If the Watchtower believed the Trinity...

[Cal_Minian]

LOL

Cal it is painfully obvious you don't even see the logical flaws in your argument.

I have no problem in your argument that Jesus ignored the additional rules that the pharisees added to the law orally. I have no problem with your argument that Jesus was not sinning by healing on the sabbath or picking wheat. I agree with you!

The problem is that the written part of the law of the sabbath DID cover all work on the sabbath and Jesus showed that the letter of the law was not the intent of the law, that it was never intended to mean healing BECAUSE why? Because healing is more important than rest.

Jesus showed the pharisees that you had to look beyond the mere words of the law and look at the heart of the law. Thus he could heal on the sabbath even though it was not technically allowed by the wording of the law.

That is why Jesus could heal on the sabbath. The actual wording said NO WORK at all. They even killed someone for picking up sticks on the sabbath because that was considered work.

Jesus could have waited till the next day to heal that man's hand, it was not an emergency. But he wanted to make a statement to the pharisees to not be legalistic to the letter of the law but to look at the heart of the law.

You need to do the same with the blood law. Abstaining from blood is exactly the same thing. You can be legalistic and go by the letter of the law and say blood transfusions are not allowed because it says abstain from blood, or you can look at the heart of the law and see that when it comes to saving a human life, it is an appropriate use of blood and it is lawful.

Yes the pharisees added extra restrictions to the sabbath, but the watchtower does the same thing with the blood law.

Jesus would be ashamed at your pharisee-like adherence to the letter of the law, even to adding to it. There was no prohibition to blood transfusions, you all added that just like the pharisees added to the sabbath laws.

And you have the gall to call me a pharisee?

Your every argument just digs your hole deeper as you make my argument for me. Everyone reading this thread can see it except you and nontrin.

Dear Sparko,
You continue to ignore the parts of my arguments that do not fit with your explanation. Yes Jesus could have waited a day to heal the hand, but what does that have to do with him picking grain? That was not life and death. Neither example fits your premise.

And again you will not answer the question about what you would have done in the Roman arena..... It seems obvious by now that you would have agreed with the pagan Romans that life is more important that obeying God.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

LOL Cal, at this point we are both repeating ourselves. I have explained my view to you several times and several ways and it shows without question that the watchtower is being legalistic without a leg to stand on, and even your own argument backs that up and you are too clueless to see it.

If I were in the Roman arena I would die with my Lord Jesus' name on my lips. Is that good enough for you?

here is a question for you: Was Peter a real Christian? He denied Jesus three times to save his life.

[Cal_Minian]

LOL Cal, at this point we are both repeating ourselves. I have explained my view to you several times and several ways and it shows without question that the watchtower is being legalistic without a leg to stand on, and even your own argument backs that up and you are too clueless to see it.

If I were in the Roman arena I would die with my Lord Jesus' name on my lips. Is that good enough for you?

here is a question for you: Was Peter a real Christian? He denied Jesus three times to save his life.

Dear Sparko,
So the holy spirit says to "abstain from blood" and from "what has been sacrificed to idols (idolatry)" but you will allow your children to die and you will die yourself because you will not put incense on an altar (idolatry) but you will draw the line at putting blood into your body (not abstaining from blood) because it will save your life?

Since both of these things are mentioned together why would you violate one law to save your life or the life of your children, but not the other? They are of equal importance and mentioned in the same context in Acts 15.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

you keep avoiding my question:

Was Peter a true Christian? He denied Jesus three times to save his own skin.

[Cal_Minian]

you keep avoiding my question:

Was Peter a true Christian? He denied Jesus three times to save his own skin.

I took me three times for you to (kind of, sort of) pretend to answer the question I asked.

So you are behind 2X. Therefore, I get two questions answered before I start answering your smoke screen masquerading as a question.


Now it appears that you are backsliding and saying that it is ok to sin because you are weak.

But this is not the question at hand. The question at hand is what should you do if your faith is as great as most Jehovah's Witnesses.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[NonTrinitarian]

I took me three times for you to (kind of, sort of) pretend to answer the question I asked.

So you are behind 2X. Therefore, I get two questions answered before I start answering your smoke screen masquerading as a question.


Now it appears that you are backsliding and saying that it is ok to sin because you are weak.

But this is not the question at hand. The question at hand is what should you do if your faith is as great as most Jehovah's Witnesses.

Regards,
Cal Minian

Cal,
It's painfully obvious Sparko is trying to back peddle as fast as he can. He dared us to show him a scripture that says it was "lawful" to heal on the Sabbath. He probably fell out of his chair when he saw it and now is scrambling to regain face value. There's no way you can win this argument (win as in get Sparko to admit he is wrong) because you can't trust anything he says. He wiggles out of everything and it's painfully obvious to all that he did not think there was a verse that said it was "lawful to heal on the Sabbath" and now is desperately trying to bail himself out.

We can all see what a joke he is so try to be nice to him.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Wow. It's a shame we got here instead of staying on the original OP....

However, I recall when I had my back surgery almost a decade ago, (A decade this July) I had to go to Medic twice to donate a pint of blood to myself to be sent back into me during the surgery as well as them taking blood I would be losing and recycling it and putting it back in me.

I have no qualms about such a thing. The blood represents life no doubt, but which is more important? The life or that which represents life?

[Sparko]

Cal,
It's painfully obvious Sparko is trying to back peddle as fast as he can. He dared us to show him a scripture that says it was "lawful" to heal on the Sabbath. He probably fell out of his chair when he saw it and now is scrambling to regain face value.

er. I am still waiting for that verse Nontrin. Perhaps you could quote it for me? Where in the Old Testament does it give an exception for healing on the sabbath? The only sabbath verses I found in the OT say that you can do NO work on the sabbath.

Jesus healed on the sabbath. It was allowed, not because the letter of the law allowed it, but because of the general principal that life and health are more important than the sabbath law. Jesus was teaching the Pharisees not to be so legalistic. When Jesus said it was lawful to do good on the sabbath he was arguing common sense, not quoting some law from the OT. I personally agree that doing good trumps the letter of the law, don't you?

If you want to argue something different then you need to show by what rationale did Jesus say that it was lawful to do good on the sabbath even if that good involved work.

So giving blood to save a life is doing good. That trumps the law of abstaining from blood.

And yet you JW's while agreeing with Jesus regarding the sabbath, turn around and act like pharisees when it comes to the blood law. Do you not see that giving life through blood transfusions is more important than the law that says to abstain from blood?

There's no way you can win this argument (win as in get Sparko to admit he is wrong) because you can't trust anything he says. He wiggles out of everything and it's painfully obvious to all that he did not think there was a verse that said it was "lawful to heal on the Sabbath" and now is desperately trying to bail himself out.

There is no law that says it is lawful to heal on the sabbath. Jesus made that argument based on common sense, not some written law. Show it to me.

The funny thing is, we are both basically arguing the same thing about Jesus being able to legally heal on the sabbath despite the sabbath law saying you can't work on the sabbath, and you and Cal don't see that by arguing that, you are defeating your argument that you must legalistically abstain from all blood no matter what because the letter of the law is more important than doing good. You are arguing two opposite sides of the same thing and refuting yourself.

And I answered all of your questions so answer mine. Both you and Cal:

Was Peter a true Christian since he denied Christ three times to save his own skin?

You won't answer because it condemns you as a bunch of legalistic weenies.

[Cal_Minian]

Wow. It's a shame we got here instead of staying on the original OP....

However, I recall when I had my back surgery almost a decade ago, (A decade this July) I had to go to Medic twice to donate a pint of blood to myself to be sent back into me during the surgery as well as them taking blood I would be losing and recycling it and putting it back in me.

I have no qualms about such a thing. The blood represents life no doubt, but which is more important? The life or that which represents life?

Dear ApologiaNick,
It sounds like you understand that there is a prohibition against what you did but that your life was more important than the prohibition, in other words you don't consider the command to abstain from blood as "essential."

However that is not what God said

NRS Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewel

Instead you add your creeds to Scripture and call them essentials.

For what it is worth, if you ask for repentance and change your practice and listen to the holy spirit you can be forgiven.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

Cal didn't you say that blood symbolizes life?

