be a difficult read but like I said in a previous post which is a point you fail to see, God views blood as sacred because He feels that the life is in the blood and it’s used for atonement of sin. Again, God did not have strict requirements regarding getting every particle of blood out of the animal. The Israelites during Moses’ day drained the blood from the animal the same way we drain blood today. There were no special requirements to get every speck of blood out of the veins.
[/quote]
I’m afraid that’s just not historically accurate. The Jews prepared meat the same way Muslims and Orthodox Jews prepare meat today. Namely, they slaughter the animal by severing its jugular and letting it bleed out. Jews have additional requirements like removing the hip ligament because that’s where Jacob was touched when he wrestled with a spirit. If you believe the dietary laws on blood consumption have been abrogated all well and good. But you eat meat of strangled things whilst holding to a pre-Mosaic dietary law that specifically referred to what’s now known as “kosher” meat; albeit Rabbinical Judaism has a few more specific requirements. These are the kinds of things Jesus referred to as “human tradition” and said were unimportant, like for example the hand washing rituals(Luke 11:38). I’m not normally one to quote scripture because I don’t hold to any dogmatic interpretation of the bible at all, but it just seems to me you’ve got this whole blood consumption thing wrong. It’s definitely about kosher meat; meat slaughtered by severing the jugular and bleeding it out.
Edited[/quote]
You’re right and that’s exactly what I said in one of my post (yeah, I iknow they’re long and can be a hard read). All the Israelites did was cut a major artery and hang the animal upside down.
Did you look up the process that Kosher meat goes through? Because I thought you asked specifically about Kosher meat. Kosher meat is not a pre-Mosaic Law. The Kosher process came after the Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites. One of the things that’s done during the Kosher process is soaking the meat in water for about a half and hour and then putting the meat on a table where Kosher salt is applied (in one of my previous post I said it was soaked in salt water, I was wrong. My bad). That process is what I’m referring to when I said the Israelites did not do.
We don’t eat meat that has not been properly drained. The common practice of Butchers is to drain the meat by cutting the juggler and hanging it upside down. That’s the only thing we require. As I’m sure you know, strangled animals just have their neck broken and then they are cooked with all the blood still inside the animal. This is the type of meat God said not to consume and that’s the only type of meat we don’t consume.
At the very least a Christian is one who believes the very heart of the gospel – the efficacious cross-work of the God-Man Mediator, Jesus Christ (what a concept, eh?)
THE CHRISTIAN CONFESSION OF FAITH
IV. JESUS THE CHRIST
A. His Nature
There is only one man among the descendants of Adam born without a sinful nature, and this is Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son incarnate. He was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, contracting no guilt or defilement from Adam. He was totally and completely without sin. [Isa 7:14; 53:9; Mat 1:25; Luk 1:31-35; 2Co 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26-27; 1Pe 2:22-23; 1Jo 3:5]
Jesus of Nazareth is really and truly God as well as really and truly human. He is the only descendant of Adam with two natures, human and divine. These two natures are continually without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Scripture rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was merely human and not fully divine. It likewise rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was a supernatural being but not fully human. [Deu 18:15; Psa 2:7; 110:1; Isa 9:6; Luk 2:7; Joh 1:1,14,18; 3:16,18; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30-33; Act 20:28; Rom 1:3; 1Co 15:47; Gal 4:4; Phi 2:6-8; Col 1:15; 1Ti 3:16; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:1-5; 5:5; 1Jo 4:9,15; Rev 1:17-18]
B. His Offices
Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah about whom the prophets of old spoke. He is the one who was anointed by the Father to be a Savior for His elect people. [1Sa 2:10; Psa 2:2; 18:50; 84:9; Isa 43:11; Mat 16:16-17; Luk 2:25-30; 24:44-46; Joh 1:41; 5:39; 8:56; Act 3:18; 4:25-27; 9:22; 28:23; 1Co 10:1-4; Gal 3:8]
Jesus Christ is the great Prophet who declares the will of God to His people. [Deu 18:15-19; Isa 50:4; 61:1-3; Nah 1:15; Luk 4:17-21,24; 13:33; Act 3:22-24; Heb 1:1-2]
Jesus Christ is the great High Priest who intercedes with the Father on behalf of His people, pleading the merits of His own atoning blood and imputed righteousness. [Psa 110:4; Zec 6:13; Heb 2:17; 3:1; 5:1-10; 6:20-10:21]
Jesus Christ has absolute authority over His people, ruling and reigning over them as the great King. [Gen 49:10; Psa 2:6-7; 132:10-11; Isa 9:6-7; Jer 23:5-6; Dan 7:13-14; 9:25; Zec 6:13; 9:9-10; Mat 21:4-5; 22:1-14; 25:31-34; 28:18; Joh 18:36-37; Eph 1:20-23; Phi 2:9-11; Heb 2:8-9; Rev 1:5; 17:14; 19:16]
C. His Work
When He became incarnate, Jesus Christ was made subject to the law of God and was obliged to obey all its precepts. He did this perfectly, to the minutest detail. [Psalm 40:8; Isa 50:5; Mat 3:15; 2Co 5:21; Gal 4:4; Heb 2:14-15; 4:15; 7:26; 1Pe 2:22-23; 1Jo 3:4-5]
The consummate act of obedience that Jesus Christ paid to the law was in suffering the ultimate penalty for the disobedience of His people that the law demanded. Thus, while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell. This was not for any guilt He had contracted Himself but for the sins of His people. Their guilt was imputed to Him, and He suffered the penalty their sins deserved. His finished work on the cross appeased God’s wrath in full toward all for whom He died and paid the ransom price in full for all for whom He died, guaranteeing the salvation of all for whom He died. [Gen 22:13; Exo 12:3-13; Lev 16:21-22; 17:11; Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]
The perfect righteousness that Jesus Christ established is imputed to every one of God’s people in time. Because of this imputed righteousness, they are declared blameless before God and reconciled to God. Christ’s righteousness imputed demands God’s favor and fellowship toward them. [Job 29:14; Psa 32:2; 85:10-11; Isa 53:11; 61:10; Jer 23:5-6; Rom 3:21-22; 4:6-8; 5:9-11,17-19; 8:1,31-39; 1Co 1:30; 2Co 5:18-21; Eph 5:25-27; Col 1:21-22; Tit 3:6-7]
The Father set His seal of approval upon the work of Jesus Christ on the cross by resurrecting Him from the dead and exalting Him to sit at the Father’s right hand. [Job 19:25-27; Psa 16:10; Luk 24:4-7; Act 1:22; 2:24-33; 3:15; 4:10,33; 5:31; 10:40; 13:30-37; 17:3,31; Rom 1:4; 4:24-25; 5:10; 6:4,9-10; 8:34; 10:9; 14:9; 1Co 15:20-28; 2Co 5:15; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1Th 1:10; 2Ti 2:8; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 12:2; 1Pe 1:21]
From there Jesus Christ rules and intercedes for His people until the day He judges the world and until the final enemy, death, is subdued beneath His feet. [Psa 96:13; 110:1,6; Mat 25:31-46; Act 10:42; 17:31; Rom 8:34; 2Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1]
Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception (including those in hell), deny the very heart of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation for all whom He represented. They trample underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value. They glory and boast in themselves, for whatever one believes makes the difference between salvation and damnation is what one glories and boasts in. There is not a single one of these blasphemers who is a child of God. [Psa 25:14; 74:18; 94:4; 139:20; Pro 30:12-13; Isa 28:14-18; 42:8; 48:11; Joh 16:8-14; Rom 3:27-28; 4:2; 10:3; 16:17-18; 1Co 2:12; 2Co 10:3-6; Gal 1:8-9; 6:14; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:18-19; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:2-5; 4:3-4; Heb 10:29; 1Jo 2:22-23; 4:6; 2Jo 9]
D. Jesus Christ Alone
Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and men, for He alone has partaken of both the divine and human natures and is alone able to lay His hand upon both God and Man. Scripture rejects the lie that Mary or any “saints” mediate between God and men. [Job 9:32-33; Isa 53:12; Zec 6:13; Luk 23:34; Joh 14:6; Act 4:12; Rom 5:1-2; Eph 2:14-18; 1Ti 2:5; Heb 4:15; 9:15; 10:19-20; 12:24]
According to the terms of the eternal covenant, the mediatorship of Jesus Christ is designed for the benefit of the elect alone and is absolutely effectual to secure pardon for their sins and all the blessings of God’s favor and fellowship toward them. [Isa 49:5-8; Mat 1:21; Joh 6:39; 10:11,27-29; 17:3; Act 20:28; Rom 8:33-39; Gal 3:17-18; Eph 1:3; 5:25; Heb 8:6-13]
Cult??? You’ve been saying Cult in several of your post. Do you even know what a cult is? Do some research about the characteristics of cults. It’s not that hard. We’re the furthest thing from a cult. Cults are very secretive, usually seclude themselves and totally devote themselves to one man who generally does creepy things. JW’s are more open then any religion. All our meetings are open to the public and we actively go out and tell as many people as possible about our beliefs. We have only one leader - Jesus. We even don’t even have one single guy dispensing the spiritual food. We have a body of elders so there can never be one single “the man.” Cult. . . . . LOL!!!. . . . Not even close.
