rootcause
Abaddon, have you not see that jgnats post already answered your questions? you mentioned 1Samuel which was written 1078 B.C.E while Act 15:29 was written 61C.E. Does it not got the latest revision hierarchy, in which generalized abstain from Blood?
The fact is under Mosaic Law there were situations where consumption of blood was permitted with a minor penalty, even though consumption of blood in general was a capital offense.
Even in a situation where animals were slaughtered and not bled becuase soldiers were too hungry to be bothered, no people were punished as a result, even though the Mosaic Law demanded that such people be executed and allowed no such exceptions.
Thus you can point at Acts all you like and still get no where in proving you have the correct interpretation. It says 'abstain', but the Bible shows clear examples where forgiveness was shown for what was seen as (in context) a needful violation of a clear and absolute prohibition under Mosaic law, even when there was no "get-out" clause in the Mosaic Law as there was with animals found dead.
It is this clear Biblical example which you and others who agree with the JW stance on blood totally ignore.
Please show me the scriptures which confirm that the current JW doctrine on blood, which allows no latitude for a Christian to exercise their conscience WITHOUT penalty, is correct.
In order to do this you would have to show why leniancy was shown to the soldiers who consumed blood, and why such leniancy cannot be shown today.
The only exception I can think of is if consumption of blood ALSO involved worshipping another 'god'. We have clear examples of Christians and Jews who refused to compromise their stance when it came to worshipping others (Nebuchadnezzar, Caeser, etc.), even if their life was threatened. However, medicinal use of blood, i.e. the use of blood for sustinance (if one accepts that argument) is in no way an act of worship, and the "death penalty" handed out by Elders is unscriptual... unless you can prove otherwise using the Bible as I have specified above.
Also jgnat, did not answer my question to answer both you're question with regards to Act15:29. Is Vitamin C taken as a pill different from injectable Vitamin C?
This is not relevent to the issue I am asking for you to justify the Witness doctrine on. You are introducing a side issue which doesn;t have any impact on the questions I asked you. I am asking you to justify the uncompromising and unforgiving stance taken when it is in contrast to that shown in the Bible to violitions of absolute Mosaic laws.
To further, answer all your questions I asked then for you to define Organization. . .because your questions are pertaining to organization. . .
I am unfamiliar with where the term "Organisation" appears in the Bible. If it doesn't appear in the Bible I don't see its relevence to this discussion, unless you put man-made law in front of god's. Please provide a scriptual reference, and then I can agree whether "organsation' is a fair translation of a Greek or Hebrew word, and what its meaning would be in context.
Oh, rootcause, do you seriously think Jesus would reply to someone the way you do below?
Our mother died because of Blood transfusion, we were not JW then. . . to answer your question further:
(Genesis 9:2-4) . . .. 3
Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.
(Acts 15:29) 29
to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"
(Leviticus 17:14) For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off."
(Acts 24:15) 15
and I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. . . - If Genesis only pertaining to eating blood and not blood transfusion, the man is alive today but on which side most probabily you be in Acts 24:15 comparing with Act 15:29?
- If Genesis is only pertaining to eating blood and not blood transfusion, then what will happen to the soul of the patient added with the soul of the donor refering to Leviticus 17:14?
- If Act 15:29 includes blood tranfusion from abstaining from blood, what will happen to the patient in the future life, Psalm 37:29? which side of probabily will he be in Act 24:15?
... if you disagree, please give examples from the Bible...
... we have to judge a tree by its fruits, see, and I don't see 'love' in your reply, so I wonder if you are actually living up to the label you apply to yourself...?
