Does Jesus refute the Watchtower Blood prohibition? (page 2)

Vidiot

Terry - "Does Jesus refute the Watchtower Blood prohibition?"

Hmph.

As far as I'm concerned, Jesus' teachings refute damn near everything in WT ideology.

cofty

The Jesus character exhibits an almost fanatical devotion to the Torah - TD

I think this is avery important point.

The Jesus of the gospels never broke the Law. He defied the Pharisees interpretation of the sabbath that went beyond the requirements of the Torah.

This is how we must approach it if we are to help sincere JWs.

We need to find common ground with JW friends or relatives if we are going to help them to reason. For the sake of argument we can concede the following;

1. Blood was sacred under The Law.

2. Blood represents life.

3. It was a capital offense to use blood for any purpose other than to offer it as a sacrifice on the altar.

4. All of the restrictions about blood are just as binding on Christians as they were on OT Jews.

It doesn't matter if you agree with all four of these points or not. They believe them, and we can concede all of them and start from there...

Blood was only sacred in so far as it represented a life that had been taken. Just an Israelite could eat the unbled flesh of an animal found "already dead", in the case of a transfusion no life has been taken therefore none of the prohibitions regarding blood apply in a modern medical scenario.

Finkelstein

Blood was only sacred in so far as it represented a life that had been taken. Just an Israelite could eat the unbled flesh of an animal found "already dead", in the case of a transfusion no life has been taken therefore none of the prohibitions regarding blood apply in a modern medical scenario.

I think you clarified that better than myself Cofty

In hypothetically reasoning this blood law would be assumed if a person was to be killed so that their blood could be drained and transfused to another.

Island Man

I think that the easiest most logical rebuttal to the blood issue is to simply point to the fact that Jehovah made blood to flow in the veins so it is not a violation of the blood law for us to use our own native blood flowing in our veins. Therefore it should also not be a violation to accept a transfusion because transfused blood is being used in the veins just as our own native blood would be used. The prohibition on blood has nothing to do with the source of the blood and everything to do with the use to which the blood is being put. Using it as food is wrong, but using it in the veins as God created it to be used, cannot be wrong. Common sense 101.

cofty

The prohibition on blood has nothing to do with the source of the blood and everything to do with the use to which the blood is being put.

Not really. The Law did not permit anything to be done with blood other than offer it on the altar or pour it out on the ground. In both cases there was a symbolism of returning a life to the lifegiver.

In the case of a transfusion no life has been taken and therefore the blood has no symbolic value. In the same way an Israelite could eat an animal found "already dead" even though it could not be bled since no life was taken.

Vidiot

As far as I'm concerned, all the scriptural rebuttals against the WT blood prohibition are kind of moot.

x

JWs reject transfusions because - at their core - they're afraid of being ostracized by their peers.

In my observation, it's when doubting JWs get to the point where they no longer give a shit about whether or not they're shunned that they're truly willing to entertain alternate interpretations of scripture.

I could be wrong.

Terry

TD,

http://ehrmanblog.org/accuracy-acts-part-2-members/

Bart Ehrman:

We could deal forever with the question of the historical accuracy of Acts. There are entire books devoted to the problem and even to *aspects* of the problem, and different scholars come to different conclusions. My own view is that since Acts is at odds with Paul just about every time they talk about the same thing, that it is probably not to be taken as very accurate, especially in its detail.

Finkelstein

they're afraid of being ostracized by their peers.

and because the organization has a rigidly devised doctrine that says not to ,ie. the no blood cards.

Taking BT still creates all kinds of personal havoc and trouble ie. an elder would lose his position as an elder etc.

Others may lose their privileges in giving talks and going out in service , not to mention the in house gossip that happens in congregations. The intervening personal involvement of being a JWS can not be over stated.

Finkelstein

Jesus would refute the no blood doctrine established by the WTS based upon his own guiding instruction to care for the sick and to respect life, loving one another as his greatest commandment.

The no BT doctrine hasn't been adopted by any other Christian based faith for a reason, because its not breaking the Mosaic laws of the OT and that doing so falls inline with Christian values set out by Jesus himself..

Crazyguy

Nothing taking in by a man can defile him. mark 7:18 , Jesus supposedly said this.

Does Jesus refute the Watchtower Blood prohibition?

Share this