You have also ignored TD's challenge regarding Acts 15.
I’m addressing it. TD addresses the points in my replies to him. You don’t. All you do is to keep reasserting your interpretation of scripture like those that conclude Jesus is God in John 1:1.
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty 203 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Fisherman
-
TD
Greg Stafford, back when he was a believing JW, came up with a novel defense of the Decree. (Or more precisely, the JW interpretation thereof)
I'm surprised the JW's never adopted it, as it was defensible from the standpoint of translation and grammar and did not set up a huge contradiction with Paul's more emancipated views on food sacrificed to idols.
-
TonusOH
If nothing is entirely legal in any legal system, then it is possible to justify exceptions to the rule against blood transfusions.
-
cofty
All you do is to keep reasserting your interpretation of scripture
No interpretation necessary. Contrast and compare.
1. Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth... anyone who eats it must be cut off.
2. If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who ...
- touches the carcass ...
- eats some of the carcass ...
- picks up the carcass ...
... must wash his clothes and bathe with water and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
Kill an animal and eat it unbled and YOU DIE!
Eat an unbled animal found already dead and YOU WILL HAVE A BATH!
I'm still waiting for you to deal with this.
-
Giles Gray
I’m sure that many of these points have already been mentioned, but it is useful to compare findings when they have been independently established.
Gentiles not prohibited to eat unbled meat
Under the Law of Moses, the alien residents (those who were not proselytes) were totally at liberty to eat blood according to Deuteronomy 14:21. What is interesting about that scripture is the fact that God Himself gave permission to sell meat with blood in it to those not under the Law. He could have enforced a nationwide ban, but chose not to.
God anointed Gentiles with the Holy Spirit regardless of the fact that they ate unbled meat
It is of great importance to note that Jehovah accepted the Gentiles and anointed them with Holy Spirit, despite the fact that they were at liberty to eat unbled meat according to the Law. (Acts 10:3-4,15 ; 11:1-18 ; 15:7-9)
13 years
According to the Watchtower’s chronology, there was a period of 13 years between the first Gentile conversion to Christianity, and the Council of Jerusalem, when the issue of the Law was raised. As mentioned above, during those years they were totally at liberty to eat unbled meat.
If it really was so important to the will of God, why did He not inform the Gentiles of His stipulations regarding blood and the Law right at the beginning of their conversion? God was in direct communication with Peter, so adding one more detail to the mix would not have been a big issue.
It makes no sense that He would wait for 13 years before deciding to inform the congregations.
Jewish Christian sensibilities was the only reason why the issue of the Law was raised. It did not originate from God
The issue of the Law was raised only because of the fact that some ‘unauthorised’ Jewish Christians took it upon themselves to insist that the Gentile brothers were to observe the Law. (Acts 15:1,5,24)
Had those Jewish converts understood that the Law had been fulfilled, they would have accepted that the Gentiles were not obligated to adhere to any part of it.
Hence, there is every reason to conclude that things would have simply continued as they had for the previous 13 years.
The use of the word ‘ABSTAIN’
The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘abstain’ as follows :-
“to not do something that you could do… If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.”
In light of the points above, the use of the word ‘abstain’ is significant owing to the fact that the Gentile Christians had been free to eat meat with blood in it for the previous 13 years.
It is not the same as a command. It is asking people to voluntarily refrain from doing something that they could otherwise do. The language used in the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem contrasts significantly with the language found in Leviticus.
Paul’s letters also contradict the notion that the word ‘abstain’ was considered to be a commend.
Acts 15:29 says in part:-
“to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols…”
6 years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul readdressed the issue of food offered to idols in his letter to the Corinthians. (1 Corinthians chapters 8 & 10) Had Paul understood the decisions to be a command, he would have simply reiterated that food offered to idols was not to be consumed as it was against God’s law.
Paul said no such thing.
Instead, he made it clear that food offered to idols was perfectly acceptable, so long as it didn’t stumble the conscience of a fellow believer. (1 Cor 8:7,9-11)
Therefore, with regards to food offered to idols, the word ‘abstain’ could not have been a Divine command.
