Rereading Acts 15 to 2 Elders that xame to our house infuriated them. The chapt. opens with Judeo-Christians insisting that the Pauline-Christians "observe the Law of Moses"(vs.5) The idea is offensive to the Pauline Christians labeling the Law as a burdensome "yoke".In the story an effort is made to unite the two sides in a compromise.
It was encouraged that Paul's group respect certain items deemed "necessary" in the Law of Moses, so as not to stumble or offend Jewish Christians. This is clear in the wording of verses 19-21. James declares it is HIS decision to not "trouble" the Pauline Christians with observing all the fine details of the Law that the Jewish Christians were doing. He urges them to abstain from these 4 items "for...Moses has those who preach him in city after city. And this words are read aloud in the synagoues on every sabbath."
Clearly the issue was how to unite the groups and how to effectively preach in areas that were predominantly Jewish.
[note:I am not suggesting that the Acts story relates actual events but it may reflect the efforts to unite the Jesus sects under the hierchy of the protoorthodox church]
As was commented on earlier 1 Cor. 18-31 parallels this Acts story in it's theology. The matter of abstaining from eating things sacrificed to idol, and things strangled(the preferred method of sacrificing to Zeus and other Greek gods) is deemed only a matter of concern if there is someone who would be stumbled over it.
This same principle (that was developed in Marcionite camp) became words of Jesus, when he is made to say, "the Sabbath is made for man not man for the Sabbath." [Mark 2:23-28] when he broke from the Sabbath Law. (he never denies such in the text, but rather defends his actions by relegating the Law to of lesser importance than human need.)
In summary then any attempt to impose the blood prohibition upon Christians is nothing other than a forced return to the Mosaic Law, a position condemned in "Paul's" writings.
Transfusion once again
by krzysiek 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
peacefulpete
-
ChristianObserver
Not wishing to highjack this interesting thread nor stymie discussion, but .....
Elamona, you might be interested in a study into prion disease and immunotherapy featured in "nature" on 6th March, 2003 which has shown some encouraging results.
Online access ( http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v422/n6927/abs/nature01457_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1073146840 ) is limited to the first paragraph of the article entitled "Monoclonal antibodies inhibit prion replication and delay the development of prion disease". Access to the entire article requires a registration process.
-
Kenneson
Neither did the writer of Acts nor the apostles and elders of the church at Jerusalem ever hear about blood transfusions. How, then, could they be condemning a future medical practice?
-
ChristianObserver
The Bible is clear on Jehovah's thoughts on abstaining from blood.
Hello SwordofJah As Acts 15 has as its context the law of Moses, and the discussion related in that chapter is to what extent the old covenant should apply to Gentile converts to christianity, could you possibly list those activities identified within the Mosaic law relating to the item "blood" which you consider remain binding on Gentile converts and from which they should abstain?
-
A Paduan
We said that blood was sacred, becaused God had thus decreed it to be so, therefore it was wrong to donate, store or give it by transfusion. It may have been wrong, but at least it was understandable.
And that's what happens when a fleshly understanding of the spiritual is opted for - and yes, fear and ignorance covered over with pride is kind of understandable
-
crinklestein
Here's the way I look at it... Jesus died for our sins. That means any sin we commit is covered by Jesus' death. The only sin that is not is the unforgivable sin which has had much debate over what that really is. JW's claim that they believe that Jesus' death covers your sins. But they also believe that you are worthy of death if you take a blood transfusion. They obviously believe this because if you have one you are disfellowshipped, which is as good as death in their eyes because if Armageddon came while you were disfellowshipped you would die.
So they are saying that there are sins that Jesus' death does not cover. They are saying that Jesus died for nothing and his death isn't as powerful as we thought. Either that or they are saying that taking a blood transfussion is the unforgivable sin! Folks, there is no sin that we commit that Jesus' death does not cover apart from the unforgivable sin and as long as we have faith then we will be fine.