[/quote]
The Watch Tower is a secretive organization, whose power is absolute. For instance, who were on the team of translators for the NWT translation? It’s not known, it’s a secret. The power is absolute and to disagree with the Watch Tower is your ass. It’s a secret organization, though.
We too are grateful for this. Only God can judge who is a sheep and who is a goat. That is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[/quote]
The Watchtower secret? That’s simply not true. Did you know that tours are given to the public at our world headquarters in NY? Did you know that all of our Bible based materials are available online to be downloaded by anyone? Now I know you don’t know this - we have two meetings a week that are open to the public (no special knock needed to get in) where we discuss the Bible and Bible based materials. We’re encouraged to go over the assigned Bible passages and Bible based material that we’re assigned to go over at that weeks meeting prior to the meeting so we can comment on it during our meetings. Even this material is available online so anyone can download it and see what we’re studying for that week - no special membership required. Like I said before, our religion is more open to non-JW’s than any other religion.
No, the translation committee did not reveal the individual names of the people on it. This shows humility and not wanting or needing recognition. Why does it matter if they reveal their names anyway? It’s not like they’re making secret the important part of a Bible translation - the actual words being translated. I can see if we were caught using secret decoder rings that shined a special light on the NWT that made it different than the one that’s available to the public. That would be pretty secretive. I can see if those taking the lead in our religion went to great lengths to make sure individual JW’s only used the NWT (we regularly quote other translations and are encouraged to look at other translations). Or made sure that no one other than JW’s had or could read the NWT maybe requiring a special phrase or a biometric eye reader to open it. That too would be pretty secretive. Pat, is it necessary to visually see the names of the translators, do research on them and their body of work and then and only then, the Bible they translated becomes understandable? Does knowing the names and credentials do anything to make the words in the Bible they translated any more understandable or clearer? Or does translators with letters after their name, who’ve had numerous publications and who are considered scholars impress you and make their translations somehow more believable? Pat one thing to think about. According to the Bible God hides things from wise and intellectual people. Specifically in the area of spiritual things. Did you know that? Do you remember what Jesus said regarding this. At Luke 10:21 Jesus publically praised his Father because he carefully hid His message from the wise and intellectual and revealed it to babes. Jesus was referring to the Pharisees and the Sadducees who were the definition of haughty and arrogant. This is why the Bible states that the apostles Jesus chose where ordinary and unlettered. Not that they were dumb. Luke was a physician so he was intelligent. However, they weren’t educated in religious schools like the Pharisees and the Sadducees were and they did not consider themselves experts like they did. It takes a very special person who is very intelligent, considered an expert and regularly receives accolades to not suffer from “Big Head” syndrome. Unfortunately, it’s very easy for imperfect humans to become arrogant, conceded and haughty in the specific field they’re an expert in. And when one does that in the area of the Bible and spiritual things it’s a big mistake because the Bible says God rejects the haughty and arrogant. James 4:6 states - "However, the undeserved kindness which he gives is greater. Hence it says: “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.”
Dude, it’s a big mistake to think that the only ones qualified to dispense spiritual information are the highly educated or the so called experts. These are the exact type of persons God hides the truth from. There’s a strong possibility that they’d be like what Jesus said at Matthew 15:14 “blind guides.”
