by stuckinarut2 49 Replies latest watchtower medical
That blood would be given an element of acquired sacredness for it came from a person who already died
No it wouldn't.
Blood has no sacredness unless it represents the life of a creature that has been taken. In that case it could be presented on the altar or poured out on the ground. In both cases it symbolised returning the life to the life-giver.
If a creature died of natural causes its blood had no power or significance.
If a creature is still alive its blood has no power or significance.
Agree with you there Cofty but would you not agree with this statement I made ?
Therefore blood from any living person or animal isn't deemed sacred so transfusing from one person to another should be acceptable from a theological viewpoint.
Cofty, as I stated before, it is your article and you are the one attempting to persuade the reader.
Stop going on a rant with your readers asking them a million questions as a deflection, instead, support your beloved theories by citing scriptures.
In Lev 19:26, God forbade Israel to eat anything containing blood. Animals found dead or torned also contained blood and Israel was forbidden to eat them based upon this scripture.
Can you not read?
Anybody who wishes can read the detailed answers to your objections starting on page 27 of this thread...
Anybody who wishes can read.
@Cofty: You have brought your previous posts into this discussion although they fail to validate your theories stated in those post or refute my statements in this discussion on this thread.
You go on and on with your commentary in your linked article but no scriptures to back up your beliefs. And you circumvent having to reply to my posts on this thread by referring to those previous posts as if they prove/proved your theories or refute my statements here.
Again, Lev 19:26.
Very detailed answers to all your so-called objections can be found at the link I provided.
I did not commit many hours to that conversation just to have to do it again.
Unless you have anything new to add I have no more to say.
Very detailed answers to all your so-called objections can be found at the link I provided.
@ Cofty: You answered nothing in your previous linked post and you did not refute with scripture in that linked post, the scriptures that I quoted falsifying your theory. All you did was to attempt to explain away those scriptures that I quoted with your other theories. --As if your theories are fact because Cofty says so.
Fishy - In almost 30 pages of debate you consistently refused to answer the simple question of why the bible draws a clear distinction between the blood of an animal found already dead and an animal that has been slaughtered.
Until you provide a clear and concise answer to that question there is nothing more to be said.
you consistently refused to answer the simple question of why the bible draws a clear distinction between the blood of an animal found already dead and an animal that has been slaughtered.
@ Cofty:The Bible does not say.
But the Bible does say in the scriptures that I quoted that Israel was forbidden to eat animals found dead.
