Blood and sacrifice alternative view point

by Spectrum 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  rebel8

  Carla were you responding to me or Spectrum?

  I wouldn't use the word zeal, but it is admirable to be willing to endure difficulties in order to uphold what is right. The Nazis were NOT doing that at all. They weren't enduring anything--they were imposing suffering on others. Same with Satanists, Jim Jones, NAMBLA, and David Koresh. They are/were the causes of suffering, not the passive recipients of it, and they were not upholding anything that is right.

  I do admire someone being willing to stick by what is right despite having very serious consequences. That is one test of true morality and internal strength as opposed to weakness and selfishness. Of course when the person's sense of what is right is tarnished by brainwashing or lies, it is sad instead of admirable.

  Spectrum, the point I failed to clarify earlier is that it is illogical IMO to believe that the Xian God prohibits blood transfusions. This is supported both by what Ingenious said and also by the fact that the suffering and deaths associated with refusal of transfusions is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible's descriptions of God's will.
• 

  Spectrum

  rebel,
  
  "Spectrum, the point I failed to clarify earlier is that it is illogical IMO to believe that the Xian God prohibits blood transfusions. This is supported both by what Ingenious said and also by the fact that the suffering and deaths associated with refusal of transfusions is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible's descriptions of God's will."
  
  First who is Xian?
  
  Don't think they were being misled by the GB over the blood issue. I'm going by what I see in Acts 15:20. There is no room for interpretation, Paul was pretty dogmatic about it.
  
  The GB have got nervous and backtract on this policy by finding creative ways of allowing for some leeway this exposes them as not Gods organisation.
  
  Also I believe Paul was making things up as he was going along. His main aim was to create a sect with the Messiah at it's head.
• 

  rebel8

  X is the Greek charachter for "christo", hence XMas=Christmas or Xian=Christian.

  What do you think of Ingenious' point?
• 

  Spectrum

  Rebel,
  
  I don't know what Ingenuous is trying to say exactly but he seems to be building a thesis against the JW doctrine around the word 'keep' and the mosiac laws which don't count in this context.
  
  If you look at the letter that was sent to the Gentile christains at verse 29 it says the same thing. Don't use blood.
  
  "29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."
  
  One thesis you can develop is the following. The people of the time could only have had two uses for blood 1) for food 2) for worshipping pusposes. These can only be what the verses could be referring to so in the literal sense blood transfusion was never included so JW doctrine should not be extended to transfusion. In the spirit or absolute terms of the verses it means do not process blood in any way shape or form.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Narkissos

  One additional thing you must take into account is the diversity of early Christianity, which is toned down yet apparent in the NT.

  The prohibition against eating blood is clearly related to Judeo-Christians (James!). In Acts it is clearly connected with the worry not to shock Jews, e.g. 15:20f:

  Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.
  
  For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues."

  But there were different stances. For instance, most Hellenistic Christians obviously dropped all Jewish dietary laws (cf. Mark 7:18ff; Colossians 2:16f). On the prohibition of "idol-food" which is linked with blood in Acts and is equally echoed in Revelation, Paul has a completely different stance (and btw seems unaware of the so-called "Apostolic decree"): to him such things are not forbidden per se (everything is clean), they must only be avoided in certain cases not to stumble someone else (1 Corinthians 8--10; whence the motivation in Acts above).

  Another point: to the Judeo-Christians the prohibition of blood was only dietary (what else could it have been in the 1st century?). But there is also evidence that the Judeo-Christians held another important principle which is also present in later rabbinism, namely that any commandment can be broken to save a life (see Matthew 12:9ff and parallels). This principle is tragically ignored by JWs in their anachronistic application of the prohibition of blood to transfusions.
• 

  AuldSoul

  After the meeting in Jerusalem, poor Paul, with his failing memory, couldn't seem to remember even under spirit inspiration what the "decision" in Jerusalem was:

  Galatians 2:6-10 — But on the part of those who seemed to be something—whatever sort of men they formerly were makes no difference to me—God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—to me, in fact, those outstanding men imparted nothing new. But, on the contrary, when they saw that I had entrusted to me the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter [had it] for those who are circumcised—for He who gave Peter powers necessary for an apostleship to those who are circumcised gave powers also to me for those who are of the nations; yes, when they came to know the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ce´phas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Bar´na·bas the right hand of sharing together, that we should go to the nations, but they to those who are circumcised. Only we should keep the poor in mind. This very thing I have also earnestly endeavored to do.

