Blood Issue - Could that mean bloodshed???

by cognac 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cognac

  If you look up the Greek word for blood, it could mean actual "blood" or it could mean "bloodshed". I could go either way with this. The scriptures in Acts are not quoted anywhere so nobody could really say for certain which meaning it actually has...

  Also, just before it in Acts, it states to abstain "from things strangled". If you look up "strangled" it was in reference to an "unbled animal". So, it wasn't the way the animal died that was important, it was the fact that it was unbled.

  So, why would Luke state to keep away from blood twice in a row? If blood meant blood, why would he bring up the strangled animals thing? It doesn't make any sense to me... To me, there is a strong possibility it meant bloodshed. At the very least, you could go either way on it which should make this a conscious matter...

  any thoughts? This might come up with some family members today because they know I have "questions".
• 

  Gopher

  Acts 15:20 was where James made a speech on behalf of the council of elders at Jerusalem.

  The whole context of Acts 15 was regarding whether the traditions of the Jews (such as circumcision) should be imposed on Gentile Christians, in order to not offend Jewish Christians and keep harmony.

  The answer from the council was a clear "no". Requiring Gentiles to get circumcised would pose a clear and unnecessary burden, as Peter stated in the earlier section of Acts 15.

  Later in Acts 15 though, James spoke about certain things Gentiles SHOULD refrain from, in order to keep peace with Jewish Christians -- one was to not eat meat of strangled animals. This was out of courtesy and respect for their consciences, and posed no burden.

  So rather than Acts 15:20 being viewed as a law for all Christians forever, it is James asking the 1st-century Gentile Christians to make a kind gesture to maintain harmony between Jews and Gentiles.

  This is just one example of a personal favor or idea is proposed in the Bible and is not to be viewed as a law for all Christians. Another example would be the one where Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for his tummy-aches. That is in no way a law to be followed by all (and is not a DF'ing / DA'ing offense to the JW's like the 'avoid blood' thing is).
• 

  cognac

  Later in Acts 15 though, James spoke about certain things Gentiles SHOULD refrain from, in order to keep peace with Jewish Christians -- one was to not eat meat of strangled animals. This was out of courtesy and respect for their consciences, and posed no burden.

  thanks Gogher!!!

  This makes a lot of sense. You explain it so easily!!! This makes a lot of sense and keeps the scriptures in harmony since Paul stated that you can eat mean sacrificed to idols unless it offends the conscious of your brother. And it was his conscious that was weak, not the brother who had no problem eating the meat sacrificed to idols...
• 

  Gopher

  Any time !!
• 

  DT

  Gopher explained it well. I also like your point that the blood could mean bloodshed. It might require a reevaluation of the scriptures and their context, but it's enough to cause uncertainty. Since lives are at stake, that would be enough to cause some JW's to do more research.

  Also, just before it in Acts, it states to abstain "from things strangled". If you look up "strangled" it was in reference to an "unbled animal". So, it wasn't the way the animal died that was important, it was the fact that it was unbled.

  Pardon me if I'm being picking, but I feel I should point out a distinction that could be important. Leviticus 17:13-15 seems to indicate that how an animal died is important. If an animal was killed by the person, then it had to be bled. It wasn't OK to strangle it to death and eat the unbled meat. However, the situation was different if the animal was found dead. Then eating the unbled meat just resulted in ceremonial uncleanness, rather than the death penalty.

  I don't believe the Bible is consistent and that all the Bible writers were on the "same page", but the JW's think they were, so there are kinds of ways to work with this and point out that the prohibition isn't as strong as they think.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Gopher,

  You almost had it pegged. Paul may have taken it that was at first but not years later when they threw it in his face because they meant keeping some Levitical Laws not just courtesy when they penned it. Paul then had to get rid of such thinking entirely and not just put up with it as he did for a long time.

  Joseph
• 

  TD

  If you look up the Greek word for blood, it could mean actual "blood" or it could mean "bloodshed"

  This usually works very similar to the way it works in English. --When "blood" is being used as a metaphor for death, murder, etc. it is pretty clear from the context:

  oxeiV oi podeV autwn ekceai aima --

  Their feet are swift to shed blood

  wn to aima pilatoV emixen meta twn qusiwn autwn

  ..whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices...

  paradouV aima aqwon

  I have betrayed innocent blood
• 

  cognac

  You almost had it pegged. Paul may have taken it that was at first but not years later when they threw it in his face because they meant keeping some Levitical Laws not just courtesy when they penned it. Paul then had to get rid of such thinking entirely and not just put up with it as he did for a long time.

  What scriptures are you referring to?

  TD~

  Its confusing cause they just referred to animals being strangled, then they go into the blood thing. I guess, if there's no surrounding context then it's assumed it means literal blood?
• 

  Mary

  If memory serves, the reason the Jews and early Christians weren't supposed to eat the meat of an animal that had been strangled was because a) you were supposed to be merciful when slaughtering the animal, and strangulation (basically choking the animal to death), would not have fallen under than category; and 2) the blood of a strangled animal could not be drained properly.
• 

  TD

  I guess, if there's no surrounding context then it's assumed it means literal blood?

  Well, some will argue that it was reference to murder and there were even Western variants of the book of Acts where that change was made:

  "Whether the Decree, which prohibits pollutions of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood, is to be taken as moral or ceremonial depends upon one's evaluation of the critical variations between the Alexandrian and Western texts. The Alexandrian text has the fourfold prohibition and understands it as a food regulation against meat offered to idols or from which the blood has not properly been drained, and a request that Gentiles conform to the high code of conduct between sexes as maintained in the Jewish community. The Western text omits Gk. pniktou ("what is strangled") and understands the Decree as a threefold moral prohibition against idolatry, and unchastity, and murder. (Bromily, G.W., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Volume I, p. 202)