I agree Farkel, the subject Maximus addresses is an important one for thinking people—they want to know if serious material is scholarly. Here is another example of Maximus’ point:From the Reasoning book:Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from . . . blood." It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating "any sort of blood.") Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: "The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood."—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.Tertullian’s full sentence from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86:Sufficient it is, that in this place withal there has been preserved to adultery and fornication the post of their own honour between idolatry and murder: for the interdict upon "blood" we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood. [The part quoted by the Society is bolded][End quotes]It is evident the Society wants readers to conclude that the quoted material (Tertullian’s) supports the idea of abstaining from eating human blood. It is also evident that Tertullian’s remarks were not at all about eating human blood. Rather, Tertullian’s remark was that the interdict to abstain from blood found in the Apostolic Decree of Acts chapter 15 applies "much more upon human blood" in respect to murder. In this portion of Tertullian we find nothing at all to support the Society’s contention that the Apostolic Decree applied to eating human blood. It is true that some early Christian writers abhorred and denounced the practice of eating human blood, but this practice had to do with eating blood from executed convicts or slaughtered gladiators. In each case persons were partaking of blood taken by force. This is fundamentally different from accepting donor blood for transfusion. With donor blood there is no killing involved. There is no religious or ritualistic aspect involved in modern blood transfusion. The practice of eating blood of slaughtered humans is wholly dissimilar from accepting donor blood. We have no idea how early Christian’s would have felt about the practice of transfusion of donor blood. The idea was completely unknown to them. Spokesmen for the Society have often depended upon the prophetic significance of blood sacrifices to instill an even higher regard for the command to abstain from blood. Since Jewish blood sacrifices are said to foreshadow Jesus’ own atoning blood then they argue the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood is of the utmost importance. The problem with this argument is it ignores that Jesus invited people to eat his blood. Though this is recorded as a figurative statement, the Society’s argument about Jesus’ blood invokes figurative significance as though it has material application to literal blood. They want to invoke one aspect of that figurative significance but they want to ignore plain language to figuratively "eat" of the same blood! On one hand they want us to apply the figurative import of Jesus’ blood toward eating blood. On the other hand, they want us to ignore the figurative import of eating Jesus’ blood toward eating blood. In this argument the Society also completely avoids the fact that this blood of Jesus, that he encouraged eating of, was donated blood. Modern blood transfusions use donated blood. Oddly enough, as of the June 15, 2000 Watchtower, the Society has deemed it a "conscience matter" for a JW to accept blood substitutes made from animal or human blood that uses hemoglobin as its main ingredient. This blood may or may not be donated. Cows are killed to obtain this hemoglobin, hemoglobin the JWs are already accepting. Readers of this forum might enjoy the article found at http://www.jwbloodreview.org . It analyzes the biblical Apostolic Decree versus what the Society teaches on the subject. I recommend the site.
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from . . . blood." It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating "any sort of blood.") Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: "The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood."—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.Tertullian’s full sentence from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86:Sufficient it is, that in this place withal there has been preserved to adultery and fornication the post of their own honour between idolatry and murder: for the interdict upon "blood" we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood. [The part quoted by the Society is bolded][End quotes]It is evident the Society wants readers to conclude that the quoted material (Tertullian’s) supports the idea of abstaining from eating human blood. It is also evident that Tertullian’s remarks were not at all about eating human blood. Rather, Tertullian’s remark was that the interdict to abstain from blood found in the Apostolic Decree of Acts chapter 15 applies "much more upon human blood" in respect to murder. In this portion of Tertullian we find nothing at all to support the Society’s contention that the Apostolic Decree applied to eating human blood. It is true that some early Christian writers abhorred and denounced the practice of eating human blood, but this practice had to do with eating blood from executed convicts or slaughtered gladiators. In each case persons were partaking of blood taken by force. This is fundamentally different from accepting donor blood for transfusion. With donor blood there is no killing involved. There is no religious or ritualistic aspect involved in modern blood transfusion. The practice of eating blood of slaughtered humans is wholly dissimilar from accepting donor blood. We have no idea how early Christian’s would have felt about the practice of transfusion of donor blood. The idea was completely unknown to them. Spokesmen for the Society have often depended upon the prophetic significance of blood sacrifices to instill an even higher regard for the command to abstain from blood. Since Jewish blood sacrifices are said to foreshadow Jesus’ own atoning blood then they argue the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood is of the utmost importance. The problem with this argument is it ignores that Jesus invited people to eat his blood. Though this is recorded as a figurative statement, the Society’s argument about Jesus’ blood invokes figurative significance as though it has material application to literal blood. They want to invoke one aspect of that figurative significance but they want to ignore plain language to figuratively "eat" of the same blood! On one hand they want us to apply the figurative import of Jesus’ blood toward eating blood. On the other hand, they want us to ignore the figurative import of eating Jesus’ blood toward eating blood. In this argument the Society also completely avoids the fact that this blood of Jesus, that he encouraged eating of, was donated blood. Modern blood transfusions use donated blood. Oddly enough, as of the June 15, 2000 Watchtower, the Society has deemed it a "conscience matter" for a JW to accept blood substitutes made from animal or human blood that uses hemoglobin as its main ingredient. This blood may or may not be donated. Cows are killed to obtain this hemoglobin, hemoglobin the JWs are already accepting. Readers of this forum might enjoy the article found at http://www.jwbloodreview.org . It analyzes the biblical Apostolic Decree versus what the Society teaches on the subject. I recommend the site.