  Later, he told the Corinthians:

  1 Corinthians 10:25-33 — Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks?
  Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved.

  Hee-hee...oh that Paul! What a troublemaker. First he brings a gaggle up from Galatia to Jerusalem, including Titus who was uncircumcised, stirring up a ruckus; then he ignores the decision rendered and tells people to do whatever their conscience says. Just who did this guy think he was?

  LOL.

  AuldSoul
• 

  jwfacts

  Spectrum,
  
  Russell felt eating blood was acceeptable as do many other Christian religions for a very simple reason. Acts only applied to congregations mixed with Jews and Gentiles, as the eating of blood was stumbling the Jews. Remember that Acts also says to abstain from food sacfrificed to idols. Are JWs allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols? Yes, because Paul says that it is acceptable to eat food sacrificed to idols if it does not stumble someone. It is the same principle for blood. Never is blood mentioned as a reason for disfellowshipping for this very reason.
  At
  http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/blooddoctrine.htm
  I have done a detailed but simple to understand summary of the laws on blood, the historical changes by the WTS, and the hypocrisy of the current stand.
• 

  Spectrum

  AuldSoul,
  
  Your post is extremely interesting...
  
  1 Corinthians 10:25-33 — Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks?
  
  Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved.
  --------------------
  
  I didn't understand, was Paul saying that even if the food is of sacrifice to idols munch down anyway, it's on the conscience of the person offering not your own?
  
  It's clear that Paul doesn't want to offend anybody and because of Christ's grace anything goes as long as love and brotherhood is sustained. Paul is telling us he would eat blood and strangled animals by the looks of it and is probably truning in his grave regarding the JW blood issue.
  
  Have I understood Paul correctly?
  
  PS. I didn't understand the significance of Galatians though.
• 

  Spectrum

  Narkissos,
  
  You make an excellent point regarding the healing on the sabbath incident. Jesus clearly states that saving a life and showing kindness is more important than keeping the Law. I think that this on it's own is the clincher.
  
  Thanks
• 

  AuldSoul

  Spectrum,

  You nailed the perspective I have of 1 Corinthians. And it was written (according to JWs, and that is what count when showing them this) AFTER Galatians, which was written AFTER the trip to Jerusalem to see about whether Gentiles had to observe the law of Moses (which some people mistakenly limit to a discussion of circumcision).

  The significance of Galatians is that Paul is describing the trip to Jerusalem to see about this matter to the Galatians. Kind of makes it clear why JWs only focus on a few verses from Galatians. They don't do talks taking this book piece by piece, for a very compelling reason. Paul wasn't submitting to Jerusalem and this book makes that very clear.

  Years after the meeting in Jerusalem, Paul still refers to those who came from Jerusalem as "certain men from James" even though James had denied sending them. (Galatians 2:12) Of these men he says, "we did not yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour, in order that the truth of the good news might continue with you" and "I wish the men who were trying to overturn you would even get themselves emasculated." (Galatians 2:5; 5:12) Paul had rather harsh thing to say about those men from the supposedly "revered" "governing body."

  But, I digress (quite often, it seems )...Paul is recounting his trip to Jerusalem and trying to tell the Galatians how that meeting and its results apply to them, because there are STILL people from Jerusalem making trouble for them over the matter of adhering to the Mosaic Law. In the passage I quoted earlier, Paul says he and Barnabas were only told to "keep the poor in mind." Not a word about any dietary laws. Not a word about fornication.

  Something to think on, especially since he later wrote 1 Corinthians. And, yes, I am sure he's tossing in his grave about the blood doctrine.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul