Just checked out the 4/15 1909 where it says that the Acts 15:29 decree was just a recommendation to prevent stumbling.
Does anyone know how long the WT held to this belief about the Apostolic decree. When did the WT start saying it was a command?
Apostolic Decree Just A Recommendation - Russell
by allyouneedislove 3 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
jwfacts
What I can find is the following, though it may not be the earliest mention of such things.
Watchtower 1927 Dec p.371 is the first time eatting blood was banned. This was not a reference to Acts 15, but rather to saying that Noah's covenant was "everlasting".
Watchtower 1945 Jul 1 pp.199,200 Specifically refers to Acts 15 and Acts 21 and claims that these things were part of the everlasting covenant of Noah. It extends this to blood transfusions.
-
wobble
If this was so important to Jehovah, why did he not make this clear until 1945 ? Surely he should have told his FDS this at least by 1919 so that none of the Bible Students accepted a BT from then on?
Of course the whole silly Rutherfordian and Knorr inspired killer doctrines are based on the idea that a BT is "feeding" which is utter nonsense, so none of the dietary laws in the Bible from Noah to Acts 15, have any relevance to the use of blood to save life as a medical procedure.
There is not one scripture, or even vague "Bible principle" so beloved of the WT, that has a bearing on this matter.
Yet they still insist on taking the life of JW's by their erroneous teaching, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses are Blood-guilty murderers.
-
Larsinger58
This is another issue where there is just dishonesty. The Bible clearly says not to worry about anything bought in a meat market and it clearly says when at the house of an unbeliever to eat everything without question.
So the context issues about "eating blood" is conditional on two things:
1) If it violates the weak conscience of a believer.
2) The context of the meal, whether with a believer or a non-believer.
When you consider the above you have harmony with the idea that a "rule" was made about abstaining from blood only applied to the context of that particular congregation since eating blood outside that context was perfectly okay if your conscience allowed it.
The dishonesty comes in for the WTS because they want to ignore the scripture that you can eat anything you want when you are with non-believers, which means it is not a sin. The rule to abstain from blood was just a resolution to a local issue within the congregational setting. Yet the WTS wants to make that a personal issue always, ignoring the scriptures that says that nothing you eat can defile you. NOTHING! Allow me to quote that scripture:
Matt 15: 11 Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that defiles a man.”
12 Then the disciples came up and said to him: “Do you know that the Pharisees stumbled at hearing what you said?” 13 In reply he said: “Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. 14 L ET them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” 15 By way of response Peter said to him: “Make the illustration plain to us.” 16 At this he said: “Are YOU also yet without understanding? 17 Are YOU not aware that everything entering into the mouth passes along into the intestines and is discharged into the sewer? 18 However, the things proceeding out of the mouth come out of the heart, and those things defile a man. 19 For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies. 20 These are the things defiling a man; but to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
Now what does this mean? It's pretty simple, right. No longer under the law, dietary issues are no longer applicable. If I go out into the yard and pick up a straw and start to chew on it, is that a sin? No. NOTHING you eat can defile you. That means tobacco or blood. Blood too? Yes! This is clear from where the Bible tells us that any dietary rules that might be in place for the sake of the weak conscience of a brother can be dispensed with in the company of an unbeliever. Thus:
1 COR 10:25 " Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU , making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. "
OKAY. Is that ambiguous? What does "everything" mean? Everything means everything. That means blood products or meats that might not have been drained of blood per Jewish tradition. What is this scripture here for? It is to emphasize Christians are no longer under law and in particular dietary restrictions. It is saying don't worry about where the meat came from. It is saying, don't worry about what a non-believer might serve you, because as a mature Christian not under the Law, you have no dietary restrictions at all now.
But the WTS, being the "man of lawlessness" that is, wants you to ignore this and it wants to make an exception for its own issues. They don't like blood and they don't like tobacco. Where in the Bible does it say, even under Jewish Law that you are not to eat tobacco? Nowhere! The tobacco issue is their own hang-up. They see tobacco as a "defilement" of the flesh when the Bible clearly says nothing you eat can defile you.
I think I can get a consensus on this. It is pretty straightforward that we abstain from eating certain things that might violate the weak conscience of our brothers, but otherwise, there are no restrictions on what a mature Christian can eat. Yet the WTS has made it a disfellowshipping offense in the case of tobacco. They are imposing a burden on their brothers that Christ himself has not imposed. Plus they are missing the principle here of what it means not to be under the Law. If you are allowed to buy anything in a meatmarket without regard to your conscience, clearly there are no dietary restrictions for a Christian.
But, again, this is why the Bible refers to the GB as the "man of lawlessness." It breaks God's laws and disregards God's laws. Remember, the MOL rises up in the company of other glorious ones, meaning in God's own house, the public congregation of the anointed ones. It makes itself a god over these in God's own house. So we know the MOL has to arise among JWs. Clearly this is a reference, then, to the GB which makes itself a God in God's own house, making rules of their own in contradiction to scripture.
So at the end of the day, with no restriction on eating blood or tobacco or anything else, the issue of a life-saving blood transfusion is a moot point.
Jesus gave his blood, his life, to save the world. If you could save someone by giving only some of your blood, wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do? Isn't giving your blood to save someone else imitating Christ? Of course it is!
Also you have the issue of what the Law was for. It was symbolic. But under certain circumstances, the Law was broken. That was in particular when there was some life threatening situation, like a domestic animal that might fall into a ditch on the sabbath. So even if there was some basis for Christians abstaining from blood, which there is not, in a life-threatening situation, that law would be set aside. So even consider that aspect of applying the law, clearly the issue of "eating blood" would be set aside to save a life!
As a final point, even while under the Law, you could eat blood under certain circumstances, such as in the case where an animal had been killed by a wild beast and was not properly drained. In that case, you could eat the meat with the only consequence being you'd be considered "unclean" until the evening, meaning you could not participate at the temple. But if a woman was menstruating or anyone had sex that involved an emission of semen, you'd be unclean as well. So being "unclean" was a regular event, it wasn't a sin deserving of death like the WTS is making the blood issue.
But this was prophesied about the MOL in the Bible where it notes some would arise and restrict certain foods. That's the WTS!
The WTS is now "apostate" and the GB was "disfellowshipped" from Jehovah's heavenly organization on November 10, 1992. That's the reality on the spiritual side of things.
LS