Christians and Blood: The Real Story

by AGuest 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  My dearest brother in Christ, Fiver... may you have peace!

  Thank you for your "second" witness to the truth regarding what we can/should give for our "friends".

  To Paduan and Joe Malik... may you both have peace... and may I take this opportunity to respond to the issue of James, blood and holy spirit? Thank you! (And please forgive that I have started a new thread: I heard... and I obeyed.)

  I find it quite wonderful that I was permitted to discuss this very matter and WHY the additional decree by James earlier just this evening. All praise is due to the Most High God, whose name is JAH... of Armies... and His Son and Christ, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHJAH... for the revelation of truth, by means of holy spirit!

  Dear ones, abstaining from blood was a prohibition under the Law Covenant; however, LOVE... was the Law's FULFILLMENT, as well as the one and only "law" of the NEW Covenant. In that light, when people of the nations (Israelite and non-Israelite - the former being Samaritans, who make up the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel; the second being the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah/BenJahMin (Jews)) were taken into the New Covenant, there were few commandments/prohibitions put upon them, other than to "love God with your whole heart, mind, soul and strength," and "love your neighbor as yourself." On those two alone, "the whole Law" hung, yes? Thus, in whatever one was doing, one must take into consideration God... and one's neighbor.

  The Gentiles (which are non-Jews, so that also included Israelites (Samaritans), like Cornelius and his family), had left off living under the Law Covenant when they left off worshipping at the temple in Jerusalem. (That's why the woman at the well, a Samaritan, is recorded to have said to my Lord, "OUR ancestors (talking about her AND his, all 12 tribes) USED to worship in this mountain, but YOU people (the Jews (2-tribe kingdom of Judah) vs. the Samaritans (10-tribe kingdom of Israel) say we ought to worship in Jerusalem (at the temple there)."

  In leaving off such temple worship, the Israelite Gentiles (Samaritans) had also left off following many of the commandments of the Law Covenant, including abstaining from blood and eating things sacrificed to idols, etc. And non-Israelite Gentiles also were not circumcised. Now these things were VERY dear and sacred to the Jews, so that when holy spirit was first poured out, one of the things they went around teaching was that everyone needed to get circumcised. BUT... my Lord said nothing of this when he instituted the New Covenant: he gave no commandment.

  The Jews, however, having 'weak' consciences, were insisting on it. Well, Peter tried to stop them, but they only listened to him for a short while. After awhile they went right back to requiring it, until Paul and Barnabas heard about it on one of their journeys (the Gentiles told them that some men had come up from Jerusalem and said they needed to be circumcised). Well, Paul and Barnabas decided to journey to Jerusalem to see if this was true, that the Gentiles were required to be circumcised, for they had 'heard' nothing of it from holy spirit.

  Once they got to Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas told the JEWS there who had "received" Christ, by means of having "received" holy spirit, that they had been far and wide and met many Gentiles who also had "received" Christ/holy spirit, and yet, they were not circumcised. And such uncircumcision had no effect on their spirituality. (The issue arose again, so that Paul got angry and said that he wished those who taught it would actually go ahead and just cut off the whole thing - uh, their own, mind you!) So, Paul said he was there to try and help the JEWISH brothers see the "burden" such a requirement would impose. (NOTE: A "Jew" is not just a religion (Judaism), but a nationality - "nation" ality... assigned to those of the "nation" or "tribes" of Judah and BenJahMin.)

  Once Paul finished speaking, JAMES made the decision that circumcision was indeed unnecessary. IN ADDITION, however, he "added" a small "burden" to the Gentiles now joined to Jews by means of Christ:

  Drinking blood was part of Gentile rituals/traditions, that originally had "religious" meaning (i.e., used in their worship in imitation of the "nation" to which they had been dispersed, Assyria, a very bloodthirsty lot). Over the centuries/milleniums, however, origins get... well, "lost". People forget WHY they do stuff; they just know that they do it, they always have. Much like the Christmas tree today: folks forget where it originated... and WHY. Time passes and people forget.

