Christians CAN eat blood.

by proplog2 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    According to the Bible, God only forbade Noah from eating blood from an animal that HE KILLED, in order to show respect for the LIFE he took.

    Genesis 9:3-7 (NKJV): Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it."

    Notice that God was talking to Noah about humans SHEDDING blood -- in other words, KILLING.

    (Also, since the Society claims JW's are still under Noah's Law on Blood, then why are JW's NOT under Noah's Law on having lots of children and multiplying?)

    That is why God ONLY gave the death penalty under the Law for eating blood from an animal KILLED BY HUMANS.

    God said that people could eat animals WITH blood that DIED ON THEIR OWN, but that they would simply be unclean for the day and have to bathe.

    The one Scripture about blood that the Watchtower Society almost NEVER mentions is Leviticus 11:39-40:

    Leviticus 11:39-40 (NKJV): 'And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

    Leviticus 17: 15-16: "And every person who eats what died naturally or what was torn by beasts, whether he is a native of your own country or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Then he shall be clean. But if he does not wash them or bathe his body, then he shall bear his guilt."

    A Jew who ate an animal WITH BLOOD inside that died ON ITS OWN or that was killed by another animal (in other words, an animal that was NOT killed by humans), simply had to clean up and bathe. That was his ONLY "punishment". It was the same "punishment" as carrying the dead animal or touching the dead animal.

    Now, let's look at Acts:

    Acts 15: 19-20 (NKJV): Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

    Acts 21: 25 (NKJV): But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided *that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

    Notice, what was forbidden in Acts was obviously eating blood from animals that were "strangled" (killed by humans) -- and it did not forbid eating blood from animals that died on their own.

    Conclusion: Since blood transfusions are donated by LIVING HUMANS, and since the donor DOES NOT DIE, there is NOTHING wrong with blood transfusions according to the Holy Bible!

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    I'm going to change around Matthew 23:16-22 and apply it to blood:

    Matthew 23: 16-22 (Applied to blood): "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by a person's LIFE, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the BLOOD of that person, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the blood OR the person that has the blood? Therefore he who swears by a person's life, swears by it and by all things inside that person, including the blood.

    I don't want to change any Scriptures or anything, I just want to show how Matthew 23:16-22 can be used with reference to the Society's blood policies.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    "Fornication" may alternately have been a reference to temple rituals that involved sex with dedicated "prostitutes" (actually not paid whores). And "things strangled" is likely a reference to the practice of offering strangled sacrifices to certain Greek gods and therefore a near repetition of the "things sacrificed to idols" or alternately it may have had nothing to do with eating but merely a condemnation of offering to these Greek gods. This last prohibition was evidently added later to the text as it does not occur in all early Greek manuscripts. The author(s) was not only expecting his Gentile readers to be accomodating to the Jewish ritual avoidance of blood but also insisting that they cease the religious practices they had formerly participated in.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit