Blood Doctrine - JW please answer

by golden age 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

learntoswim

In resposnse to that argument that some one posted earlier on how they would respond, if you read the verse prior to that in mathew 16:24 jesus says take up your cross and follow me, by saying this supports the jw position is wrong because following jesus would be, as i said in the first post, to not let a law override the importance of life just as he did with the sabath rule
the law you refer to, that of not healing on the sabbath was a man made rule. The Jewish religious leaders had made tons of arbitrary rules that were based on nothing more than the tradition of man. So by breaking the law, Jesus was simply defying the Pharisees and their man made traditions, not breaking Gods law because of an emergency.

peacefulpete

The story about Jesus and his entourage plucking grain by hand and rubbing it being a breaking of the sabbath may reflect a difference of opinion among Jews, a matter of controversy. The writer of Mark 2 etal. sided with the Talmud which specifically allowed for hand plucking and rubbing of grain.

"And one may pluck (grain) by hand and eat, but only if one plucks without a utensil; and one may rub [matal = "husk"]and eat, but only if he does not rub a lot in a utensil." These are the words of Rabbi Judah (ben El'ai ). But the sages say: --"One may rub with the tips of his fingers and eat, but only if he does not rub a lot with his hands in the way he does on a weekday."
	--- Babylonian Talmud , Shabbat h 128a

Also the opinion of healing of the Sabbath found in the Gospels apparently reflects a debate of the time. Again note what the Talmud says:

Where (is the rationale for this) from: --"To rescue a soul [nephesh] puts off the Sabbath"? Rabbi Eleazar ben 'A t zariah said: --"If circumcision, which concerns one of man's limbs, puts off the Sabbath, qal wa c homer: to rescue a soul puts off the Sabbath!"
	--- Babylonian Talmud , Shabbat h 132a

Similarly childbirth puts off the Sabbath so that a midwife can travel and do her work according to the Talmud. Alternatly, the rational used in the NT for healing of the Sabbath, that is, that if an animal fell into a well it was ok to rescue it, was specifically prohibited by the Qumran sect's Damascus Scroll and may therefore reflect another ongoing debate among Rabbis.

No man shall help a beast give birth on the Sabbath day; and if it falls in a pit
14	or a hollow, he shall not lift it out on the Sabbath.
	--- Dead Sea Scrolls , Damascus Covenant (CD) 11.13-14

All these stories do then is represent a particular opinion about interpretation of the Law. The views put on Jesus' lips in these stories may well have been the prevailing view by the time the Gospels were written, then again perhaps by depicting the Jewish leadership as heartless and coldly legalistic the authors' faith appeared to be progressive and compassionate by contrast.

skeeter1

I agree with Golden Age on the fact that "Saving Lives" takes place over the Torah, including Genesis. The only laws that stood above eating blood was killing a human life and denouncing Jehovah. Those who only have JW teachings, should explore the Jewish and Islamic teachings on these points.
skeeter1