  Anyway, drinking blood to the JEWS, however, was something they just couldn't get past. They were/would have been... STUMBLED... perhaps even drinking themselves... AGAINST THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE... which would have made it a "sin". So... in order to FULFILL THE "LAW" OF THE NEW COVENANT... which is LOVE... JAMES... made a decision. AND... because the decision was BASED ON LOVE... and DECIDED OUT OF LOVE... HOLY SPIRIT CORROBORATED IT!

  Thus, when James presented his "decision" to the others, their spirit... BORE WITNESS WITH THE TRUTH of what James intended... to ACCOMMODATE THE JEWS... rather than impose upon their consciences. And... IT WAS BACKED UP BY HOLY SPIRIT! For holy spirit ALWAYS manifests love!

  Thus, Paul was also able to tell some to not worry about their consciences but to eat whatever was set before them! Why? Because when offered a meal by someone, one should not... OUT OF LOVE... question the origin of such meal! Why? First, it would be quite rude and ungracious to do so; second, because such rudeness would be UNLOVING; and third, because one could then be guilty of imposing on the conscience of the one providing it!

  All things, then, dear ones, we are to do... OUT OF LOVE... IF we truly a party to the NEW Covenant! Thus, if LOVE prompts you to give your life... your BLOOD... for your brother, neighbor, friend... or enemy... then there is NO SIN! For LOVE... is a "fruit" of God's spirit... and against such thing... THERE IS NO LAW! In fact, love... "COVERS A MULTITUDE OF TRANGRESSIONS!"

  On the other hand, if LOVE prompts you to ABSTAIN from blood... in any way... because of the CONSCIENCE of another who is just not "there" yet, not ready, willing or able to be "FREE"... then there also is no "sin" in such abstinence! For again, LOVE... was the deciding factor. And against such thing... LOVE... there is NO law!

  I bid you all peace... and that you have ears to hear... what the Spirit truly says in regard to this matter, as well as what the Spirit... and the Bride... KEEP saying:

  "Come! Take "life's water"... which is the spirit of God... HOLY SPIRIT... which is poured out and granted us by means of His Son and Christ, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH... and which, if we receive it... becomes in us... "a fountain bubbling up... to impart everlasting life..."

  Come, all you who are wishing, you who are hearing, you who are thirsting... come...

  Take "life's water"... FREE!

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Dizzy Cat

  Interesting reading there mate. I think you have the right angle on the scripture. I have read this explanation before by amongst others - JanH.

  The Watchtower guys take the reading out of context quite clearly and as you say - the blood issue is a matter of personal conscience and not an absolute rule for Christians to obey.

  I think most right minded people would not drink blood anyway, as such. This is clearly to my way of thinking, quite perverse (although I am vegetarian as well, which enforces this viewpoint further).

  However, as many of us know, using components of blood (the whole part, or fractions of) during a medical procedure is different and could be viewed as "caring & sharing" - helping to preserve life without slaughter. This is also done with full consent. A little different to the blood-letting that took place in some quarters around the time of Christ (whether that be animal or human sacrifice).
• 

  A Paduan

  Sounds like a good expose of the actual story behind it - though I believe that He (the Holy Spirit) thought it good to inspire the apostles that we should keep this law in mind; a thousand years being but a day.

  paduan

  Edited by - A paduan on 2 September 2002 7:27:22
• 

  JosephMalik

  Well, Paul and Barnabas decided to journey to Jerusalem to see if this was true, that the Gentiles were required to be circumcised, for they had 'heard' nothing of it from holy spirit.

  SJ (A Guest)

  Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by the Antioch congregation to correct this error before it spread further. And Paul showed little respect for the views of James, Cehpas and John on this matter. The details are contained in Galatians.

