Bane admits that Christians are to abstain from "eating blood".

by moshe 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  moshe

  from an earlier topic-

  "Moshe, Ready for another biblical smackdown?

  Christians

  Acts 15:28, 29: "The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!" (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)"

  ----------------------------------------------------------

  Amazing how a JW can admit that Acts 15 is all about not eating blood and then accepts the no-proof WT mind jump that a, blood transfusion= eating blood.

  I have asked many JWs this simple question, "will a blood transfusion save the life of a starving man?" . They always have an "oh,oh" look on their face and try to worm out of answering the question. When finally cornered, they have to answer, NO, and in so doing they admit that blood transfusions have nothing to do with the OT Jewish laws, which Acts 15 is founded upon. A blood transfusion has no food value for the body- blood is food only if it is eaten. Now the WT tries to imply that blood transfusions- taking in blood- is forbidden, but that is just the opinion of a handful of men.

  If I asked you, "to abtain from WatchTower", what do you think I meant? --abstain from, eating, reading,drinking,touching,selling,idolizing,etc. There is no way you would know what I meant, as the meaning of "abstain", is found in the context of the sentence. The only meaning a 1st century Christian could apply to abstain is eating or drinking- nothing more.

  In Bible times, pouring out blood meant the death of the person or animal, but blood transfusions do not cause the death of the blood donor- a fact that JWs recognize, because they depend on the blood donations of non-JWs for all the blood derived fractions and drugs keeping them alive, which is rather hypocritical, if you ask me. Blood donations save lives and blood transfusions are given to save lives. If Jesus thought it proper to disobey the Sabbath law( death penalty) in order to rescuse a sheep that had fallen into a well (save the life of an animal), then why wouldn't Jesus want you to save the life of a child?

  Bane, I suggest you talk to a Jewish Rabbi and learn why NO Jews consider blood transfusions a violation of their Bible laws (and they have 613 of them). This is very serious, as you seem to feel you have no blood guilt at all for following your WT leaders. Since blood transfusions are not mentioned in the Bible, it must not be a God-given requirement that Christians abstain from having one. God could have inspired the Bible writer to be more explicit in the details of what "abstain" meant, taking into account that God could see into the future and know that blood transfusions would be invented in only a couple days (God's time). But God didn't do that, so he either didn't care, wasn't able to inspire the writer, the actual words have been lost in time, or the words were just from men all along.

  Finally, if JW's really believed in Acts 15, they would be eating Kosher meat, to ensure they weren't eating any blood.
• 

  donny

  And one would think that if consuming blood was such a binding issue in pleasing God, then we should have seen this mentioned over and over in the New Testatement for the benefit of all of the Gentiles (many who were eaters of blood) who were contemplating becoming Christian.

  Initially, the apostles also ruled that Christians should “abstain from meats offered to idols.” (Acts 15:29). They were talking to mainly Jewish Christians at this point. Later Paul, however, seems to take the position that as long as one doesn’t ask whether it was offered to an idol, then it doesn’t matter. Even if you learn that it was offered, then it is up to your own conscience and those with whom you are eating whether it is wrong or not. See 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and Romans 14:13-23.

  Paul’s conclusion is that all food is acceptable if received with thanksgiving, as long as someone else, who doesn’t accept that, is not forced to violate their conscience. Then it would be a sin to eat it. The same is no doubtedly true of blood. Nowhere after Acts 15:29 is the prohibition of blood ever mentioned again so it must have not have been the big binding issue the Society makes it out to be.
• 

  TD

  Even in the NWT, the purpose of the Decree is obvious to all but the willfully blind:

  "Take these men along and cleanse yourself ceremonially with them and take care of their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved. And so everybody will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly, you yourself also keeping the Law. As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.”

  The idea that it means more than simply the eating blood as forbidden in the Law is prooftexting at its worst.
• 

  moshe

  Thanks, TD, you are an expert on English grammar. If we put ourselves into the sandals of the 1st Century Christians, it is obvious what their purpose was.-There is no way they expected or wanted these words to be used to kill people over blood transfusions.
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  Bulgaria.

  So much for principals on the subject...
• 

  PSacramento

  Paul’s conclusion is that all food is acceptable if received with thanksgiving, as long as someone else, who doesn’t accept that, is not forced to violate their conscience. Then it would be a sin to eat it. The same is no doubtedly true of blood. Nowhere after Acts 15:29 is the prohibition of blood ever mentioned again so it must have not have been the big binding issue the Society makes it out to be.

  On that, Paul and Jesus were of the same mind:

  Clean and Unclean

  7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. a )

  5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”

  6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

  “ ‘These people honor me with their lips,

  but their hearts are far from me.

  7 They worship me in vain;

  their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ b

  8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

  9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe c your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ d and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ e 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

  14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ f ”

  17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)

  20 He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21 For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ ”
• 

  moshe

  saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed

  I guess that Jesus (the all knowing son of God) never told his followers that germs on unwashed hands are what spread disease- and that is why they should wash their hands, in order to avoid cholera, typhoid and other diseases. In that regard, Christian health actually took a step backward from the Jews. Remember, that Jews today see no scriptual problems with accepting a blood transfusion.
• 

  PSacramento

  I guess that Jesus (the all knowing son of God) never told his followers that germs on unwashed hands are what spread disease- and that is why they should wash their hands, in order to avoid cholera, typhoid and other diseases. In that regard, Christian health actually took a step backward from the Jews. Remember, that Jews today see no scriptual problems with accepting a blood transfusion.

  Well, Christians have never had an issue with accepting blood either, outside of a few fringe elements.

  As for not washing, I think you may have missed the point of the whole matter, the issue was what is truly "unclean", dirty hands or a dirty heart.
• 

  peacedog

  Classic case of the WTS going 'beyond what is written'
• 

  keyser soze

  The WT used to apply this same logic to organ transplants. Receiving an organ transplant=cannibalism. Strange that they could eventually see the fallacy in that, but not on their blood stance.