THIS IS MY MOST IMPORTANT POST -PLEASE READ
******************************************************************************************************************** The Talmud was written down in about 200 A.D. The Jews decided to write down thier oral traditions which originated from the courts of Moses down through time. So, while it's "man's word", it is handed down, generation after generation, of how Moses & his subsequent rabbi's interpreted the Torah to life's situations. So, don't "diss" the Talmud as meaningless. I think it's "on-point" as to how the Jews around Christ's time (i.e. the early Christians) would have reacted to drinking blood.
In the Talmud, there is a "book" called "Tractate Yoma". In Chapter VIII Mishna it states that pregnant women allowed to smell non-kosher meats and even eat unclean meats if not satisfied. In Jewish tradition, the weak or sick are allowed to break the Yom Kippur's fasting rules. Plus, there is a famous, Jewish saying, " “pikkiah nefesh doheh Shabbot." This means that rescuing a life in danger takes precedence over the Sabbath
Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits wrote a book called Jewish Medical Ethics – A Comparative and Historical Study of the Jewish Relious Attitude to Medicine and Its Practice, (Block Publishing Company 1959). It is THE book on medical ethics for Jewish doctors. In fact, the Society has tried to quote this book as being used against blood.....I just can't remember in what publication it was.... Anyway, on page 45 of this book, Rabbi Jakobovits states that preservation of human life takes precedence over God’s laws with the exception of idolatry, murder, and incest. Thus, Jewish doctors work on the Sabbath, Jewish patients take blood if thier life is in peril, and get vaccinated with pig serum.
If that's not enough...Daniel Eisenbur, MD has a website that states the Mitzot principal of living, not dying by Jewish laws. See “Mandate to Heal: What is the Role of the Physician in Jewish Law?,” http://www.aish.com/societyWork/work/The_Mandate_to_Heal.asp
Also, did not King David violate the Sabboth to help his sick infant?
................now for Islam.........
Islam & Jews are not that far apart as they would like. They were brothers in about 22 B.C. Islam & Jews follow the SAME "no blood" & eating laws, to this VERY DAY.
"The Holy Qur’on, at "S.5 A.3" states “Forbidden to you (for food) Are: dead meat, blood, The flesh of swine, and that On which has been invoked The name of other than Allah, That which hath been Killed by stangling, Or a violent blow, Or by headlong fall, Or being gored to death; That which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; Unless you were able to slaughter it (in due form) That which has been sacrificed on stone (alters); (Forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling With arrows; that is impiety.”
But the Qur'on, like the Jewish laws, except sick or frail people
"The Holy Quron, “O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you As it was prescribed To those before you, That ye may (learn) Self-restraint. (Fasting) for a fixed Number of days; But if any of you is ill, Or on a journey, The prescribed number (Should be made up) From days later. For those who can do it.”
The Islamic people also have an oral tradition book, the Islamic Sunnah which states in Chapter 5, verse 4 says that the prohibited food may be eaten in cases of extreme hunger, but if any is forced by hunger with no inclination to transgression, God is indeed oft-forgiving and most merciful
So, this is why the Islamic people also take blood, pig vaccines, etc. when they are sick. Islamic or Jewish people would NEVER eat blood at the table with a normal meal. Nor, would they eat blood because they were merely "hungry". Instead, thier lives had to be in danger. This makes sense, they were "desert" people. They had to kill animals & eat blood animals ALL thier lives. Ask anyone from Europe how the Jews survived during/after the concentration camps. Rats, unbled rats, my folks.
So, were the soldiers at 1 Samuel 14:31-35 "hungry" from battle....or was thier life in danger? I think they were just hungry from a hard battle. In answering the 1 Samuel argument, a Jew or Muslim might state that these soldiers were hungry, not ill or starving-to-death, when they broke the commandment. In either event, Jehovah God was, as Islam says (supra), “most merciful and kind” as none were sanctioned. Since both of these ancient religions contain an “in order to save a life” exception, this is not an argument that originated solely in modern times, as the Society’s may lead its followers to believe
Respectfully (toast to Auldsoul),
Skeeter
golden age

above learntoswim has claimed that working on the sabath was a law made by man and not God and jesus was mocking the pharases by not following it. However this is not true the law of not working on the sabath was from God himself.
See exodus 31
12 And the L ord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: 'Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the L ord who sanctifies you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the L ord . Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
This brings me back to my original question if the Jesus regarded life above the law following him would be to accept blood in order to save a life.
learntoswim

above learntoswim has claimed that working on the sabath was a law made by man and not God and jesus was mocking the pharases by not following it. However this is not true the law of not working on the sabath was from God himself.

