must be some secret clause.....i thought anybody could be an apostate....
E-Mails to my Mom
by Burger Time 14 Replies latest members private
-
-
Burger Time
OK got an answer back though it was grouped with another subject anyways here is the short of it....
My Mom's reply:
That early Christians did in fact "abstain from blood"
is borne out by the testimony of ancient historian Tertullian as well as Minicius Felix as quoted in the book Ante Nicene Fathers (the church before The Council at Nicea around 300 AD 325 I think.) Speaking about the persecution of Christians by the Romans Tertullian (161-230 CE)wrote: "Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary foods...At the the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. YOu are convinced that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, then you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?" (Evidently, the Romans tried to get them to do as the gladiators did...drink human
blood) Turtullian Apologetical Works, and Minicius Felix, Octavius Translated by Emily Daly, p.30.
Minicius Felix is quoted as saying:"So much do we shrink from human blood that we do not use the blood of eatable animals in our food." hE WROTE THIS AROUND 300AD.
Because blood is precious to Jehovah (the very soul of animals and man is in the blood....making it unique to each individual...as even science agrees....) it is only to be used as he designates. He in Leviticus says that blood is for sacrifice. Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice and it is HIS BLOOD that saves lives and his only....and he didn't literally transfuse mankind with his blood. Blood is life....life belongs to Jehovah.
He said to abstain from it and at Acts 15:28 ,29 it is interesting that what was said was "KEEP ABSTAINING"...from blood...." and "CAREFULLY KEEP from
these things"....if you do you "will prosper". Also,
that message was sent to the brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia who were"from the nations" Acts 15:23....so evidently, they were already abstaining from blood...since the letter said to "keep abstaining". This was not a new....command but a reinforcement of something they were already doing.. "
Abstaining from blood was as important as abstaining from fornication and idolatry. The fact is that the publications do not say that "blood fractions" are "acceptable"....they merely say that they are a conscience matter and leave it to individuals to make their own decision as to what constitutes blood. Is erythrepoitin blood? By itself no....but it is a component of blood....just as iron is a component of blood....so one must make his own decision about whether to accept it or not and notjudge someone if they do or don't accept this treatment.Leave the judging to Jehovah in this matter. Much like Paul explained about meat.....is eating meat "after" it is sacrificed to an idol the same as idolatry....some may say yes it is....some may reason that it isn't ...and if you eat it as meat....rather than as part of idolatrous worship there is nothing wrong.....why fight about it....if it stumbles someone don't do it....if you can do it with good conscience...then do it....don't make a big deal about it...that isn't what is important. But....blood is not
the same issue and neither is fornication. That is
the way I see it.
Love you,
MOM
My reply:
Alright let me first by stating that the historians you quoted back up what I said about that being a part of Christian diets. Some were being severely harassed because of this. Many Christians in that time had a choice to eat foods unclean in all fashions; with blood, without blood, strangled, and sacrificed to idols. This is what Paul was speaking of in Romans 14. Notice in verse 2 Paul says one man, "eats everything". He doesn't exclude certain foods he says, "everything". That is the crucial scripture. If the man was eating "everything" that really would cause a fuss now wouldn't it? Especially if many Christians were dying or being persecuted because of dietary matters. Notice then what Paul says in verse 6 "and he who ABSTAINS, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God". Paul here uses the word "abstain". There were some "abstaining" from certain foods. No doubt this was in regard to the decree. What did he say about those who didn't "abstain"? They are both equal. Notice how Paul goes on to liken it to someone thinking one day more sacred then another in verse 5. Here he was showing that you should taken even further then just foods. It also applies to other old laws. Notice verse 7, " If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.". So some who might decide there faith is strong enough to eat something unclean...if he lives or dies it doesn't matter, it's the intent, not the ACTION. That's all there is to that. The whole point is what your intent is and Law has no account, neither did the decree which said to ABSTAIN from things. If you go back a chapter Paul says again stay away from fornication...this is the only thing in that decree that ever gets touched again after the decree.
Another thing that keeps catching my attention is this statement:
it is HIS BLOOD that saves lives and his only....and he didn't literally transfuse mankind with his blood. Blood is life....life belongs to Jehovah.
What exactly are you saying here? It sounds like to me your tying to justify not using blood to save a life because somehow it is demoting Jesus' ransom sacrifice? Give me a biblical view of this? Jesus blood was a representation. He wasn't saving our physical lives he was making atonement for our sins. His physical blood has nothing to do with this issue, you of all people should know better then that. I am going to be bold here and just come out and say what I feel on this issue; you pandering to that level is almost tantamount to idol worship. Claiming that Christ physical blood is somehow just as important as his sacrifice, or that our physical blood somehow is the same thing is completely unscriptural. When someone gets a transfusion they are not claiming salvation from sin in anyone. No human can redeem us from sin, only Jesus. To claim that by somehow receiving blood so you can live is the equivalent of Jesus redeeming us from sin is plain silly.
I would just like to point out one other thing. Look in your NWT at chapter 9 notice how you is capitalized...why is it in capital letters?
Her reply:
My Bible says to abstain from blood. Paul didn't specifically mention that it was okay to eat blood and I think that he would have being that it was definitely an issue among the jews as you said. I think that just like things strangled, things sacrificed to an idol and blood are mentioned in Acts 15...... In Romans 14, I believe that Paul would have delineated each as separate from the unclean animals Jews were forbidden to eat . In that chapter he is talking about the unclean animals that the Jews weren't allowed to eat under the law....that is what they were judging each other over......not foods offered to idols or foods with blood. I believe t hat as thorough as Paul was he would have point blank said that the counsel in the letter of Acts 15 was only to appease the Jews and that it was not necessary to follow that any longer. Otherwise the Bible is contradicting itself. He is contrasting Jewish law with the new Christian law......why would those specific things to be abstained from be mentioned to keep abstaining from if the law of Christ overrides those laws? It doesn't make sense for the law to be sent to the congregations as noted in Acts 15, and then be revoked by Paul.......that doesn't make sense. I don't believe it would have been recorded in Acts if it weren't
a law that would be abiding for all Christians for all time. Why would that part of the letter be deleted so to speak and the counsel on idolatry and fornication not be deleted also. To me they are all put in the same category and all stand for Christians. I cannot see the reasoning you have on this matter at all except that you are being deceived by false reasoning. The only use for blood in the scriptures for God's people is for sacrifice or to be poured out. Jesus poured out his blood.....his life in our behalf and to purposely disobey God's law on blood would be tantamount to disregarding Jesus' sacrifice......just as committing fornication, or engaging in idolatry would. (Hebrews 10:26-31.) -
Burger Time
My reply....
Mom I am using everything at my disposal, looking at the issue from all areas. From how the doctrine started to what the bible really does say. From the pro-JW's to the anti- JW's. As you say, you have to look at everything, not just one phrase or scripture. The NT clearly shows how lording this doctrine over people is WRONG. I have no doubt in my mind if you pray about this and actually study the issue from a unbiased view you will see how you can't say that people who decide to have a transfusion are somehow sinning.
that just like things strangled, things sacrificed to an idol and blood are mentioned in Acts 15...... In Romans 14.
Well it should be of some surprise to you that in Romans 14 nothing is mentioned of idols, blood, or things strangled. It says everything implying that they ate anything and everything even if it had blood, strangled or was sacrificed to idols. Again some were abstaining from these things just as the "council" had suggested. This just backs up that the Order was temporary to help the very stout Jewish Christians ease in to the dissolution of the law. This obviously was causing division as some were saying you should only eat vegetables, while others ate everything. Again he said everything. By your own history you proved that eating food with blood still in it was a major issue, just as eating things tainted by idols.
In that chapter he is talking about the unclean animals that the Jews weren't allowed to eat under the law....that is what they were judging each other over......
Why were these animals "unclean"?? What made an animal "unclean"? If a beast was "clean" but did not have the blood drained properly was it still unclean? Yet Paul said, everything. Why would he say, "everything"? By your own definition of Paul he wouldn't say "everything" unless he meant everything. All those things making food unclean. Now your the one not wanting to see the forest for the trees. If you tie everything together it doesn't contradict it's self. Paul was showing just as James did, that people would still practice the law, but under God's direction some laws would be done away with. Eventually ALL those laws were done away with. The laws in themselves were not the issue. The issue was holding it over someone who didn't follow those laws. Furthermore Paul pointed out you couldn't pick and choose which laws you wanted to follow if you lorded it over someone. If you condemn someone for not following one law, you had better be following all of those laws!
why would those specific things to be abstained from be mentioned to keep abstaining from if the law of Christ overrides those laws?
Lets look at what was said when this decree was made. In Acts 15: 28 and 29 two things were mentioned:
1. In verse 28 it says "It seemed good to the holy spirit and to us"
2. In verse 29 it goes on to say "You will do well to avoid these things"
Notice how this is written. The spirit of it was the good intent. It didn't mean that it couldn't be changed. They would do well if they avoided these things. Certainly they would do well to avoid these things. It would prove to those uptight Jewish Christians that the Gentiles were also willing to make some sacrifices. By no means though was it a written in stone for all time sakes. They would just do well to abide by this council. They didn't even use the strong verb "abstain" they just said "you will do well to avoid these things". Which leads to the next paragraph.
You half admitted that Paul was speaking in 1 Corinthians 10 of things that were "polluted" by idols. Yet your not willing to go the extreme use of "Abstain" as you are with blood. Yet it was clearly said to Abstain from that. Then in 1 Corinthians 10 : 27-30 he goes out rightly against that. Why? Because the law was no longer needed. Again he points out there is nothing wrong with following those laws, but lording it over ones who do not follow it is wrong. In 1 Corinthians, Paul reiterates this again in chapter 10 verse 23. He said everything is permissible but that doesn't mean you should do it. You should only seek the "good of others". Certainly no one should take a cup of blood and drink it! They can do it but it would not be beneficial, you would do well to avoid that. Just like the council not to have a blood transfusion if it not needed, but if someone feels it would be of help to have a blood transfusion it is on them and no one else. They should not be condemned for choosing to "benefit" themselves from this. The only thing they should take in to consideration is if this could stumble someone...either way though it is on them to do it.
Lets say you are at work and you can do a certain task fast, yet there isn't a time limit on doing that task. Now lets say your employer gives the task to someone else who doesn't do it as you do. He can do it but takes 15 minutes longer then you. Would you be wrong to show him how you do it so he might finish the task faster? Of course not. But if there is no time limit to completing the task is he wrong for wanting to complete it in the fashion most comfortable to him? What would be wrong though is to force him to do it your way, when your boss only cares that the task be completed. Likewise Paul was saying this very thing. Jesus did away with the laws. Some were more comfortable following these laws. There was nothing wrong with that. What was wrong was forcing people to follow something they felt was more comfortable for them, yet clearly uncomfortable for others.
Jesus poured out his blood.....his life in our behalf and to purposely disobey God's law on blood would be tantamount to disregarding Jesus' sacrifice.......just as committing fornication, or engaging in idolatry would.
Again show this biblically? Your trying to make it a point that somehow our blood is equal to Jesus' blood. That somehow his blood is more important then the sacrifice. It was what HIS blood and only HIS blood represented. By elevating blood to this type of stature, is riding a fine line of idol worship in it's self. Jesus was sacrificed to negate our sins, not to physically save us from a medical emergency. His blood was important in a figurative sense, and again it was only HIS blood and no one else's. Paul clearly pointed out NOTHING in this physical world could represent what Jesus did. That's one of the main reasons everyone still followed the "old law" they were saying that by not following it you were somehow negating Jesus sacrifice yet what did Paul say in Galatians 5:13? He said we we're free from any physical thing that was supposed to represent Jesus perfection. Your treating blood the same way Christians treat a cross. Or Jews treat the law. Yet you yourself condemn them for this same thing. You are not seeing the sty in your own eye, yet see the speck in your brothers.
What if when I got struck by a car last year I had to be rushed to the hospital right then and there, and couldn't wait for an ambulance. Now what if someone rushed me to the hospital and because of that it saved my life? Would by me thanking him for rescuing me equate denying Jesus? After all only through Jesus can we find life. By your slandered he would be wrong for helping me! That illustration is silly of course. But it is exactly what your saying. That somehow by accepting a procedure that would save your life, your denying Christ as the only savior or King. If you revered it as that, then of course you would be wrong. Just like Paul was saying it wasn't the action...it was the intent. This is also a useless analogy because your regarding the person who donated blood as somehow being "sacrificed", when that isn't the case. The person is still alive. Again look at when blood is used in the OT, it always connected with death.
As we can see the NT clearly shows that there is NO law or decree that we HAVE to follow. Certainly some would be of help to us, but it's the spirit in which we do anything that counts. Much like the man in Corinth that was sleeping with his mother n' law, this was disgusting even to people outside of the church. The spirit of the sin was horrible. Paul himself in Galatians 3 pointed out we can't just engage in sin whenever we like, we should be only doing things that are good and beneficial. The blood issue was a OT law issue and therefore was done away with, just as things strangled, idol worship, slaves, and everything else that was in the old law. It to it's very core today is a law that cause many hardships. If you truly want to follow that law, well don't buy meat from Food Lion, Win Dixie, Harris Teeter, or almost any supermarket. Your going to have to travel to New York to a true Kosher Jewish market to buy your meat. Again if you are saying you uphold the law you must live by the "curse" of the law, you can't pick and choose which part of blood you abstain. -
JWdaughter
Thanks for sharing your correspondence. One thing struck me when you mom was mentioning blood fractions and conscience. . .I read of one brother recently who was disfellowshipped for 'petting' his girlfriend. Which I guess came under the fornication clause. But wouldn't all forms of sexual touching and (dare I say it)oral sex come under some sort of "conscience" clause? Being 'sex fractions' and all? Legalism is rendered ridiculous!
You have been making excellent points. Thanks for sharing. It might come in handy for the rest of us.
-
free2think
Great points, good job Burger time.