TD, I reposted your points on grammar here.
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Giles Gray
@ Rocketman
“Realistically the No Blood doctrine was devised out of personal opinion that should have never have been constituted as a you must do this or you will be disfellowshiped as a JWS”
I think the Watchtower is stuck with this doctrine. If they were to step back from that position now, and make their stand on blood a conscience issue, the lawsuits against them would be overwhelming. I believe that they know their position on blood is incorrect but they need to maintain that stance for fear of litigation.
The reason I say that is because during my research I had a brief look into their apologetics regarding 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10, and how the Watchtower defends the fact that food sacrificed to idols was optional. If abstaining from food offerings isn’t mandatory, it stands to reason that the scripture in Acts 15:29 cannot possibly be compulsory.
As far as I could find, the last time that the Watchtower addressed the contradiction of food offerings to idols was way back in the late 1970s. The spin they put on those chapters in 1 Corinthians is all too evident. They claim the food offered to idols was only to do with the taking part in the ceremonial eating of the meat.
This didn’t seem logical. Taking part in that kind of ceremony would have been considered idolatry. The scripture in Acts specifically states to refrain from eating the food offered to idols. If idolatry was the issue, why not just state to abstain from idolatry? Though Paul does address the eating of meat and taking part in idol worship, the Watchtower article doesn’t harmonise with the context of the rest of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, or his letter to the Romans.
I believe the Watchtower knows that their stance on blood is questionable. If that is true it means they are knowingly promoting a prohibition that needlessly risks people’s lives. They are putting their member’s live at risk for the sake of protecting themselves from the backlash of a doctrine they know is not upheld scripturally.
@ TD
Many thanks for making such an interesting post.
I think I will have to go back over it a few times. It’s been a while since I have considered an ‘intransitive verb’ and a ‘finite verb’. Grammar was not my best subject.
Another very simple point I am itching to ask an apologist is to do with the motivation of why the Council of Jerusalem was called for in the first place.
The only reason why observance of the Law was being considered was because of the insistence of the Jewish Christians, demanding that the Gentile brothers follow the Law. Noteworthy is the fact that these Jewish Christians were speaking out of turn.
The bible says:-
“Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions…” (Acts 15:24)
The decisions in Jerusalem were only made because the Jewish brothers were going against the leadership of the apostles.
Had the Jewish Christians not stirred up trouble in the congregations, the issue of the Gentiles and the Law would never have been addressed, which means that the Gentiles would not have been asked to follow those parts of the Law. They would have continued alongside the Jewish brothers as they had for the previous 13 years.
-
Bobcat
Had the Jewish Christians not stirred up trouble in the congregations, the issue of the Gentiles and the Law would never have been addressed, which means that the Gentiles would not have been asked to follow those parts of the Law. They would have continued alongside the Jewish brothers as they had for the previous 13 years.
That is a very good point GG.
As an aside, does anyone know where the article is wherein WT encourages JW healthcare workers to report blood use (or other WT health infractions) by other JWs to their elders?
-
TD
I think I will have to go back over it a few times. It’s been a while since I have considered an ‘intransitive verb’ and a ‘finite verb’. Grammar was not my best subject.
It can be confusing. I notice somebody on the board Bobcat mentioned above read through the entire post including the examples and didn't understand one single, solitary word it
Abstain and its synonyms (Refrain, Forebear, etc.) negate action. The fundamental meaning it to, "Keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something." (I'm quoting the American Heritage Dictionary here)
When that action is clearly understood, it is normal in everyday, conversational English to omit it, as in, Abstain from fatty foods or Abstain from wine. (The individual on the other board mentions sex, but that is not a legitimate example because that word doubles as both a noun and a verb.)
What's actually happening here is that the listener is mentally completing the thought themselves. The former is clearly a reference to eating fatty foods and the latter is clearly a reference to drinking wine
Conversational English is not the same thing as written composition and using the word, "Abstain" when the context is not clearly understood, as in "Abstain from boat" is most certainly ungrammatical.
This whole conversation can be bypassed with a JW simply by pointing out that they have acknowledged on a number of occasions that the mention of blood at Acts 15 was a reiteration of the prohibition against eating it in the Law. A good example can be found in their older Bible Dictionary, (The blue one) under the heading, Paul, but there are plenty of others too.
-
Phizzy
" the mention of blood at Acts 15 was a reiteration of the prohibition against eating it in the Law. "
And that destroys any argument that the Prohibition is about Transfusions. Thanks TD, couldn't be more concise.
And if you understand and acknowledge the context of Acts 15, any JW would have to be honest and say this advice was for 1st Century Christians, where fully practicing Orthodox Jewish people, who were also Christians, had fellowship with Gentile Christians. That situation never happens today.
-
Earnest
Bobcat : ... does anyone know where the article is wherein WT encourages JW healthcare workers to report blood use (or other WT health infractions) by other JWs to their elders?
You may be thinking of the article "A Time to Speak" - When in the Watchtower of September 1, 1987, pp.12-15. However, the illustration given in that article is on abortion not blood use, although clearly the same principles would apply.
Atlantis had a post on the article here.
-
TD
And that destroys any argument that the Prohibition is about Transfusions. Thanks TD, couldn't be more concise.
From what I've seen in JW literature, this is not unusual (i.e. A facile treatment of a subject in one publication is undermined by a more thorough treatment in another.)
The JW Bible Encyclopedia, Insight On The Scriptures Vol II page 587 states with regard to the Decree:
"The decision then made was that circumcision was not required for Gentile believers but that they should keep free from idolatry, from eating and drinking of blood and from sexual immorality."
So clearly they do understand that the phrase, "Keep abstaining...from blood" was specific to its context
There is a view common among Bible scholars that the Decree was simply a temporary measure to ease the tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The wording is actually pretty weak. In both English and Ancient Greek the connotation is clearly one of voluntary compliance.
The JW parent organization argues against this viewpoint by (You guessed it) linking it back to earlier commands and/or appealing to scholars who do:
For example the October 22, 1990 issue of Awake! said on page 15:
“But those who respect the Creator's wishes do not treat it that way. 'You must not eat blood' was God's command to Noah and his descendants—all mankind. (Genesis 9:4) Eight centuries later He put that command in his Law to the Israelites. Fifteen centuries later he reaffirmed it once again to the Christian congregation: 'Abstain from blood.'—Acts 15:20.”
The June 15, 1991 Watchtower said on page 9:
“The early Christians upheld that divine prohibition. Commenting thereon, British scholar Joseph Benson said: "This prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites . . . has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation."
The June 15, 1978 issue of The Watchtower said on page 23:
“In "Origin and Beginnings of Christianity," Professor Eduard Meyer commented that the meaning of "blood" in Acts 15:29 was "the partaking of blood that was forbidden through the law (Gen. 9:4) imposed on Noah and so also on mankind as a whole."
So again, it is clear from both their direct statements and the authoritative sources they have chosen to appeal to that the JW's do understand that the mention of blood in the Decree was a reiteration of existing commands against eating it.If we want to go back even farther, blood fractions were originally allowed on the basis that they did not qualify as "food."
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden...
...And so also in the days of the apostles; it was in connection with eating meat sacrificed to idols that the eating of strangled animals and blood was forbidden." (The Watchtower September 15 1958 p. 575)So yet again, it's very apparent that they do understand the phrase. It's only by ripping it out of its context and invoking it as an independent construction that they apply it transfusion -
jhine
Another example of the danger of taking verses out of context.
All really good points on here. Thank you for all your effort Giles .
Jan
-
St George of England
Didnt former member Cofty write the same thing a year or 2 back ?
"Former Member"? Have I missed something?
George
-
Rocketman123
Lets say there was a medical procedure of withdrawing blood from a person who died and that blood was used in a blood transfusion, then the JWS's no blood doctrine would certainly have viability and strength.
Obviously this isn't the case though the blood has not been withdrawn from a person who had died and has been taken out with no particular or detrimental health issue.