“Flesh with its soul – its blood – YOU must not eat”

by Doug Mason 4 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Doug Mason

  “Flesh with its soul – its blood – YOU must not eat” (Genesis 9:4, NWT).

  These words are part of God’s covenant with Noah, which runs from Genesis 9:1-17.

  No doubt, when you have read this passage, you wondered why “God” (EL) made this covenant, and not “YHWH” (Yahweh / “Jehovah”).

  The priest(s) who wrote YHWH produced the passages that are known today as “J”. But the priest(s) who wrote the covenant to Noah produced scrolls that are today known as “P”.

  P lived about the time of the destruction of Israel, at the time of Judah’s king Hezekiah. If you want to know more about P, I have uploaded some pages to:

  http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=eff7c7b597f92b3dba51412744c0b9ef

  (Wait about 25 seconds for the “download” button to appear).

  When P wrote that meat must not be eaten while it still contained blood, the sacrificing of animals at a prescribed sacred site was integral to using the flesh as food. The temple thus performed the role of slaughter yard and butcher’s shop, with some meat going to the priests and the blood could only be used for temple purposes.

  P’s prohibition on consuming blood while it was still in the flesh of a slain beast must be seen in that context.

  “ The function of sacrifice is one of the most misunderstood matters in the Bible. Modern readers often take it to mean the unnecessary taking of animal life, or they believe that the person who offered the sacrifice was giving up something of his or her own in order to compensate for some sin or perhaps to win God's favor.

  “ In the biblical world, however, the most common type of sacrifice was for meals. The apparent rationale was that if humans wanted to eat meat they had to recognize that they were taking life. They could not regard this as an ordinary act of daily secular life. It was a sacred act, to be performed in a prescribed manner, by an appointed person (a priest), at an altar. A portion of the sacrifice (a tithe) was given to the priest. This applied to all meat meals (but not fish or fowl).

  “ The centralization of religion meant that if you wanted to eat lamb you could not sacrifice your sheep at home or at a local sanctuary. You had to bring the sheep to the priest at the Temple altar in Jerusalem. This also would mean a sizable gathering of Levite priests at Jerusalem, which was now [under the reforms of King Hezekiah] the only sanctioned location where they could conduct the sacrifices and receive their tithes. It also meant considerable distinction and power for the High Priest in Jerusalem and for the priestly family from which he came. ” (Who Wrote the Bible? Friedman, pages 91 – 12)

  This is part of Scripture’s consistent message that the word “blood” means “death”. (In a medical procedure, “blood” never symbolises the death of its previous owner. And the donor’s flesh is not eaten.)

  Doug
• 

  FuzzyPaul

  The "P" and "J" and … hypothesis is a convoluted exercise in faithlessness.

  Stories in the Old Testament approximate stories of the same events in the writings of other cultures because they all refer to the same events told by actual descendents of direct witnesses or the actors themselves. Only rarely did one culture’s sacred history authors deliberately imitate or plagiarize another.

  Read Moses in the first part of Genesis and you’ll notice that Moses was giving a synopsis of one historical record he had available, then another different historical document. These various documents codified the same events but by differing authors.

  Regards,

  Paul
• 

  JosephMalik

  This is part of Scripture’s consistent message that the word “blood” means “death”. (In a medical procedure, “blood” never symbolises the death of its previous owner. And the donor’s flesh is not eaten.)

  Doug,

  But then there was a change in scripture. The Law upon which all this was based would no longer be valid and any prohibition against blood made in times past was now changed by our Lord to include it since it would now be an essential ingredient, even a mandatory one for our salvation. John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Any blood prohibition made in times past would now be allowed. Such a statement could not be made for any reason unless such prohibitions were brought to an end. The cup we drink means his blood, not just some supposed symbolic reference to it. We would not think of it as wine anymore but as blood when it was consumed. The use of wine was simply a way to do this since the man giving this command would not have enough blood for the whole world to eventually drink anyway.

  Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

  Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

  Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

  The use of blood to save life was now allowed and scriptural. This one reason does not exclude it for being used for medical purposes as well since permission to use it was granted to mankind. And it is nothing more than an organ transplant when given anyway. But then a problem developed that would not be solved for a long time. James wrote a letter that he gave to Paul for distribution and h is stipulation looked quite innocent on the surface. It contained deeply ingrained matters of contention of little concern to Gentiles. You will notice however that it was directly associated with Moses and the Law, dealt with blood and was intended ONLY for Gentiles. One doctrine for Gentiles and another doctrine for Jews was the result. It contradicted out Lord's teaching regarding the use of blood and directly impacted on their salvation. Some have attempted to apply this requirement to the pre-law writings of Moses as if this makes some kind of difference but that no longer matteres. And we know from Scripture that James was concerned with the Law itself and continued to observe and teach it in Jerusalem. He tried to force Paul to submit to it as well (Acts 21:24). So by mixing in some good with the bad many have taken this letter as doctrinal when in reality it was an error brought out in scripture that would take 40 or more years to correct by Paul and some have still not corrected it.

  Joseph
• 

  Doug Mason

  Hi Joseph,

  I am saying that when the word "blood" is used in Scripture it refers to "death" and usually a violent one. This includes the references of "blood" to Jesus Christ -- they relate to his death, not to his life. When a Christian partakes of the wine, it is in reference to his death, when his blood was spilt on behalf of all.

  The discussion at Acts 15 related to the Jewish focus at Jerusalem as against the Gentile focus at Antioch, and the decision by James was an attempt to resolve the tension by telling each group to recognise and respect the traditions of the other group.

  I am not arguing whether blood was permitted to be drunk or not. That is irrelevant to the medical procedure; if doctors were able to administer blood orally, they would prefer to use that method. But transfusion is, as the name says, a transfer fusion, a transplant of material. The medical process is totally unrelated to the Biblcal meaning of "blood". That is my focus.

  One reference on the Biblical meaning of "blood" that I am able to provide is available at:

  http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Meaning_of__Blood_.pdf

  Doug

  PS. I think you will find that Paul died in 64 CE, so any writings after that would be falsely attributed to him.
• 

  minimus

  Joseph Malik's last post here.