Eating of blood prohibition specifically not forbidden for non-Jews

by peacefulpete 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    The Imagined distinction between Noachian and Mosaic law is irrelevant, and a modern construct. There was no "Noachian Law". The Noah story was one of hundreds found in the, traditionally believed, writings of Moses, ie the Pentateuch.

    " 21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since [k]he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

    2 Cor 3:15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts;.....


    IOW the OT passages we are discussing were all by Moses in the minds of Jewish readers.

  • TD
    TD

    How modern is modern?

    The idea is at least as old as the Talmud.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    TD

    This is a quotation from the book “ What can the Bible teach us:

    “Some years after Jesus’ death, the apostles and the elders in the Christian congregation in Jerusalem met to decide what parts of the Law given to the Israelites still applied to Christians. (Read Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25.) Jehovah helped them to understand that blood was still precious to him and that they still needed to view it as holy. The early Christians could not eat or drink blood or eat meat that had not been bled properly. If they did so, it was just as bad as worshipping idols or being sexually immoral. From that time onward, true Christians have refused to eat or drink blood. What about today? Jehovah still wants us to view blood as holy.”

    So, according to WT, not only Noachide but also parts of the Law applies. Also, in the online library, wt explains that dead unbled animals may be used by alien residents but implies that blood may not be eaten by anybody in the context of eating unbled animals. And in the 2000 wt magazine, wt uses the word consume to describe the prohibition in the Apostolic decree. It is axiomatic that when a substance is consumed it is being used.

    You stated that blood could be stored, however, Jewish commentators don’t say that.

    The Jewish Soncino Chumash notes: “The blood must not be stored but rendered unfit for consumption by pouring it on the ground.” No Israelite was to appropriate, store, and use the blood of another creature, whose life belonged to God.”— wt 12/15 2000

    —Although interestingly, the proxy directive only cites the scriptures in Acts to support no blood transfusions. But the explanation of the meaning of the decree in Acts can be found in the publications. Simply put relating to blood transfusions, Abstain = consumption of blood. You define consumption of blood as digesting it and consuming blood any other way is not consuming blood.

    How do you explain the decree stating that Christians need to abstain from blood?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    Orthodox Jews aren't bothered by transfusions) (If your Dr. abstain alcohol... meat)


    JW don’t believe in Pikuah Nephesh. And Jews don’t believe that medical use is the same as food use. Also, orthodox Jews are not the standard for interpreting the Bible according to JW.

  • TD
    TD

    Fisherman,

    There is no contraction between the quotes we have both provided, although I would view organizational and reference works as more authoritative than entry-level primers used to acquaint the public with basic JW beliefs.

    --Unless of course, it is your contention that the mention of blood in the Decree was more than simply a reiteration of the prohibition against eating it, which predates the Law.

    I've already addressed the JW selective quotation of Chumash sources. You might want to read the SC in context if you're actually interested in that sort of thing, but as you said yourself, Judaism "...is not the standard for interpreting the Bible according to JW."

    You and I have already discussed (In other threads) the grammar of the Decree at length. -That the infinitive use of the middle voice was used to reiterate existing prohibitions, which The New World Translation accurately renders as, "To keep abstaining...from blood."

    Invoking a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it (As you have done above) is ungrammatical and you should know better.

    Additionally, I can assure you that JW's can and do hold professions in the medical field and that the position of the JW parent organization for at least the last 30 years has been that any use/handling of blood that arises thereof is a matter of conscience, provided it is not for the purposes of transfusion or consumption.

    Finally, your insistence that transfusion and consumption are physical (As opposed to moral) equivalents is incompatible with JW views on medicine as they have evolved over the years. Specifically, it sets up glaring contradictions with current positions on the allowance of hemoglobin based blood substitutes; the allowance of organ transplants and the prohibition on autologous transfusion.

    Like I said, they abandoned that argument years ago and that they no longer teach it can be confirmed via letter or phone call.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit