Elders/Ex-Elders: Question about Blood

by JWdaughter 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter

    After many years of objecting to the WT teachings on many levels, blood being one of them, I recently started to wonder (ok, I am slow!) : What exactly does the WT think that the early non Jewish Christians were abstaining from in the blood abstention bit. While I understand the context of the request that the apostle sent to the brothers, I do not understand what JWs think they were abstaining from.

    Meat slaughtered improperly?

    Drinking blood (from a vessel or straight from a living animal) literally?

    We all know that those early Christians were not confronted with blood transfusions. So, it would seem fitting (JWSPEAK) that the WT folks would be giving up whatever kind of blood products that those early Christians did.

    I have seen JWs (and everyone else!) drain the blood from the meat trays at the grocery store. They, like many, are repulsed at the idea of blood pudding or blood sausage. I have seen their written quandries about blood in the food of their pets.

    I have never, however seen them shop for kosher or halal meat.

    So, but for blood transfusions, how are JWs abstainig from eating blood?

    (I asked elsewhere, but got no answers, just degrading comments about my person, which is typical. Please skip the bits degrading my intelligence-I have been informed already)

    Shalom, salaams and peace to all.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    I think you pretty much answered your own question: blood sausage (AKA blood pudding), and meat that was not properly bled. Some of the gentiles were eating this stuff and it was grossing out the Jews. Although some Jewish Christians were promoting the continued observance of the Law, the Christians on Paul's side wanted to abolish all those laws in order to focus on spreading the new teachings about Christ to as wide of an audience as possible, and that side eventually won out. The compromise you refer to was in Acts, when they asked the congregations to avoid the things that bothered them the most: fornication, food sacrificed to idols, and blood/strangled animals.

    Of course meat always contains at least a little blood, but any Witness who understands this reasons that it's the thought that counts. If you drain the meat, you are showing respect for the blood, therefore it's not eating the blood that is a sin, but rather the failure to be respectful and drain it of as much blood as you can. This much is in line with the original Jewish thought on the matter. Unfortunately, they then go farther and refuse to take blood even when it can save their life, which shows disrespect for life, not respect for it. Essentially they are putting the blood itself on a higher pedestal than the sanctity of life, which is what the commandment was originally about.

    It's been a while since I read it, but this page has some good reasoning points about why eating blood is not the same thing as transfusing it: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    New light since early xian days, is what I recall.

  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter

    I guess I fail to see how they are being at all observant about abstaining from blood merely by draining the meat from the tray. The reason why Jews slaughtered a certain way was TO ensure that the animal was properly dead and that they had not died with the blood just settling in the tissues. That requires more than merely draining the tray. The way animals are killed now results in the blood not being drained properly and they really have no clue whether an animal (like poultry) is strangled or not. The modern way of killing is not "kosher" in that the blood remains in the dead animal.

    I actually think you are absolutely right about what the scriptures said regarding the eating of meat/Jewish law on blood(allowable so far as NT Christianity), but I am addressing this towards the JW mindset. They are not willing to go so far as those ancient gentile Christians were expected to go so far as their diet, but they put this other burden on them, instead.

    Am I the only person that thinks that point in particular is hypocritical? More importantly, and to my question, has this ever been addressed by the WT?

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    If jehovahs witnesses were sincere in the first place on their abstention from blood , they most certainly would have adopted the practice of Kosher or halal meat . This was a practice performed way long before jehovahs witnesses were even a twinkle in C.T.Russells eye.

    The orthodox jews and the muslims adhere to the scriptures more faithfully than jehovahs witness do regarding abstaining from blood .

    smiddy

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy

    The key is what the first poster said, the Jewish Christians continued to obey the law until the temple was destroyed. They wanted the gentiles to observe the law as well and finally settled on the 4 rules mentioned in acts. But Paul disagreed and said no the law was abolished. And this idea won out.

  • cofty
    cofty

    The issue was not the need to drain all the blood from the flesh of the animal. The pouring out of the blood is a symbolic act of returning the life to god. Residual blood was never a problem.

    In a modern setting the animal is stunned, hung upside down and the blood pours out as the animal dies. This would be in keeping with OT Law. However the blood is not disposed of, it is used for all sorts of food and non-food purposes. The blood has been adequately removed from the animal but has not been poured out on the ground, returing the life to god.

    JWs eating any meat from a normal supermarket or butchers are therefore in conflict with the bible's law on blood.

  • eyeuse2badub
    eyeuse2badub

    Any blood left in meat bought at a regular supermarket or butcher shop is only the blood "fractions" that are now permitted by the WTBTS; don't ya know!

    Just saying!

    eyeuse2badub

  • TheWonderofYou
    TheWonderofYou
    JW daughter: Am I the only person that thinks that point in particular is hypocritical? More importantly, and to my question, has this ever been addressed by the WT?

    That could serve as answer, but it sounds really odd.