oh for goodness sake i didn't say that not working on the sabbath day was a law made by man, i said not healing on the sabbath was a law made by man, read it again, i said:
the law you refer to, that of not healing on the sabbath was a man made rule. The Jewish religious leaders had made tons of arbitrary rules that were based on nothing more than the tradition of man. So by breaking the law, Jesus was simply defying the Pharisees and their man made traditions, not breaking Gods law because of an emergency.
I fully agree that working on the sabbath day is against the Mosaic law, its in the bible for all to see as you pointed out. But that didn't rule out doing anything at all. In fact the priests were to continue their duties even on a sabbath day. Jesus recognised the spirit of the sabbath law.
And when I said he was defying the Pharisses i didn't mean he was doing it to actually mock them. I meant it seems that he did it because he wanted to heal the man, regardless of what their thoughts on the matter were, rather than doing it because it was an emergency (in fact was it even an emergency? is the event you refer to the time when he approached a man who had been ill for 38 years?).
golden age

In response to learntoswim:
If we use your logic that the old testament in exodus says we should not work on the sabbath and this does not mean healing acording to you (even thought the early jews felt it was). Then we must clearly agree that by using the same logic in leviticus 3 when the lord says you may not EAT the blood or fat. We should take that as it is and agree that Eating does NOT equal transfusion. And therefore there should be no ban on blood transfusion
learntoswim

If we use your logic that the old testament in exodus says we should not work on the sabbath and this does not mean healing acording to you (even thought the early jews felt it was)

According to me? God never outlawed healing on the sabbath, there is no-where in the scriptures that indicates this. The whole point of the sabbath was it was a provision from God to provide his people with rest, giving them physical and spiritual rejuvination, that was the idea, that was, if you like, the spirit of the Sabbath.
Let me spell it out to you:
Your whole original argument is flawed because there was no law about healing on the sabbath for Jesus to break.
The law about not eating the blood God reinforces many times in the old testement. He explains how detestable it is to him that anyone should consume blood. This is again reinforced in Acts when it is reported that abstainance from blood is still a requirement for those wishing to follow Christ.
Its when we look at the principles God gives for not eating the blood, that we can see that would also include injecting it into our veins.
golden age

I have a few questions in response to your post
1 If you told a doctor or nurse after a long shift at the hospital that they were not working, they were just healing would they agree with you. What do you think?
2 How do you feel that working and healing are not the same, but eating and transfustion are, if you eat something it is digested and the body uses the nutrients, but if you transfuse blood the cells carry the oxygen, how do you feel this is the same?
3 Why do devout jews not agree that transfusion is wrong and that one should only not eat blood, This is a jewish law, wouldnt the jews know best?
4 Why do jws not follow the dietary law of not eating blood or fat, jws eat fat in meat and they do not insist on meat being prepared kosher, they often eat steak with small amounts of blood?
5 Why did charles taze russel the founder of the WT say that in acts the reason for the abstination from blood was so that there would not be arguments between the christians and jews during the formation of the early church, and that this ban would not be binding on the gentiles see Zion’s Watch Tower, Nov. 15, 1892, p. 1473 reprints)
5 How would you feel if the WT changed its policy next year and said that new light told them blood transfusions were ok?, Do not say this would not happen because in the 1930s they posted numerous articles stating that vaccination was a violation of the everlasting covenant of god with man, and that they must be avoided, many probably died as a result of not being immunized, They also said that the small pox vaccine would never prevent small pox, yet small pox has been completely eradicated from the world as a result of the vaccine. Now they tell people vaccines are good, why was vaccination unscriputral and a violation then but good now, could this not happen with the blood rule?
I am not trying to argue with you but am trying to get your view on this.
learntoswim

