even though i'm disfellowshiped ( & i belive wrongfully so).
i still belive this is the truth.
i have been d'f for about 8 months now and working on reinstatement.
Hello vid!
You can trust that the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true.
There is a difference between being a witness and a juror. A juror though, can form an opinion, believe or be convinced one way or another. Or can personally conclude he is not sure.
even though i'm disfellowshiped ( & i belive wrongfully so).
i still belive this is the truth.
i have been d'f for about 8 months now and working on reinstatement.
You assume there is a true religion. In order for your question to be valid, you must first prove there is a true religion.
Without proof from God such as;
” This is my son the beloved listen to him.” you just don’t know for sure.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
I wonder if Orthodox Jews would agree with you?
So what? What makes “ orthodox Jews” an authority except to other orthodox Jews? So, JW consider the gb an authority in what the Bible is saying about BT. But the logical argument is that since the gb have been wrong before on what a Bible verse means, could they also not be wrong about blood—possibly. And since the gb could be wrong about blood, then how could a person choose to die based on a Bible interpretation subject to error? That’s the logic presented by TD. JW, however, trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood.
—I wouldn’t take blood if my life depended on it regardless of wt sanctions. I believe the scriptures forbid bt and I don’t want someone else’s blood mixed with mine running through my veins and I don’t want to take the medical risk of infection and other possible complications. Notwithstanding that it is very repulsive and disgusting to me. But that is only my personal feelings about bt and ME.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
English, of course, is not the language the bible was written it, which is why grammar and context are crucial.
I agree, my dear doctor but it is more complicated than grammar and context —as you know. But in this context of Acts, the prohibition is against eating blood whether in eating un-bled animals or as some product.
Interestingly the actual eating of blood from an un-bled animal is not so important to God because Christians weren’t to go around getting kosher certifications, inquiring whether animals were bled or not —which inevitably would result in eating un-bled animals unknowingly. So, how could a Christian abstain from blood after unknowingly eating an un-bled animal when God does not require certification before eating? But according to the CS, it’s ok.
You have elegantly and invaluably shown in other posts the difference between digesting blood (eating) and a blood transfusion for medical purpose to perform bodily functions without being digested. Which is not the same as eating. However, the Bible forbids using blood other than for rituals.
Ive had minor surgery and IVs and I could taste the medicine.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
Abstain from shrubbery"
"Abstain from locomotive"
"Abstain from sky"
"Abstain from crankshaft"
These phrases do not relate to “abstain” because abstain deals with consumption. Or conduct involving pleasure.
abstain from women
abstain from alcohol
abstain from tobacco
abstain from blood
If eating blood is proscribed how can one justify consuming blood in a bt because technically it is not eating blood.
the belief in the messiah, which has lived in the collective consciousness of humanity since ancient times, became completely obscured among the gentiles, and only remained with the jewish people, who were later chosen by god, as the prophecies of the prophets kept it alive.
there was only one great promise in the old testament from god, which awaited fulfillment!
only one great desire was there in the old testament on the part of man, longing for satisfaction.
The Pharisees
According to the CS, had Jesus mu&dered. A religion that started off by killing a righteous man, JC. And attributed God’s holy spirit: miracles from God to satan. With zero empirical evidence juxtaposition the miracles and teachings of JC and his explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures. “This is my son the beloved (David), listen to him.”
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
Is eating blood and transfusion the same? Ultimately you are putting a large amount of blood into your body one way or another.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
It's what Jesus said that matters.
You are deflecting from the subject scripture in Acts to keep abstaining from blood that cannot be nullified
The JW belief doesn't matter.
It sure does. It matters to JW. And to their believing and non believing family. And to every Christian that wants to obey God.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
There is no medical procedure involving blood that will bring them back.
Your commentary is moot and assumes the Bible proscribes blood transfusions. We JW believe it does. The issue is whether or not JW belief is only interpretation subject to error. If it is, the grounds for JW ban on BT is Biblically uncertain.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
TD crowned this by arguing that if it is arguable and only an interpretation then you must err on the side of life.
However, other than that and if wt says the command not to transfuse blood even when facing death is clearly from God and not an interpretation subject to error then blood transfusions are not for Christians.