You’re right it is Jesus who does the judging but that doesn’t mean that one can’t look at the actions people do and based on what a higher authority determines is right or wrong come to a conclusion that a persons actions are bad and can be punished for it. For example, if a father and son are in a store and they both see someone shop lift. If the father takes the son to the side and says “son, what that person did was wrong and if he gets caught doing that he’s going to be penalized.” Is the father judging the shoplifter at the moment? Because we regularly see on shows or hear about a person who’s a drug addict, living an immoral life say they don’t like to be around their family for example because their family judges them. Is that judging? Is that what Jesus was talking about at Matthew 7:1? No. In the case with the father\son shop lifting example, a higher authority (penal system) has determined that stealing is wrong and that the penalty is X. The father did not determine that. He’s just telling his son what the laws regarding stealing is and that there’s a penalty for breaking it. The judging part comes after a shoplifter is caught and when the judge\jury sentences the shoplifter to a sentence. The father telling the son that the shoplifter is doing something wrong and could possibly get in trouble for doing it is not judging. If the father grabbed the shoplifter and passed a sentence on him right then and there, then the father would be judging. The father would not have the authority to do that. Only a judge and jury whose been given that authority can do that. The same thing could be said of a person who points out something that God (higher authority) through the Bible determines is wrong. For example, God has determined that adultery is wrong and if one is practicing it when Armageddon come they will lose their life. Knowing what the Bible says, if someone says to a friend who is committing adultery “dude according to the Bible what you’re doing is wrong and if you don’t stop you’ll lose your life when Armageddon comes.” The person telling the adulterer this is not judging him at that moment. Like in the father\son shop lifting example, he’s just stating the penalty for doing something that the higher authority (God) has said is wrong. he’s not making the determination that adultery is wrong God already has done that. The Bible makes clear that a number of things that will cause people to be rejected by God. People practicing these things obviously would be in the goat group. Pointing that out based on what the Bible says is not judging. Jesus has been given the power to judge by God (John 5:22, Acts 10:42, 17:31) and the judgement in the Bible is eternal death or the chance of everlasting life.
I know my post are long and can be a difficult read but like I said in a previous post which is a point you fail to see, God views blood as sacred because He feels that the life is in the blood and it’s used for atonement of sin. Again, God did not have strict requirements regarding getting every particle of blood out of the animal. The Israelites during Moses’ day drained the blood from the animal the same way we drain blood today. There were no special requirements to get every speck of blood out of the veins.
[/quote]
I’m afraid that’s just not historically accurate. The Jews prepared meat the same way Muslims and Orthodox Jews prepare meat today. Namely, they slaughter the animal by severing its jugular and letting it bleed out. Jews have additional requirements like removing the hip ligament because that’s where Jacob was touched when he wrestled with a spirit. If you believe the dietary laws on blood consumption have been abrogated all well and good. But you eat meat of strangled things whilst holding to a pre-Mosaic dietary law that specifically referred to what’s now known as “kosher” meat; albeit Rabbinical Judaism has a few more specific requirements. These are the kinds of things Jesus referred to as “human tradition” and said were unimportant, like for example the hand washing rituals(Luke 11:38). I’m not normally one to quote scripture because I don’t hold to any dogmatic interpretation of the bible at all, but it just seems to me you’ve got this whole blood consumption thing wrong. It’s definitely about kosher meat; meat slaughtered by severing the jugular and bleeding it out.
Edited[/quote]
You’re right and that’s exactly what I said in one of my post (yeah, I iknow they’re long and can be a hard read). All the Israelites did was cut a major artery and hang the animal upside down.
Did you look up the process that Kosher meat goes through? Because I thought you asked specifically about Kosher meat. Kosher meat is not a pre-Mosaic Law. The Kosher process came after the Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites. One of the things that’s done during the Kosher process is soaking the meat in water for about a half and hour and then putting the meat on a table where Kosher salt is applied (in one of my previous post I said it was soaked in salt water, I was wrong. My bad). That process is what I’m referring to when I said the Israelites did not do.
We don’t eat meat that has not been properly drained. The common practice of Butchers is to drain the meat by cutting the juggler and hanging it upside down. That’s the only thing we require. As I’m sure you know, strangled animals just have their neck broken and then they are cooked with all the blood still inside the animal. This is the type of meat God said not to consume and that’s the only type of meat we don’t consume.
[/quote]
That’s not how butchers prepare meat. Only halal and kosher butchers drain the blood. Regular meat has usually had a bolt fired into its head or its neck broken. That is my point. You eat blood. And the original prohibitions on blood were about meat that has not been drained.
Sorry, SexMachine, but this simply is not true. Exsanguination is always practiced when slaughtering cattle. The difference is that in non-halal or non-kosher slaughtering, the animal is first stunned with a knocking bolt or blow from a sledgehammer.
Furthermore, in kosher slaughtering there are rules about the configuration of the knife, and how the cut is administered: I believe a single cut must sever the carotid, the jugular, and the trachea. Halal slaughtering is similar, except of course the basmalah is uttered right before the cut is made, and there is no requirement to use salt to remove the last bit of blood.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sorry, SexMachine, but this simply is not true. Exsanguination is always practiced when slaughtering cattle. The difference is that in non-halal or non-kosher slaughtering, the animal is first stunned with a knocking bolt or blow from a sledgehammer.
Furthermore, in kosher slaughtering there are rules about the configuration of the knife, and how the cut is administered: I believe a single cut must sever the carotid, the jugular, and the trachea. Halal slaughtering is similar, except of course the basmalah is uttered right before the cut is made, and there is no requirement to use salt to remove the last bit of blood. [/quote]
Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t know they bled cattle. Doesn’t the bolt / sledge kill them thereby stopping their heart from beating? Kosher slaughter the animal is supposed to bleed to death not get their brains smashed in.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sorry, SexMachine, but this simply is not true. Exsanguination is always practiced when slaughtering cattle. The difference is that in non-halal or non-kosher slaughtering, the animal is first stunned with a knocking bolt or blow from a sledgehammer.
Furthermore, in kosher slaughtering there are rules about the configuration of the knife, and how the cut is administered: I believe a single cut must sever the carotid, the jugular, and the trachea. Halal slaughtering is similar, except of course the basmalah is uttered right before the cut is made, and there is no requirement to use salt to remove the last bit of blood. [/quote]
Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t know they bled cattle. Doesn’t the bolt / sledge kill them thereby stopping their heart from beating? Kosher slaughter the animal is supposed to bleed to death not get their brains smashed in.[/quote]
The bolt or sledge stuns the animal so it doesn’t freak out at having its throat cut or stuck. You can imagine how a 500-kilogram animal NOT thrashing around while you’re standing next to it with a long knife might be a good thing.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sorry, SexMachine, but this simply is not true. Exsanguination is always practiced when slaughtering cattle. The difference is that in non-halal or non-kosher slaughtering, the animal is first stunned with a knocking bolt or blow from a sledgehammer.
Furthermore, in kosher slaughtering there are rules about the configuration of the knife, and how the cut is administered: I believe a single cut must sever the carotid, the jugular, and the trachea. Halal slaughtering is similar, except of course the basmalah is uttered right before the cut is made, and there is no requirement to use salt to remove the last bit of blood. [/quote]
Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t know they bled cattle. Doesn’t the bolt / sledge kill them thereby stopping their heart from beating? Kosher slaughter the animal is supposed to bleed to death not get their brains smashed in.[/quote]
The bolt or sledge stuns the animal so it doesn’t freak out at having its throat cut or stuck. You can imagine how a 500-kilogram animal NOT thrashing around while you’re standing next to it with a long knife might be a good thing. :)[/quote]
Are you sure it just “stuns” them? I’ve always understood cattle used to be killed by having the heads smashed in with a sledge and in more recent times with a hydraulic bolt that fires into their skull?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sorry, SexMachine, but this simply is not true. Exsanguination is always practiced when slaughtering cattle. The difference is that in non-halal or non-kosher slaughtering, the animal is first stunned with a knocking bolt or blow from a sledgehammer.
Furthermore, in kosher slaughtering there are rules about the configuration of the knife, and how the cut is administered: I believe a single cut must sever the carotid, the jugular, and the trachea. Halal slaughtering is similar, except of course the basmalah is uttered right before the cut is made, and there is no requirement to use salt to remove the last bit of blood. [/quote]
Sorry, my mistake. I didn’t know they bled cattle. Doesn’t the bolt / sledge kill them thereby stopping their heart from beating? Kosher slaughter the animal is supposed to bleed to death not get their brains smashed in.[/quote]
The bolt or sledge stuns the animal so it doesn’t freak out at having its throat cut or stuck. You can imagine how a 500-kilogram animal NOT thrashing around while you’re standing next to it with a long knife might be a good thing. :)[/quote]
Are you sure it just “stuns” them? I’ve always understood cattle used to be killed by having the heads smashed in with a sledge and in more recent times with a hydraulic bolt that fires into their skull?[/quote]
While massive trauma to the brain MAY cause death, that is not the intent. Only enough force is applied to render the animal unconscious. The sledge or captive bolt method (“knocking”) is used on sheep, cows, and goats, less so on swine, and chickens are just decapitated, but the USDA also allows the use of firearms, electrocution or gas to get this done. The animals are ALWAYS bled out, though.
This step is essential, to cool the carcass (forestalling meat spoilage) and also because several gallons of blood congealing inside of a carcass would make the meat taste awful. Remember also that blood is a separate commodity, used for animal feed, fertilizer, sausage, etc.
Yes, but the blood is removed post-mortem. This is one of the differences I was talking about. With kosher slaughter special knife as you say; a little triangular puncture is made in the carotid artery and the animal’s own heartbeat is used to pump all the blood out. This is the traditional method of slaughter that the law commands and that is no longer practiced; except kosher and halal butchery. And, as I said, this was what the Council of Jerusalem were talking about in relation to the prohibition against blood consumption and “strangled things”.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If blood loss is the cause of death, how can it be said that blood is removed post-mortem? Peri-mortem, maybe.
In any case, I was only contesting your assertion that in non-kosher and non-halal slaughtering, the blood is not removed. This was false.[/quote]
My point was really that modern slaughterhouse techniques do not meet biblical requirements - at least, for those who believe that some law/s are still standing and have not been abrogated. This is what JWs believe only it’s my opinion that they have misunderstood the dietary laws on blood consumption.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes, but the blood is removed post-mortem. This is one of the differences I was talking about. With kosher slaughter special knife as you say; a little triangular puncture is made in the carotid artery and the animal’s own heartbeat is used to pump all the blood out. This is the traditional method of slaughter that the law commands and that is no longer practiced; except kosher and halal butchery. And, as I said, this was what the Council of Jerusalem were talking about in relation to the prohibition against blood consumption and “strangled things”. [/quote]
Triangular puncture in the carotid artery?
Uh, no.
The act is performed by severing the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and vagus nerve in a swift action using an extremely sharp blade (chalef). Stabbing, sawing, pressing or tearing with the knife are expressly forbidden.
The Hebrew word for the act is shechita, and may only be performed by someone skilled in the technique, who is called a shochet.
The act is performed by severing the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and vagus nerve in a swift action using an extremely sharp blade (chalef). Stabbing, sawing, pressing or tearing with the knife are expressly forbidden.
The Hebrew word for the act is shechita, and may only be performed by someone skilled in the technique, who is called a shochet.[/quote]
What does any of that have to do with the point I was making? I have read all the details of kosher slaughter rituals before. The technicalities and specifics don’t interest me enough to memorise. When I’ve observed kosher slaughter I noticed the incision in the neck appeared to have a “V” or triangular shape due to the fact that the shechita knife doesn’t have a tip; they’re not supposed to stab, and the incision that was made, from my perspective as a layman seemed to be a “V” shape. It’s not? I’m mistaken? Whoopie doo! But that has nothing to do with the point I was making about JWs and the law.
The act is performed by severing the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and vagus nerve in a swift action using an extremely sharp blade (chalef). Stabbing, sawing, pressing or tearing with the knife are expressly forbidden.
The Hebrew word for the act is shechita, and may only be performed by someone skilled in the technique, who is called a shochet.[/quote]
What does any of that have to do with the point I was making? I have read all the details of kosher slaughter rituals before. The technicalities and specifics don’t interest me enough to memorise. When I’ve observed kosher slaughter I noticed the incision in the neck appeared to have a “V” or triangular shape due to the fact that the shechita knife doesn’t have a tip; they’re not supposed to stab, and the incision that was made, from my perspective as a layman seemed to be a “V” shape. It’s not? I’m mistaken? Whoopie doo! But that has nothing to do with the point I was making about JWs and the law.[/quote]
Calm down, Sexy, I’m not attacking you.
The impression I got from reading your last exchange with JW guy was that you were claiming that because JWs don’t eat kosher meat, then they are violating their own prohibitions about consuming blood. When JW guy then responded that while they don’t follow kashrut to the extent of removing veins or koshering e meat with salt, but just slit the jugular and hang the carcass, you responded that that’s not how cattle are conventionally slaughtered, and that in fact their meat still contains the animal’s blood. I was pointing out that this was not true.
The thing about “a little triangular puncture” just struck me as funny, trying to imagine making a little triangular puncture in a cow’s carotid artery with a chalef.
Just watched a few vids. It is a v-shape. They often turn the animal upside down and you can see the incision is almost “ear to ear” following the v shape of the neck. And yes it goes all the way through and severs everything as you say. All besides the point that modern slaughter methods do not conform to the traditional biblical slaughter methods that JWs have confused with blood consumption; blood consumption is expressly forbidden long before the Israelites but the Council of Jerusalem ruling was about the traditional slaughter rituals for meat preparation. Animals had to be slaughtered in a ritualistic manner as if each animal was a sacrifice. Now how much of the Rabbinical methods are “human law” and how many of them were practiced pre-Second Temple eras is a matter of debate and personal conviction. However I don’t think you’ll find many people saying modern slaughter methods conform with biblical commandments on meat preparation.
I don’t care if you attack me so long as it’s a fair fight. But anyway…
I suppose you could put it that way. Although the way I’d put it I’m saying they have a very strange and selective way of interpreting the biblical prohibition on blood consumption.
But it is true that modern slaughter methods don’t drain the blood to the extent and in the manner prescribed by the biblical; that is if you are taking an originalist position on the bible. What was the original intent? What were they talking about when they prohibited consumption of “blood” and “strangled things?” They were talking about meat that was prepared according to the specifications of the time. And those specifications would be pretty much the same as kosher slaughter today. Although I admitted that some of the little technical aspects that you mentioned and that I had mentioned, may be more recent, for the most part kosher slaughter is what they were talking about.
^^ That is my point in a nutshell. Either you believe that law was abrogated or you’ve got to eat kosher or something very much like kosher; not bashing the steer on the head with a sledge hammer, firing a blot through its skull and stabbing a spike through its neck as it’s dying or whatever it is you say they do.
[quote]
The thing about “a little triangular puncture” just struck me as funny, trying to imagine making a little triangular puncture in a cow’s carotid artery with a chalef.[/quote]
Yes it’s not “little”. I’m not particularly familiar with kosher slaughter in practice although I have read the details of it in the past. But again, my point is JWs have a very strange and selective interpretation of the blood consumption prohibition. And they’ve latched onto some story about people drinking blood for it’s supposed health benefits. That may be something that some people did at that time but it’s not the reason for the biblical blood consumption prohibitions. He is right about the sacred nature of blood in biblical tradition and the prohibition extending to cover drinking blood but he’s missing most the picture; ie, the prohibition against tereifa - specifically against consumption of meat that had not been slaughtered correctly.
In relation to kosher slaughter and the law, of course we all know that Jesus was challenging what he called “human law” by which he meant the oral laws and traditions that the Pharisees and the high priests had fashioned and the similar laws and traditions of the Babylonian exile community. And of course this is the basis of Rabbinical Judaism that exists to this day. There’s a huge range of different interpretations of biblical law for Christians and as long as someone has a rational explanation for why they believe what they do I try to take them on face value. But the JW thing with blood transfusions just doesn’t make sense to me when taken with the fact they eat modern, slaughtered meat.
My thought is that the JWs subscribe to the original intent of the Noahide laws, that consumption of blood was prohibited because of the belief that the life of the animal resided in the blood, and therefore consuming blood in the meat was tantamount to consuming flesh hacked from a live animal.
My (admittedly somewhat cynical) view of the Mosaic recapitulation of these laws is that they forced the people to rely on the priestly class to do all of their slaughtering. The blood, containing life, belonged to God, and it had a very specific function in the Hebrew ritual of blood sacrifice. Leviticus 17 makes it very plain that blood is to be used only for atonement for sin, and the penalty for consuming it was to be cut off from the Hebrew people, and by extension, from the Hebrew God. In practice, this gave the priests an endless supply of good free meat (Deuteronomy 18), which along with the exemption from taxation and military service, but still entitled to the spoils of war, made the priestly racket a pretty sweet gig.
Incidentally, kashrut laws admit that it’s impossible to squeeze all of the blood from the liver of an animal, even with a ton of kosher salt, so as long as you cook it over an open fire, God is not offended.
