Why was instruction given to "abstain...from things strangled?"

by M.J. 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Jwfacts,

    All this misses the point made in the texts, that James, some of the apostles like John, Peter who fell in with them and the rest of the converts in Jerusalem were not only keeping such prohibitions but were also keeping all the Law and customs of the Jewish faith. Paul took them aside before the meeting and corrected their views, or so he thought for he said this about them: Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. But James who wrote the letter was not convinced. He continued to keep the Law as shown by his attitude when Paul returned. His comment to Paul that the letter was intended only for Gentiles was WRONG. His requirement that Paul shave his head and take the vows was WRONG. James needed correction once again and Paul was not being given an opportunity to do that. The idea that everything was sweet and rosy among the anointed in the faith back then the most influential at the time is easily refuted by the troubles that Paul and later John had in their ministry. John was also inspired to make this known to us when he said: 3 John 9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. We cannot and should not trust those putting themself up as leaders. We should be able to determing who is like Diotrephes and avoid them.

    Joseph

  • shadow
    shadow

    my 2 cents:

    Jehovah chose to use blood as a symbol of life. Humans are to recognize their subjection to the giver of life when they kill an animal by pouring out the blood. This is not done when an animal is strangled.

    This is in contrast to unbled meat that is not provided through the action of a human (killed by another animal or dies from some other cause). Conspicuously absent from the prohibition in Acts is any comment on this type of meat. The WTS has gone beyond both the Law and the statements in Acts by claiming that such meat (roadkill) is not fit for Christians.

    So I believe Acts is saying to not drink blood nor to eat animals slaughtered in a way (strangulation) that is disrespecting God. It focuses on the use of blood as a symbol more than blood as a substance, which has always been evident by the regulations pertaining to eating unbled meat.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Shadow,

    Every time "blood" is mentioned in Scripture, it represents DEATH, often a violent one. NEVER does "Blood" represent "life".

    As CTR wrote, the presentation of blood at the altar proved that the beast was DEAD.

    In Genesis 9, the writer was addressing the contemporary practice of cutting flesh from a living animal and drinking the blood from the quivering flesh. The passage says that there must be proof the beast is dead before its flesh may be eaten.

    In the medical use of blood, such as for example with a vaccination or the recipt of Factor VIII, the presence of the product does not indicate the donor has died. The symbolism is not there.

    Doug

  • DJK
    DJK
    Strangle can be argued. Does it's reference in the bible mean the squeezing of the windpipe to kill or does it refer to a force or action that restricts freedom? It may be an assumption to killing because the word's "abstain from blood", follow

    Abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. Idols, fornication and blood are unrelated issues. Why can't strangled be an unrelated issue to blood?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit