rootcause
No it did not, and you are continuing to show disrespect by not having the courtesy to even answer me directly; your continual evasion speaks volumes about your character. To think you have the gall to preach at us! Get your own house in order...
It is very simple; the Bible shows there were circumstances where the consumption of blood was not punished by a death penalty, where it wasn't even required to make a report to a Priest...
15 " 'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.' "
Leviticus 17 (NIV)
Likewise, in practise, breaching the comandment to not eat blood did not result in automatic execution;
31 That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Micmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. 32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. 33 Then someone said to Saul, "Look, the men are sinning against the LORD by eating meat that has blood in it."
"You have broken faith," he said. "Roll a large stone over here at once." 34 Then he said, "Go out among the men and tell them, 'Each of you bring me your cattle and sheep, and slaughter them here and eat them. Do not sin against the LORD by eating meat with blood still in it.' "
So everyone brought his ox that night and slaughtered it there. 35 Then Saul built an altar to the LORD; it was the first time he had done this.
1 Samuel 14 (NIV)
... no mention of anyone beiong "cut off from amongst the people" as per the comandment in the Mosaic Law.
Jesus tells us the greatest comandment is to have love.
The Mosaic Law was not absolute on the subject of eating blood;
- Animals found dead (and thus unbleedable) could be consumed with the only penalty being cerimonial uncleanliness until sundown.
- Exhausted soldiers who ate blood were not killed for it.
Thus in our time for anyone to insist that taking a blood transfusion when faced with a high risk of death must result in someone being "cut off from amongst the people" by being disfellowshipped (or disassociated) is utter rubbish.
It is just like the Pharisaical elboration to god's word that Jesus despised so much, it ignores Jesus council on love and the forgiving nature he showed to those that sinned.
I will number the questions to make it easy for us to see whether you actually answer them or contiune this pathetic evasion of the issues being discussed.
I have shown the Bible shows consumption of blood (even if it was not essential to save life) was not punished by death, even though other scriptures do outlaw its consumption and set penalties under normal circumstances.
1/ Using the Bible show me how you can claim someone who has taken a blood transfusion to save their life can be punished as severely as they are by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Remember, under Mosaic Law the punishment for eating an unbled animal found in the wild was a few hours of cerimonial uncleaniness, with no need to involve Priests.
2/ How can the Elders today claim any right to be involved in the issue without going beyond what is written in the Bible?