[Cal_Minian]

Dear Sparko,
Now you change your statement to where in the OT does it say one cannot heal on the sabbath? What a self-serving requirement! What is important is that it was said BEFORE the sabbath was abolished. Jesus and the disciples were under the sabbath law. I already gave you examples which show that the Rabbis added 39 things to the list after they came back from Babylon. Among those things were that it was no longer ok to set a bone on the sabbath. Jesus rightfully said that doing good in the sense of healing someone did not violate the law. He said it was lawful.

The command to abstain from blood was given to Christians and listed with idolatry and fornication. The command not to eat a strangled animal was listed separately which was the command which specifically prohibited ingesting blood. The general command was in addition to this to "abstain from blood." This was so important that it was listed along with idolatry and fornication.

You have yet to address why you could violate the law on blood but not on idolatry even if your live or your families lives were to be forfeited.

You make a distinction between these tho things that God did not. In fact this command comes directly from God and he says it is essential.

NRS Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewel

And yet you say it is NOT essential.

You ask about Peter. Back to the Scriptures we go. You do not mind the bible being quoted, do you? I ask because you never appeal to it directly.

NRS Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Peter is forgiven because he spoke against Jesus. But the holy spirit is where the command to abstain from blood was derived, not from a man, not even the Son of God.

Therefore if you ignore and grieve the spirit of the God and Father of Jesus Christ after the Father has specifically stated this moral law, you will not be forgiven. You have sinned against the holy spirit.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,
Now you change your statement to where in the OT does it say one cannot heal on the sabbath? What a self-serving requirement!

I had to clarify because you and nontrin are morons. Of course I knew that Jesus said it was lawful to heal on the sabbath, I even said that myself. The question was WHY did he say that? By what authority? He was NOT quoting any OT law was he? He was simply using the principal of common sense that doing good trumps the letter of the law. In other words he was essentially saying "don't be so legalistic, even though the sabbath laws say do no work, healing is allowed because it is better to do something good on the sabbath than to be a legalistic weenie and stick to the letter of the law"

So unless you can show me some written authority that Jesus was referring to when he said it is lawful to heal on the sabbath, then you have to admit that there are times when doing good outweighs the actual law and that means that doing a blood transfusion is doing good and outweighs abstaining from it.

You keep trying to argue on one hand to NOT be legalistic about the sabbath because good outweighs any legalistic interpretation of the law, and then turn around and argue that the letter of the law when referring to blood outweighs doing good.

Which argument do you want to use? You can't use both, they cancel out.

What is important is that it was said BEFORE the sabbath was abolished. Jesus and the disciples were under the sabbath law. I already gave you examples which show that the Rabbis added 39 things to the list after they came back from Babylon. Among those things were that it was no longer ok to set a bone on the sabbath. Jesus rightfully said that doing good in the sense of healing someone did not violate the law. He said it was lawful.

Read the old testament sabbath laws. They clearly say NO work. Are you arguing that healing is not work? Go tell that to the doctors in the hospitals. If you are as legalistic about the sabbath as you are about your blood laws you would come to the conclusion that the original sabbath laws covered healing as a work and you should think that healing was no allowed. Forget the 39 other things they added. Those are only equivalent to the watchtower adding blood transfusions to the list of things to abstain from. God never said that blood transfusions were illegal the watchtower did.

So you have two choices here:

1. Be consistent with watchtower legalism and read the original sabbath law as restrictively as you do the blood law. Doing so means you will have to say Jesus did wrong.

2. Admit that the sabbath law was not meant to be so restrictive as to mean you can't heal on the sabbath or do good. That doing good outweighs the wording of the law. This is what Jesus said. If you agree with that, then the conclusion means that you should apply the same reasoning to the blood law. Doing good (blood transfusions save lives and heal) outweighs the wording of the law.

The command to abstain from blood was given to Christians and listed with idolatry and fornication. The command not to eat a strangled animal was listed separately which was the command which specifically prohibited ingesting blood. The general command was in addition to this to "abstain from blood." This was so important that it was listed along with idolatry and fornication.

And the sabbath law was important enough to be listed as one of the 10 commandments written down by God himself.

You have yet to address why you could violate the law on blood but not on idolatry even if your live or your families lives were to be forfeited.

I never said I couldn't violate the laws on idolatry to save my families lives.

That is a decision I would have to make at the time. I do know that God would forgive me for lying to save a life.

You make a distinction between these tho things that God did not. In fact this command comes directly from God and he says it is essential.

NRS Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewel

And yet you say it is NOT essential.

So again, what does blood represent and symbolize? Please tell me.

You ask about Peter. Back to the Scriptures we go. You do not mind the bible being quoted, do you? I ask because you never appeal to it directly.

NRS Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Peter is forgiven because he spoke against Jesus. But the holy spirit is where the command to abstain from blood was derived, not from a man, not even the Son of God.

Therefore if you ignore and grieve the spirit of the God and Father of Jesus Christ after the Father has specifically stated this moral law, you will not be forgiven. You have sinned against the holy spirit.

Regards,
Cal Minian

So if you were asked to deny Christ in the arena to save the life of your family or yourself, you are saying you could do so because you would be forgiven? You told me that even suggesting such a thing meant that I was not a true Christian. You keep changing your story.

And how do you get that breaking the blood rule would be speaking against the holy spirit? Your reasoning is lacking there buddy.

Cal, I have noticed that you are good at reading dictionaries and playing word games, but when it comes to actual logic and reasoning, talking to you is like arguing with a rock. Your head is made of cement. But a rock would be a better opponent because it wouldn't keep making the same stupid arguments over and over like you do.

[NonTrinitarian]

See Cal,
I rest my case.

Sparko,
You said Jesus broke the law and used that as an excuse for violating the law to abstain from blood. We showed you Jesus didn't break God's law and now your waiving your hands in the air and hopping around like a monkey to get out of it. It was obviously your clear intent to say Jesus broke GOD's LAW because who cares about the Pharisees interpretation of it, honestly? Clearly you didn't start off with interpretations and Jesus clarifying their interpretations. Your intent was to show it was OK to go against GOD'S WILL in certain matters.

So let's go with God's intent. Was it the INTENT of YHWH that healing on the Sabbath would be a violation of the sabbath and punishable by death? Yes or no?

(Note I'm not asking HOW the PHARISEES interpreted it)

When Jesus said "is IS LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath", was he going against God's INTENT? Yes or no?

[Sparko]

See Cal,
I rest my case.

Sparko,
You said Jesus broke the law

I said that he showed that it was legal to violate the letter of the law. The sabbath law clearly states NO WORK and gives no exceptions. Therefore Jesus used common sense to show that the letter of the law doesn't need to be followed when the principal of helping and doing good come into play. Love is the fulfillment of the law and the purpose of it. Therefore showing love and helping another human being is always lawful despite the letter of the law.


When I said "Jesus broke the sabbath" I meant that from a legalistic by-the-letter interpretation of the OT sabbath law, Jesus violated it. But I never said that Jesus sinned as you accused me of saying. I was agreeing with Jesus that you don't have to follow the exact letter of the law. You can legally violate the letter of the law to do good and therefore it is NOT a sin.

Here lets do a thought experiment. You answer these questions:

1. Quote me the OT sabbath law...


2. Explain to me what it means by DO NO WORK.

3. Show me any exceptions to "Do no Work" listed anywhere in the Law. (that's in the OT if you didn't know)


4. Jesus said "it is Lawful to do good on the sabbath" - show me where he got this from. How did he come to that conclusion? Did he use some aspect of the Law here or was this just his own reasoning? Explain his thinking. What specific Law was he referring to by "lawful?"

I predict you won't bother, or at least will not answer straight.

[Cal_Minian]

And how do you get that breaking the blood rule would be speaking against the holy spirit? Your reasoning is lacking there buddy.

Dear Sparko,
The holy spirit said that abstaining from blood was "essential" and you contradict the spirit and say abstaining from blood is a non-essential. It does not matter to you because we can sin and be forgiven or if one's life if at stake we can break that law. You qualify the law where it was not qualified to start with. Thus your course grieves the holy spirit and thus blasphemes it.

You say "I never said I couldn't violate the laws on idolatry to save my families lives" and yet history tells us that true Christians in the 1st century obeyed God as ruler rather than men, even if it meant their lives and those of their families.

That is why I continue to state that Christ has left Christendom. It is moral relativism that rules. Save your skin. Contradict the holy spirit, and save your skin.

However Jesus said:

NRS Matthew 16:25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

But Sparko, you are not willing to lose your life for the sake of Christ. You will then lose your eternal life if you follow this course.


Regards,
Cal Minian