Tertullian Blood Sausage

by allyouneedislove 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • allyouneedislove
    allyouneedislove

    I have been trying to find out if the following statement from the WT is historically correct:

    ***w827/15p.31QuestionsFromReaders***

    The record of the early Christians who were put to the test by Roman authorities agrees with this and illustrates that we should not think that God’s law can be broken in ‘life or death’ situations. Sometimes their test was, either eat blood sausage or die in the arena.

    The WT provides no reference for this statement and does not use it when speaking of Tertullian's writings concerning Christians being tempted to eat blood sausage (in later years). Can anyone shed some light on the subject of Tertullian's writings concerning Christians and blood.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    This strikes me as odd. First, Christian persecution happened but was not widespread. It usually occured in economically depressed areas. I can see Romans offering meat offered up to their pagan gods. Blood sausage sounds German or Polish. Many Christians decided to eat the pagan offerings. This was not a uniform stance in all Christian countries. If they had a source, why not mention it?

    Martrydom became a cult. Your true birthday (yes, b'day) was celebrated as your martyrdom day. It became too popular. Too many Christians stepped forward and were unprepared. They divulged names of members of the congregation who had not made a decision to be martyr. Martyr was discouraged a bit.

  • cedars
    cedars

    This sounds like a delicacy from Star Trek....

  • wha happened?
    wha happened?

    I did a quick search and found lots of info on blood suasages but nothing on the Romans using it as a "test"

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Try Tertullian, Apology, Chapter IX - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian01.html - you'll have your 'blood sausage' reference there.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    How I wish it were highlighted or only the immediate portion selected?

  • lisaBObeesa
    lisaBObeesa
    How I wish it were highlighted or only the immediate portion selected?

    Quote from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian01.html kinda gross stuff.... :

    Those, too, who at the gladiator shows, for the cure of epilepsy, quaff with greedy thirst the blood of criminals slain in the arena, as it flows fresh from the wound, and then rush off--to whom do they belong? those, also, who make meals on the flesh of wild beasts at the place of combat--who have keen appetites for bear and stag? That bear in the struggle was bedewed with the blood of the man whom it lacerated: that stag rolled itself in the gladiator's gore. The entrails of the very bears, loaded with as yet undigested human viscera, are in great request. And you have men rifting up man-fed flesh? If you partake of food like this, how do your repasts differ from those you accuse us Christians of? And do those, who, with savage lust, seize on human bodies, do less because they devour the living? Have they less the pollution of human blood on them because they only lick up what is to turn into blood?

    They make meals, it is plain, not so much of infants, as of grown-up men.

    Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their meals of simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera. To clench the matter with a single example, you tempt Christians with sausages of blood, just because you are perfectly aware that the thing by which you thus try to get them to transgress they hold unlawful. And how unreasonable it is to believe that those, of whom you are convinced that they regard with horror the idea of tasting the blood of oxen, are eager after blood of men; unless, mayhap, you have 26 ried it, and found it sweeter to the taste! Nay, in fact, there is here a test you should apply to discover Christians, as well as the fire-pan and the censer. They should be proved by their appetite for human blood, as well as by their refusal to offer sacrifice; just as otherwise they should be affirmed to be free of Christianity by their refusal to taste of blood, as by their sacrificing; and there would be no want of blood of men, amply supplied as that would be in the trial and condemnation of prisoners. Then who are more given to the crime of incest than those who have enjoyed the instruction of Jupiter himself? Ctesias tells us that the Persians have illicit intercourse with their mothers. The Macedonians, too, are suspected on this point; for on first hearing the tragedy of OEdipus they made mirth of the incest-doer's grief, exclaiming, hlauneeisthnmhtera. Even now reflect what opportunity there is for mistakes leading to incestuous comminglings--your promiscuous looseness supplying the materials. Yo.....

    ****

    I guess i don't see where it says that they would have to die in the arena if they didn't eat it...but maybe it's implied...idunno.

  • StephaneLaliberte
    StephaneLaliberte

    I was reading that question from readers of 1982 today. They try to explain that since first century Christians would rather die than to eat blood sausages, Christians today should do the same for blood transfusion.

    For this logic to stand, one would have to accept that a blood transfusion is in fact a “loyalty test” administered by persecutors. None sense! By accepting a blood transfusion, the JW would not attempt to convince anyone that he is not, in fact, a JW. He would simply rely on God’s mercy in preserving the very thing blood represents and is to be held so sacred for: Life!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit