My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty 203 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  Fisherman,
  

  —“And from sexual immorality….” Jesus added to the meaning of adultery “on every sort of ground” so your rule doesn’t strictly apply. However, how are blood transfusions outside the scope?

  πορνεία is the name of a finite act (fornication) that must needs be defined

  αἷμα is the name of an object (blood) and we are therefore dependent upon the context to define the prohibited act.

  Your extreme familiarity with JW terminology (Which is not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct) is likely the reason you're having trouble with this.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Which is not, strictly speaking, grammatically correct) is likely the reason you're having trouble with this.

  Thank you TD for magnificently pointing this out. People in general have not realized this nuance.

  
  

  With all my respect to you, We at JW understand more than you figure:

  Abstain from doing what? When a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol, he means consuming ethanol. In a funny way though, he is telling you to stay away from alcohol; it’s that serious. Is pumping a gallon of ethyl alcohol into your veins “keep abstaining?” I think it is ironic that God chose a physician to write this decree and at the end of his letter although it is only a greeting -but him being a doctor and all-he writes: “Good Health to You” as if keep abstaining from alcohol for medical reasons is implied in the greeting. Strictly not going beyond what is written though, new gentile Christian were to -as you point out-abstain from blood as the Jews had been abstaining from blood. It is noteworthy that although It wasn’t realized or understood at the time, some of God’s laws to Israel were for medical reasons including dietary laws so how can you factor out medical purpose from dietary in “keep abstaining? “ It is also interesting that WT latest commentary points out that the laws on blood in the Mosaic covenant did not apply to non-Jews although the Noachide laws are still binding upon all of humanity, seeing that wt cites Leviticus in support of JW stance. Also, at the time of this epistle, the Mosaic law was abolished and Jews were not legally required to observe the laws on blood as stipulated in the law covenant. So what could this decree actually have meant by keep abstaining since the law covenant was abolished, was is more than Noachide to both Jews and Christians? Were now all Christians to participate in that part of the covenant dealing with blood meaning that the decree now binds it upon both Jews and Christians? WT commentary references Leviticus explaining that although the law covenant applied only to Israel (and keep in mind that when the epistle was written the Mosaic law did not apply) God’s view in the law pertaining to blood was serious, involving the death penalty. So in keep abstaining relating to this scripture, God also views it as very serious when you violate his law on blood in modern times. Cofty’s commentary mitigates this by equating that consuming blood drawn from a living host is the same to God as the blood from an animal that died naturally because in both cases no life was taken. However, “keep”ing with how Jews abstained from blood in the past and the noachide, there is no scriptural basis in not abstaining from blood in new ways of consuming blood.

  By the way, cofty’s argument is very interesting and his article is worth reading in my humble estimate.
• 

  cofty

  However, “keep”ing with how Jews abstained from blood in the past and the noachide, there is no scriptural basis in not abstaining from blood in new ways of consuming blood.

  Jews did NOT abstain from eating the blood of an animal found already dead. They had permission to go ahead and eat with impunity. They could sell the unbled animal to gentiles - so much for 'Noachide' law!

  Despite this incontrovertible fact the Watchtower leadership continue to demand the sacrificial death of JW children.
• 

  Fisherman

  They had permission to go ahead and eat with impunity

  You conclude that permission is implied to go around eating dead unbled animals. We don’t see that practiced by the Israelites in the Bible. Also, there is no Bible evidence ( except for your assumption ) that whole blood inside or outside a living organism is not viewed as sacred to God. Or that Christians have permission from God with impunity to consume the blood of another living organism just because the host is alive.

  Everything considered,you make an excellent point cofty. I thank you for your articles on this subject. Again, I sincerely enjoyed the information.
  
  
• 

  TD

  Fisherman:

  Like everything else, medical advice is dependent upon the context in which it is given. An obstetrician and a dermatologist might have two entirely different things in mind when directing a patient to, "abstain from alcohol."
  

  Regardless, blood is not comparable to alcohol inasmuch as it had a purpose in the body long before the fall of man and the need for a Redeemer ever arose.. If you recognize the difference between eating a human kidney for Sunday dinner vs. the transplantation of a human kidney so that it can continue to act as a kidney, (And I assume that you do) then analogies to simple compounds that are broken down and metabolized regardless of the avenue of egress don't really hold up.

  ----------
  

  ῥώννυμι is an interesting word that can be translated in many different ways and the JW's, to my knowledge do not assign any theological significance to their rending:
  

  "The comment “Good health to you” was not a promise to the effect, ‘If you abstain from blood or fornication, you will have better health.’ It was simply a closure to the letter, such as, ‘Farewell.’"

  (A similar statement appears in the study edition of the RNWT)
  

  ----------
  

  It's easy to say the Mosaic law was abolished, but at the time of the Decree, that idea could have gotten you killed. (We're talking about a conflict that eventually cost both Paul and James their lives.)
  

  Here was the problem and the solution linked together by the Bible writer himself:

  “You behold, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews; and they are all zealous for the Law. But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them neither to circumcise their children nor to walk in the [solemn] customs....As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.”

  ----------

  Transfusion can't be argued one way or the other from the Bible, but that doesn't justify sophistry. Cofty's argument is short, simple and should be enough, but if you believe there is either a physical, moral or ontological equivalency at stake here, then it is up to you to demonstrate it and not simply equivocate.
• 

  Fisherman

  Cofty,

  I too add this to my previous post to you.

  I wanted to point out that the Israelites were commanded not to eat anything dead juxtaposition with your belief that they had permission to eat dead animals with impunity. Also, the verse you reference about a ceremonial wash only deals with if a person eats some of it, the animal found dead. No more is said. It doesn’t give permission with impunity to cut up the whole carcass and eat it or sell it to other Jews which would also be another derivative from your premise.I understand that there is a different standard for eating a nonbled animal that was slaughtered for food —which is your point. Nevertheless, the Israelites were commanded not to eat dead animals. If they ate some of it (and nothing is explained why they ate only if they ate) They couldn’t eat it, let alone touch it without becoming unclean. That was the standard of holiness. It wasn’t permission to eat. The law proscribed eating dead animals.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  TD,

  At the pure language assembly, it was explained that “Good health to you” was only a greeting, an ending to the letter and not a health promise. I think it is ironic though in my observation , nothing more.

  Nothing can me more simple and more removed from sophistry than if someone consumes 3 quarts of blood, pumping a load of blood into one’s organism he is not abstaining from blood. That is not equivocation. That is axiomatic. Sophistry is explaining how one manages to shove a camel through one’s veins without swallowing it, that is to say abstaining.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Cofty...The pericope has been long interpreted by the Catholic Church as a proof text for a central authority. Churches like the WT repeat this claim. However, reading the text without this coloring reveals something very different.

  The story starts with Paul and Barny going to Antioch church and there they encounter Pharisee Xtians from Jerusalem (15:24) contradicting the doctrine held by the Antioch church. The church leaders in Antioch send Paul and Barnabus to go to the church these guys were from (Jerusalem) and find out if they had in fact sent them with what was deemed heretical doctrine. They are greeted and a short airing of opinions ensues. Then the leaders of the Jerusalem church make clear they in fact had not sent the guys and they did not agree with them (again 15:24). Then James declares his opinion is that the Pharisee brothers needed to accept the changes but at the same time thought it best if the Antioch church would accommodate the Jewish Xtians on matters that they regarded as "essential/necessary" The Jerusalem church then sent 2 guys along with Paul and Bany back to Antich to ensure the relationship between churches was back on track.

  The purpose this story was created was to create the impression that these powerful churches had in fact been unified at an early date (6:5 also) not to suggest Jerusalem was in control. However soon after that is how the catholic church used it to support the role of Rome and the apostolic succession doctrine. BTW, Paul effectively denies this ever took place in Gal 2 for instance.

  The long Catholic tradition has influenced the interpretation of this story. It has also influenced the translating with words like "commanded" rather than 'Instructed' and James saying I "judge" rather than 'in my opinion'. (Unless we are conceding James was in charge of all Xtians)

  As an aside, this pericope has many textural variants. A number of manuscripts changed the list of necessary things or preserved an older form. And what also cues me editing is involved is the simple change from a definite article before each item in the list in verse 20 to no articles in 29. A small thing but reflecting a different hand IMO.
• 

  TonusOH

  A person who receives a blood transfusion is not consuming blood.
• 

  cofty

  You conclude that permission is implied to go around eating dead unbled animals.

  It is not implied - it is explicitly stated.

  We don’t see that practiced by the Israelites in the Bible.

  We absolutely do. Why else would Ezekiel the priest state that - unlike other Israelites - he hasn't eaten animals found already dead?

  Also, there is no Bible evidence ( except for your assumption ) that whole blood inside or outside a living organism is not viewed as sacred to God.

  No assumptions necessary. I laid out the evidence in the OP. You can keep obfuscating but you can't deal with the data can you?

  Or that Christians have permission from God with impunity to consume the blood of another living organism just because the host is alive.

  I never said that.

  You have adopted exactly the same technique that the writer of the Watchtower use when dealing with awkward questions. They write lots and lots of words, none of which directly address the actual point.