Around the same time, in his letter to the Romans, Paul also clarified “that nothing (no food) is defiled in itself; only where a man considers something to be defiled, to him it is defiled.” (Romans 14:14) There is no reason to conclude that Paul’s counsel is not inclusive of ‘things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled’, considering his letter to Corinth.
Obviously, fornication was considered unbefitting for Gentile Christians. On the other hand, the dietary requirements of Acts 15 are debatable.
There is a lot more that could be said.
A more comprehensive consideration of this topic can be found in this link:-
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6320306342854656/exchange-jw-about-blood-doctrine
-
Disillusioned JW
Fisherman I do know that the WT currently says that accepting a blood transfusion (such as whole blood, red blood cells, or white blood cells) is not a conscience matter for Christians (and thus also for JWs). When I asked if you would take a blood transfusion in certain circumstances to save your life, I was basically asking how confident are you regarding the WT teaching regarding blood transfusions. I was wondering if you would be willing to adhere to it no matter what, despite you knowing that the WT/JW religion used to forbid life saving organ transplants and life saving vaccines (saying such on scriptural grounds), but that later they said it is a conscience matter. I was also wondering if you might have some doubts, however small, that Jehovah is real and that the Bible his word, and that if you had any such doubts if that would influence your decision about hypothetically accepting a blood transfusion in order to save your life. I think in one of your posts which I read you said you disagree with the WT on some (though not many) teachings. I thus thought you might be open under certain circumstances to disobeying the WT's current prohibition on blood transfusions.
I invite you to consider another approach. I doubt it will persuade you but perhaps it might persuade other readers.
Readers, who originally wrote down the Hebrew Scriptures? It was Jewish people of the Jewish religion (for simplicity, lets just say devout Jews). Right?
For centuries who were the only people who copied the Hebrew Scriptures? It was devout Jews. Right?
For centuries who were the only people who strove to keep the Torah and to adhere to all of the laws the Hebrew Scriptures? It was the devout Jews (and proselytes to the Jewish religion).
Throughout the centuries all the way to the present day, who primarily are the ones who study the Hebrew Scriptures more than other other collection of scriptures? It was and is the devout Jews (and proselytes to the Jewish religion). Right?
So what group of people are most likely to understand correctly the laws of the Hebrew Scriptures? It is the devout Jews right?
What do the devout Jews, and the branches of modern day Judaism, say the Hebrew Scriptures indicate regarding blood transfusions? They say the scriptures indicate that blood transfusions are PERMISSIBLE.
The above information is a major part (in addition to specific scriptural arguments) of the reason why I when I was an independent Christian concluded the WT is wrong regarding their forbidding of blood transfusions. Please consider the following from Jewish non-Christian sources. [In the quotes below I have added some boldface for emphasis.]
https://www.oztorah.com/2012/08/blood-transfusions-ask-the-rabbi/#.Y8Yn7LjBZkg says the following.
"Blood transfusions – Ask the Rabbi
Q. How can Judaism permit blood transfusions when the Torah forbids consuming blood?
A.
Often in my rabbinic career I was asked whether there are valid
Biblical grounds for the refusal of certain faiths to accept blood
transfusions.The verse these faiths quote is, “Be determined in not consuming the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the blood with the flesh” (Deut. 12:23).
The Jewish answer is that this is not what the verse is saying at all. The verse says, l’vil’ti achol ha-dam, “you shall not eat the blood”. In a blood transfusion the blood is not eaten.
Secondly, in an emergency the commandments may be set aside (except for three: the prohibitions of idolatry, adultery and murder). If a blood transfusion is necessary in order to save life, then life takes priority."
https://www.waht.nhs.uk/en-GB/Our-Services1/Non-Clinical-Services1/Chapel/Faith-and-Culture/Judaism/ says the following.
"Introduction
Judaism is an ancient religion that has been practised for over 5,000 years and is based on the belief in one universal God. Jews believe in the Torah (Divine Law), which was revealed to Moses and is viewed as unchanging. They also believe that God is omniscient and will reward the righteous and punish the wicked at the end of time when there will be a resurrection of ail the dead.
Jews must live their lives by certain basic tenets: to carry out the Ten Commandments and to live according to Jewish values based on love of one's neighbour and tolerance of one's fellow human beings.
...
Blood transfusions, transplants and organ donation
Jewish law approves blood transfusion in order to achieve the desired medical outcomes.
Jewish law permits organ donation from dead bodies where there is a high chance of success for the specific recipient. Relatives of a potential donor will wish to consult an appropriate rabbi before making a decision, and this should obviously be facilitated."
https://njop.org/blood-is-life-3/ says the following.
'Blood is Life
January has been labeled National Blood Donor Month, making it an ideal time for Jewish Treats to reflect upon Judaism’s special attitude toward blood.
...
Jewish thought makes very clear that blood is life, and that people must recognize the life-affirming power of blood. For instance, a person is not allowed to consume blood as food or drink, and if an individual deliberately sheds the blood of wild animals or fowl when slaughtering food, the blood must be covered as a sign of respect.Since human blood cannot be consumed, we might ask whether blood transfusions are permitted. The answer, simply, is yes. A person may both give and receive blood transfusions because Judaism puts the utmost importance on preserving life. For those who need it, Ezekiel’s words: “By your blood shall you live” (Ezekiel 16:6) has some very literal implications.'
-
Fisherman
DJW,
the Talmud views an embryo as only water until after 40 days and abortions are permitted before 24 weeks. It is not a human soul. The laws of kosher apply only to eating not ingesting and Rabbinical Judaism also distinguishes eating and tasting. For example it is not a violation to put pork cosmetic products on your lips and skin even if you swallow some of it. Hypothetically a Jew would not be in violation of kosher if ingesting a gallon of blood or a gallon of pork for non medical purpose on the other hand, eating some meat and cheese is not allowed.Their approach and method of interpreting the Bible differs from JW. For example, the Talmud says that King David did not commit adultery with Bathsheba because Uriah was not married to her at the time and David did not murder him either because Uriah slighted the king which incurred death. Rabbinical Judaism has nothing in common with JW in the method of interpreting Scripture.
Compare the legal, medical, and religious authorities that make the definitions of what constitutes a human person compulsory and the hundreds of millions or more? ab0rtions resulting from these definitions. Acts infers a prohibition of eating blood but JW believes that ingesting a large volume of blood is also prohibited in Acts15.
-
Fisherman
TD,
JW has published to the world their beliefs on blood transfusions. What is your interpretation of Acts 15 and your rebuttal to wt ?
-
Disillusioned JW
Fisherman, you make a good point that a number of Jewish rabbinical interpretations (including those in the Talmud) are strange, at least to you and I and probably to many others who have a non-Jewish JW background.
-
TD
Fisherman,
In my view, the Decree is exactly what the story represents it to be. --An attempt to mend a rift between the largely Jewish Jerusalem church and the largely Gentile Antioch Church. Although Ancient Greek is rich in imperatives, the Decree is not framed in the language of command and the word of choice among English translators (i.e. Abstain) carries a strong connotation of voluntary compliance, which is reflected in most dictionaries.
This view is neither here nor there as far as JW's are concerned, so I would frame a rebuttal strictly within the framework of what JW's have taught.
It is clear, in retrospect, that they have simply made a mistake. For centuries it was thought that blood was actually a more elemental form of food. This is evident in the writings of Thomas Bartholin, Jean Baptiste Denys and even the historian, H.G. Wells. Consider, for example, a passage from Wells' novel, War of the Worlds:
"Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veins…..The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."
The JW teaching on transfusion was based upon this misconception for at least the first 10 years of its existence. Transfusion was viewed as a form of intravenous feeding that fell directly under the umbrella of biblical prohibitions against eating blood. (The original (brown) edition of the book, Make Sure of all Things states this explicitly as do 50's and early 60's era Watchtowers)
Eventually, JW's realized that blood is human tissue; that transfusion is a form of tissue transplant and that transplantation is both physically and morally distinguishable from consumption. It therefore became necessary to enlarge the scope of the Decree far beyond what they themselves had previously taught. AFAIK, no reason was ever given for this (Other than the fact that it was necessary to prop up the teaching on transfusion)
None of these attempts hold up under scrutiny.
