Christ Alone vs IsaacAustin (blood)

by isaacaustin 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  TD

  However, the command to abstain from blood in Acts 15 was not merely a health guideline, but a divine prohibition that followed God's MORAL principle on blood.

  The JW response fails right out of the gate.

  'Abstain' is intransitive and can't take a direct object. Treating the incomplete phrase, "....keep abstaining...from blood" as a stand alone construction is semantic legerdemain.

  The grammatically incomplete nature of the phrase becomes more obvious with other nouns. What would it mean to:

  ..abstain from crankshaft?

  ..abstain from shrubbery?

  ..abstain from boat?

  ..abstain from blue?

  ..abstain from pebbles?

  None of these phrases make any sense because they are grammatically incomplete.

  This can also easily be tested by phrasing the alleged command as a finite negative. (i.e As a "Do not")

  Abstain from blood means: Do not _______

  The blank can't be filled in without making an interpolation because like the nonsensical examples above, blood is not a verb and does not have a verb form that has anything to do with its noun form. And the only interpolations that are justified are those directly supported by the context. Some translators insert verbs like "eat" or "taste", but no translator anywhere has ever inserted a verb generic enough to include transfusion.

  "abstain from food that has been offered to idols, from tasting blood, from the flesh of animals that have been strangled, and from sexual vice."
  Moffatt
  
  "eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from immorality."
  Today's English Version
  
  "avoid what has been sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, eating the meat of what has been strangled and sexual immorality."
  Phillip's Modern English

  Instead of pretending that biblical prohibitions against blood are stated in terms broad enough to include transfusion when they clearly are not, the issue is one of equivalency. Is the transfusion of blood physically or morally equivalent to the consumption of blood?
• 

  Christ Alone

  So if one was to abstain from alcohol, would it be ok then to take alcohol through the veins or other orifaces?

  If one was to abstain from sex, would oral, anal, or mutual masturbation be acceptable?

  If one was to abstain from a medication because of an allergy, would it be ok to take this medication in some other form?
• 

  Heaven

  All TRUE witnesses of Jehovah do. Just being CALLED a Jehovah's Witness does not make you a true Witness of Jehovah God.

  These people are baptized; some are more than just 'publishers'.
• 

  Christ Alone

  These people are baptized; some are more than just 'publishers'.

  That is proof of nothing. All those that get disfellowshiped are baptized also. Some get disfellowshiped for heinous acts. Just being baptized does not make them a true servant of Jehovah God. I'm sure there are SOME JWs that would actually disobey our God Jehovah and get a disgusting blood transfusion too! Shame on them! They will see the results of their disgusting ways at Armageddon!!!
• 

  isaacaustin

  CA said:

  So if one was to abstain from alcohol, would it be ok then to take alcohol through the veins or other orifaces?

  If one was to abstain from sex, would oral, anal, or mutual masturbation be acceptable?

  If one was to abstain from a medication because of an allergy, would it be ok to take this medication in some other form?

  My reply: If a doctor ordered you to abstain from red meat, would you be breaking his command if you got an organ transplant?

  If a doctor ordered you to abstain from alcohol, would you be disobedient if you applied an alcohol based ointment to you back or knee due to soreness?
• 

  undercover

  Just being CALLED a Jehovah's Witness does not make you a true Witness of Jehovah God.

  So says the congregation that Johnathon Holt was in...
• 

  Christ Alone

  So says the congregation that Johnathon Holt was in...

  Exactly!

  If a doctor ordered you to abstain from alcohol, would you be disobedient if you applied an alcohol based ointment to you back or knee due to soreness?

  Those that suffer from alcoholism abstain from even using mouthwash that contains alcohol in it. We have to understand the REASON why we are ordered to abstain from something.
• 

  TD

  So if one was to abstain from alcohol, would it be ok then to take alcohol through the veins or other orifaces?

  False analogies don't establish equivalency. Consider the following simple example:

  A woman's obstetrican says:

  "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol"

  A man's dermatologist says:

  "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol"

  Although both doctors have said, "abstain from alcohol" they clearly are not talking about the same thing. The obstetrician is talking about the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The dermatologist is talking about the topical application of alcohol.

  Just as with the Apostolic Decree, our source for the missing verbs, (In this case, "Drink" and "Apply") is the context.

  There is nothing in the obstetrician's instruction that would prevent the pregnant woman from using cosmetics containing alcohol and there is nothing in the dermatologist's instruction that would prevent the man with sensitive skin from drinking beverages containing alcohol because the two are not physically equivalent acts.

  Similarly, the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood are not physically equivalent acts. Blood is not a simple compound like alcohol that goes through the epithelial membranes unchanged. It is human tissue. "Taking it in" by eating it is an act of cannibalism while "Taking it in" via transfusion is a form of tissue transplant.
• 

  Christ Alone

  So there are exceptions to Jehovah's rule of abstaining from blood? Can we find a single example of this in the Bible? Where did God EVERY allow for any type of blood to be ingested into the body in any form?

  As has been brought out by others, Blood transfusions were not unknown in ancient times. The Egyptians practiced blood transfusions. It is reasonable to conclude that the Israelites knew all about blood transfusions while they were captives of Egypt. This was likely one reason why God brought up the improper use of blood to them in the Mosaic Law.
• 

  cofty

  JW - If an Israelite discovered one of his flock had died he had a dilemma.

  He couldn't leave it lying around but if he picked it up to bury it he became unclean "until the evening"and had to bathe and change his clothes.

  Obviously he could not bleed a cold dead carcass but what if he ate it anyway? Surely that would be a breach of the law to abstain from blood and result in "cutting off".

  Actually no. If he ate the unbled beast he had to bathe and change his clothes - that's it.

  There is a very simple reason why it was a serious sin to kill an animal and eat it unbled but only a minor matter of uncleanness to eat the unbled flesh of an animal "already dead".

  Do you know what that reason is?

  ‘If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. - Lev. 11:39,40.