  2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
  4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no mans person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: . . . 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

  Paul did not yield but Paul did not grasp the fact that the such Jews would continue in this teaching which they seemed to release the Gentiles from so he had to return to Jerusalem many years later to deal with it once again.

  The term holy spirit has many uses, but in some texts it simply refers to the meeting itself or someone in the assembly that is preaching. There is no particular miraculous significance to this word or such decisions and they can be good or bad, whatever the case may be. Notice.

  Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

  No miracle here. No voice out of the clouds. No visions, just discussion, prayer, fasting and a statement given by one in the assembly that was not identified by name but by the term holy spirit.

  Nearly all of Pauls letters are full of this struggle that he had with Christian Jews throughout his territories and his counsel to them. But if any think James and the Jerusalem congregation was not in error then do you agree with his decision to force Paul into the Temple to take Nazarite vows so at to please the rest of the congregation in Jerusalem, convincing them that you also believe in the LAW? After all were they not the Governing Body of the time?

  Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

  No idle request this one. Failure to comply would have cost Paul his life and Paul needed time to reason with them. But as it turned out they nearly killed him anyway. It would finally take a letter called the book of Hebrews to correct this error once and for all time. And it would only be then that James would write Jews everywhere that their word is all that mattered not LAW.

  James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. . . 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this mans religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

  James should know. He did not belive in such liberty when he confrunted Paul but now he has changed his mind and letting Jews everywhere know of his change of heart.

  Joseph

  Edited by - JosephMalik on 2 September 2002 10:21:2

  Edited by - JosephMalik on 2 September 2002 10:23:17
• 

  nancee park

  AGuest, you slipped in a misstatement about the Christmas tree which came not from pagan tree worship as World Book and many other sources keep repeating, but as modern scholarship has shown from its being used starting in medieval Europe with the Tree of Life in Genesis that was depicted in church plays. That was its most immediate origin prior to entering Christian churches and homes. Even common sense reasoning casts doubt that Christians would deliberately have taken it from pagan tree worship.

  Other points about blood. 1 Samuel 14:32-5 says Saul's whole army includign Jonathan ate unBLED meat to live, and yet God did not kill them. At most Saul had the men build an altar, likely a mound of boulders as a remembrance that their using blood had been no wantonly done but as a dire emergency. Christ in Matthew 12 points out David and his men ate the Temple's holy bread which was normally an act bringing execution due to blasphemy, but God forgave them because it was an emergency to save life. At verse 7 Christ says "God wants mercy, not sacrifice."

  Finally, in nature we see Jehovah's will where he has most normal identical twins transfuse blood to each other through a shared placenta. Sometimes researchers have found whole blood from children which mothers gave birth to still in the mother many years after birth, showing there sometimes is some whole blood transfusion between mother and child.
• 

  Dizzy Cat

  Strangely Nancee, I knew you'd jump in concerning the "Christmas Tree" comment

  A good resource (although the site looks tatty) concerning the origins of "bringing in the tree" can be found at:

  http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm

  I believe, as do most who study the origin, that it has nothing to do with Bible based religion.

  Remember, I am not a Christian, so have no hidden agenda here.
• 

  A Paduan

  holy spirit has many uses, but in some texts it simply refers to the meeting itself

  Well, it could/may be - but I don't think it's for me.

  "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things"

  paduan

  Edited by - a paduan on 2 September 2002 17:33:13
• 

  JosephMalik

  "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things",

  Paduan,

  And what were these things? Languages so they could reach the masses faster. It was a mental thing not a person. The verse could just as well have been translated as, It will teach you all things. The truth, the message, that was taught to them over the years they walked with our Lord. And still they did not get it all right, always arguing among themselves as to who would be greatest.

  Now other verses use the term differently as shown. One application does not apply to all. This requires us to think a little and not jump to conclusions such as yours.

  Joseph
• 

  stichione

  Excellent post Joseph Malik!