Blood and sacrifice alternative view point (page 3)

jwfacts

I have never had an answer from a JW as to why if Acts is so important that the part about food sacrificed to idols is not binding on us but blood is. (As shown in the comments above Paul clearly shows that this was not meant to be any more then a law to avoid stumbling) Does the WTS have an answer of any sort for this?

AuldSoul

No, they don't. However, it wouldbe an incredibly effective line of reaoning to consider Acts 15 (the whole chapter, not just the results), then go to Galatians to show what Paul got from the meeting ("Only we should keep the poor in mind..."), then go to 1 Corinthians.

After reading 1 Corinthians ask why they didn't have to file a DPA and Advance Dietary Directive with the unbeliever to make sure they weren't EVER given food that had been sacrificed to idols.

Hee-hee! It is possible to make them squirm. And fun to watch.

AuldSoul

Spectrum

jwfacts,

Thanks alot of that it was most enlightening and conclusive. Your research is really top notch. I've bookmarked it and I'm going to show it to my JW relatives. Hopefully they won't think of it as an apostate sight.

I tried to have a third discussion about it with my 15 year old JW niece last night but she cut me short with "It's in the bible", shrugged her shoulders and changed subject.

Spectrum

Many thanks to all that contributed to this thread. I thought it wasn't going to get off the ground as it's a common issue and I can understand that people will be fed up with going round in circles. So thanks for your patients and superb information.

These are my conclusions from a proper enlightened view point:

The blood issue was definitely from Mosiac Law that was superceded by the death of Christ therefore no longer applied. It is mentioned in Acts as a way of not stumbling the hifaluting jewish christians.

Christ teaching of love and kindness was now the supreme Law and the sanctity of life to be protected by it.

Paul was willing to eat food sacrificed to idols nevermind taking a BT if he needed to if he lived today. The Grace a Christ and the bigger picture was more important to him than the temperament of Jewish Christains that could not shake the monkey off their back therefore actually themselves not in keeping with the spirit of Christianity.

I started this thread by saying that JW are following the scripture to the death and should therefore be admired and not criticised. Someone wrote they are ignorant and should be felt sorry for instead of admired. I agree with that now because their sacrifice is a waste.
They've been completely mis-informed and they have bought it hook, line and sinker and worse spreading this bad news to new recruits.

This issue more than anything to me has exposed the WTBTS as charlatan organistion. On the issue of blood at best they are a headless chicken and at worst criminally culpable.

It has also shown that they are a Judiac religion rather than a Christian one. They have done exactly what the Pharasees did when they took the Law and wrapped their own laws around it to suit them. Well the GB has done the same thing with Christ Law.

Narkissos

Spectrum,

It is actually worse than that. As I stated in my previous post, most Pharisees and Judeo-Christians obviously held the principle that any commandment can and should be broken to save a life.

You can google "pikuach nephesh" to learn about the rabbinical (= post-pharisaic) interpretation and application of this principle.

Spectrum

Narcissos,

I didn't realise that the sanctity of life was upheld by the Jews, because stoning was the order of the day. Was there not a story in the OT of a man who was stoned for breaking the sabbath? Christ's values are far superior to Jehovah Laws.

As for your point, does early rabinical understanding of scripture bear any relevance to christians of then and today?

TD

Spectrum,

Acts 15:20 clearly states that the new Christians that are being recruited should abstain from blood amongst other things.

The statement was made in a specific context. You cannot invoke an incomplete predicate (e.g. "Abstain from blood") outside of the context that completes as an independent construction. That's ungrammatical

There is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object. You abstain from finite acts. When the intransitive verb, "Abstain" is used in connection with an object, there is always a finite verb implicit in the context. I know that might sound counterintuitive at first, but you can easily test that statement by attempting to word the phrase "Abstain from blood" as a simple finite negative. Can you?

I think a good way to illustrate this is with one of the JW's favorite analogies. JW's are fond of saying, "If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, would you inject it into your veins?" The simple truth is that no doctor would suddenly say, "Abstain from alcohol" out of the blue. There would always be a context in which the statment was made.

For example, if your general practicioner said: "Persons with hypertension should abstain from alcohol" it would be a specific reference to drinking alcoholic beverages.

However if your dermatologist said: "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol" it would a specific reference to the application of alcohol to the skin.

The verbs, "Drink" and "Apply" are derived from the context, so even though the phrase, "Abstain from alcohol" appears in both sentences, the two doctors are clearly not talking about the same thing. If you couldn't drink alcohol, does that mean that you couldn't put it on your skin? Conversely, if you couldn't put alcohol on your skin, does that mean you couldn't drink it? The answer to both questions, is, "Not necessarily."

It's the same with the Apostolic Decree. The three objects: Things strangled, Things sacrificed to idols and blood, must all be linked to a finite verb before the thought is complete. In context, that verb is, "Eat" and a number of translations make that or a similar interpolation. (e.g. Moffat, Phillips, TEV)

So the Decree cannot legitimately be invoked as a direct command against transfusion. That's one of the JW organization's favorite fallacies. The most they can do is argue for an equivalency between the respective acts.

AuldSoul

Perfectly stated, TD.

Of course, they are welcome to believe whatever they want as long as they do not exercise their belief in a way that includes misrepresenting secular facts after positioning themselves as an authority on the matter and/or threatening to punish (coerce) anyone who does not comply.

People have been asking regarding snake handlers and religions that reject all medicine: Why are they not similarly open to suit? THEY don't publish material purporting to teach medical facts to back up their religious beliefs. They are only teaching religious doctrine, not misrepresented secular fact. Are their teachings also destructive and dangerous? In my opinion, yes. But they keep it religious, so they can't be touched.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

AuldSoul

Spectrum: Was there not a story in the OT of a man who was stoned for breaking the sabbath?

I just saw this, Spectrum. The Sabbath laws are the most strictly upheld in the Talmudic tradition. If someone broke the Sabbath law, that is evidenced gross disregard for the Sabbath law, they were put to death. However, if someone set aside the Sabbath law to save a life or prevent someone from injury, they did not break the Sabbath law in doing so.

So, in answer to your question, the Sabbath law did not have to be observed in cases where a life or health was in jeopardy. Otherwise, Jesus would have been properly stoned for healing on the Sabbath. Consider:

Luke 14:3-6 — So in response Jesus spoke to those versed in the Law and to the Pharisees, saying: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to cure or not?” But they kept silent. With that he took hold of [the man], healed him and sent [him] away. And he said to them: “Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?” And they were not able to answer back on these things.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

TD

---Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?”

Yes the much maligned Phraisees understood that pikuach nefesh trumped other considerations: It is axiomatic in Judaism that human life is of infinite value. The preservation of human life takes precedence over all biblical commandments and rabbinic enactments except three: idolatry, murder and incest.

Blood and sacrifice alternative view point

Share this