Hi GA thanks for your response. This is how I would answer your questions.
1. No they wouldn't agree with me and I wouldn't say it. In their case it would be working, because as mere mortals, healing people involves work. In the case of a doctor or nurse in a hospital, a lot of work is involved in healing people, whereas in the case of Jesus Christ he had miraculous power from God that meant no work was involved. So if Jesus had set up a first aid tent and started working away with scalpals and such, then I believe that would have been breaking the sabbath rule. But he didn't do any of those things, he spoke to the man for a few moments, then miraculously healed him.
2. The difference in eating and transfusing blood is in my view nullified by taking a look at the reason why God said not to eat it. I believe this is very important to the issue. When you look at the commands God gave to the Jews, he on many occassions explained that the blood means the life, it is something he views sacred. It should be poured out on the ground, and not ingested. It is apparent to me from this that God was not just saying, don't eat it because I don't want it to go into your stomachs, rather the actual principle is he would hate for anyone to take in blood into their bodies. I know it sounds like a strange thing for him to want his people not to do, but my view is, Gods way of looking at things is far higher than us humans.
3. No, I don't think they would know best. The new covenant meant the jews were no longer Gods chosen people. Modern day judaism is severly tainted with man made traditions and laws, as it was in Jesus day.
4. The prohibitation on eating fat went out with the Mosaic law. Remember the apostles words in Acts chapter 15: 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!" Its this verse that shows that God still feels the same way about blood, even though the Mosaic law was now non existant. As for why JWs eat blood in meat, my view is, all meat has a small amount of blood left in it, because it simply wouldn't be possible to get it all out. Even kosher meat still has a little bit left, as I understand it. And God would have known this when he expressly told Noah that humans could now start eating animals. As for eating steaks with blood, I personally would be careful when eating or ordering steak because as you say, sometimes the meat can be bloody. Good question tho.
5. The link didn't work and i couldn't look up the article you refer to. Charles Russell said a lot of things that JWs have since realised weren't quite what the scriptures were trying to say, as did Russell himself. The question you've got to ask is, what scriptures did he cite to back up his point? I suspect he may have said because the ruling in Acts on not having blood was made after the elders went to see them after a big dispute, so the ruling was made to help with the difficulties involved with the transition from one law to another?
6. As I understand it the ban on blood has more scriptual backing than the ban on vaccines. I know the WTS would not turn around and say, "we realise the ban on blood was wrong" because it goes against the scriptures. It has been explained to my satisfaction and for that reason I would be very shaken if the GB changed their view on blood. Regarding vaccinations, be careful how much faith you place in the medical profession, especially in the area of vaccinations. You state that many JWs may have died by following the council of the GB at the time, and that "small pox has been completely eradicated from the world as a result of the vaccine" when critising the WTS for banning them. Yet what do the facts show? An article recently made the following observations:
The consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have maintained that the eradication of the zymotic, or "filth" diseases, like cholera, dysentery, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, removing horse manure from cities, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, and hygiene had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.
One of the conclusions in Thomas McKeown's seminal work, The Modern Rise of Populations (1976, also endorsed by a Lancet editorial, 2/1/75), was that the decline in mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries was essentially due to the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, and that it was not the result of immunizations. Similar studies by scholars John and Sonia McKinlay (1977) shows that almost all the increase in human lifespan since the year 1900 is due to reductions in infectious disease, with medical intervention (of all kinds) accounting for only about 3 percent of that reduction. According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, Vol.2, "there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries."
Not only had poor sanitation and nutrition lain the foundation for disease, it was also compulsory smallpox vaccination campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that played a major role in decimating the populations of Japan (48,000 deaths), England and Wales (44,840 deaths, after 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated), Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, India (3 million -- all vaccinated), Australia, Germany (124,000 deaths), Prussia (69,000 deaths -- all re-vaccinated), and the Philippines. The epidemics ended in cities where smallpox vaccinations were either discontinued or never begun, and also after sanitary reforms were instituted (most notably in Munich -- 1880, Leicester -- 1878, Barcelona -- 1804, Alicante -- 1827, India -- 1906, etc).
In many nations, mortalities from smallpox hadn't begun to decline until the citizenry revolted against compulsory smallpox vaccination laws.
By 1919, England and Wales had become one of the least vaccinated countries, and had only 28 deaths from smallpox, out of a population of 37.8 million people. By contrast, during that same year, out of a population of 10 million -- all triply vaccinated over the prior 6 years -- the Philippine Islands registered 47,368 deaths from smallpox
Did the WTS really cause people to die from smallpox because they at that time believed vaccinations were unscriptual? It may not be quite as bad as people like to make out. Anyway I'm being a bit off topic!
I hope these answer your questions, thanks for asking them.

Blood Doctrine - JW please answer

Share this