    The Governing Body knows about that allegations and in 2004 to the opposite it called the zealous Jews "hypocrites" by applying Matthew 23,23,24 to them. Those zealous hypocrites would have forgotten the deeper meaning of the law and had invented unnecessary "draining rituals", which the GB called "varied reactions" to the divine law. Such zealousness and hyocracy had lead them to disregard the sense of the law, namely justice, mercy and faithfulness.

    Consequently the Governing body thinks that any form of complicated draining "rituals" can be called hypocracy because they are unneccesary. It should have remained in the beliefers conscience how to drain an animal even under the mosaic law what the hypocrites neglected though.

    The modern time governing body like 1st centruy GB-Apostoloci council is well aware of this fact and therefore it reestablished the Noachidic laws for all mankind.

    Do you see that something does not match up with the GB?

    Imagine a zealous Jew facing such issues. He might have thought it safest to avoid meat sold in a meat market, much as another would shun meat if there was a chance that it was once offered to an idol. Other Jews might have eaten meat only after following rituals to extract the blood.* (Matthew 23:23, 24) What do you think about such varied reactions? Furthermore, since God did not require such reactions, would it be best for Jews to send a multitude of questions to a council of rabbis to get a ruling on each one? Though that custom developed in Judaism, we can be happy that Jehovah did not direct true worshipers to pursue decisions about blood in that way.

    God offered basic guidance on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood, but he did not go beyond that.—John 8:32.

    http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004445?q=koshering&p=par#h=19

    "basic guidance on slaughtering"? Please what exactly is this basic guidance today? This paragraph above frome the watchtower? Draining the animal how you like, killling it how you like?

    As according to the Governing Body today the laws given to Noah are again valid for mankind (not only for gentiles but even for Jews), what do the Noachidic laws demand in regard of draining blood? Did the GB in the meantime receive the information about basic guidance and where can we read it?

    Slaughtering animals Insight book

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000281

    These dietary limitations applied only to those who were under the Mosaic Law, for the statement of Leviticus 11:8 is: “They are unclean for you,” that is, for the Israelites. With the abrogation of the Law on the basis of the sacrificial death of Christ Jesus, the prohibitions were canceled, and

    once more all humans could consider themselves under the same broad provision announced to Noah following the Deluge.Col 2:13-17; Ge 9:3, 4.

    Were can we find exactly the easy understandable basic guidance in regard to slaugther that were transmitted to Noah and the Apostoli Council and to the modern day GB only so as not to fall into any form of hypocracy and acts of awful "rituals" of kosher slaughter or koshering that some hyocrites perform?

    The GB assures us that the Apostolic council considered all facts. Facts that are considered even by the modern Govering body.

    When an Israelite killed a sheep, how quickly did he have to drain its blood? Did he have to slit the animal’s throat for drainage? Was it necessary to hang the sheep by its hind legs? For how long? What would he do with a large cow? Even after drainage, some blood might remain in the meat. Could he eat such meat? Who would decide?..... Furthermore, since God did not require such reactions, would it be best for Jews to send a multitude of questions to a council of rabbis to get a ruling on each one

    It was really hard for many jewish christians to understand that there religion was obsolete, since the "law" was abrogated completely. As the law was not valid the apostels being jews had to break of slowly all the jewish habits like going to the temple, think about the Mosaic laws, read in the hebrew bible about Mosaic law, or to slaughter like hypocrites and they had to learn again doing everyhting only like it was told to NOAH after the Deluge.

    That was not difficult because the GB thinks that God guided them.

    Christians differ in the extent to which they have made progress in learning what God says, in being sensitive to his thinking, and in applying such to their decisions. We can illustrate this with the Jews and the eating of meat

    Yes indeed the Apostels had to learn slowly that their customs were obssolet. If the Mosaic laws was obsolote, why do JW think about it so much?

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel
    JWDaughter » They, like many, are repulsed at the idea of blood pudding or blood sausage. I have seen their written quandries about blood in the food of their pets.

    Yeah, I'm repulsed by blood products as well. But trying to keep pets from eating blood is as ridiculous as expecting them to keep the feasts and the sabbaths! (Although my cat is always up for a good feast regardless of the reason.)

    So, but for blood transfusions, how are JWs abstaining from eating blood?

    If God had wanted to make an exception of giving or receiving blood for medical reasons, how, exactly, could He have done that in Old Testament times? But isn't this the reason there's a governing body, to act as a chain of command? Perhaps God never intended the prohibition against blood to include medical procedures but how would we know? If we draw a line and say God can no longer speak to man, then what good is a governing body or elders? Or even having a church? There have been cases where the parents of a child talk to doctors and are on the verge of allowing them to save their child, only to have some elders arrive and chat with them in a private room and change their minds. It's infuriating, but what can be done? The state can come in and overrule them, but that takes time.

    The WBTS has a twisted exegesis in this issue and no other Christian church is foolish enough to buy into it, but the Sociey makes another twist and uses their strange interpretation to show others that it alone is God's organization.

    The blood doctrine specifically exists because blood is the life of man, and it's widely used in evil rituals. BTW, Wiki-Leaks has exposed some of the top leaders in a certain political party as participating in some very sick blood and cannibalistic rites that are likely tied into pedophilia and possibly human sacrifice.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit