Tertullian & June 15/00 WT on Blood

by hawkaw 37 Replies latest jw friends

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Hi hawkaw,

    I find Tertullian's comments extremely interesting because they don't really support the Watchtower Society's position on blood at all. Actually they support the Society's position that after the death of the apostles, some Christians went 'beyond what is written' and began imposing their personal opinions on other Christians.

    Tertullian's comments (assuming they are representative of Christians generally) show that the aversion to eating blood was not so much due to following a command to "abstain from blood" per se, but due to an aversion to eating animals killed by extreme violence, and probably due to still following the Mosaic Law's precepts on eating blood. This shows that Christians by then were more trying to eat what they considered healthy foods and avoiding the taint of violence than trying to follow a specific command about blood.

    Note the statement about eating "meals of simple and natural food". That is an ancient ideal, not something required by the earliest Christian expositors. Note the reference to the language of the Mosaic Law, those "who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death", which is then justified for health reasons: "for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera". Tertullian seems not to know that God explicitly allowed Gentiles, in Deuteronomy 14:21, to eat animals that were not bled according to the standards of the Mosaic Law. So he and probably other Christians were still following some of the precepts of the Law, in direct violation of the conclusion of the "Jerusalem council" described in Acts 15, that Christians were not required to obey the Mosaic Law.

    It seems to me that the leaders of the Pharisaic Watchtower organization like Tertullian precisely because they all go 'beyond what is written' and attempt to impose the consciences and personal opinions of the writers upon all Christians.

    AlanF

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Hi Alan,

    Yeah this is what I am getting out of this too. I think the WT has really gone out on a limb with Tertullian's comments.

    Like you, I was surprised when I read Chapter 9 of the Apology. No comments of Deut 14:21 as well as no comment with respect to Lev. 17:15 (which basically tell a "native" or other to just clean themself and take a bath if they had to eat "unbled" meat. Of course as someone so nicely put it, no one in the bible was killed for having a bath but what do I know.)

    It seems to me that the leaders of the Pharisaic Watchtower organization like Tertullian precisely because they all go 'beyond what is written' and attempt to impose the consciences and personal opinions of the writers upon all Christians.

    I agree as long as it works in the WTS favour. Note how the WT doesn't bring up the fact that in Chapter 9 of Tertullian's apology, blood is used by a fetus as food to support itself. Gee, I would like to see the day that gets in a WT rag.

    Also what strikes me is that this whole chapter really gets into sacrifices of little children and how wrong that is. The final bit deals with incest. He goes into how "food" that comes from dead people, may it be blood or flesh is wrong. In order to refute what bad things have been said about Christians, I think Tertullian is making the point to the Romans that Christians don't sacrifice people (especially litlle children) and animals for no good reason and eat them for the simple reason of murder.

    Too bad the WTS didn't fully listen to Tertullian on not sacrificing people. It would have prevented the needless deaths of 1,000s thanks to the vaccination ban, serium ban, blood ban, organ transplant ban and now partial blood ban.

    hawk

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Alan and Maximus,

    Along with Tertullian I always think of the following when dealing with early writings that the WT tries to quote in support of the killing of little children over a life saving blood transfusion.

    In the blood brochure "How Blood can Save Your Life?" (Blood and True Christians Section) the WTS tells a direct lie when referring to the evidence from the Church Fathers:

    "The apostolic decree was long understood as binding. Eusebius tells of a young woman near the end of the second century who, before dying under torture, made the point that Christians "are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals." She was not exercising a right to die. She wanted to live, but she would not compromise her principles. Do you not respect those who put principle above personal gain?" (p. 5)

    There is of course the example of the female Christian martyr Biblis from the statements in Insight on the Scriptures:

    "And more than a hundred years later, in 177 C.E., in Lyons (now in France), when religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating children, a woman named Biblis said: "How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals?"" (Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, vol. 1, p. 346)

    Another person (forget their name - sorry) who understood WTS bu!!$hit and reviewed the Biblis story stated "Clearly, the WTS grossly distorts the evidence when it claims she died because she refused to eat blood. She died because the pagans wrongly accused Christians of killing and eating children, not because she did not eat blood! She may have put principle above personal gain by being a Christian, but not on the question of blood. The WTS makes a dishonest argument by misconstruing facts to score emotional points with the reader."

    With respect to the Tertullian quotes found in WT articles, people should realize that after they read Tertullian, he was not discussing a dietary regulation. Tertullian was dealing with sacrificing of children, eating them and others and murder. The Romans had accused the Christians of these awful acts and Tertullian was refuting them by explaining what the Roman's do at gladiator shows etc. He was explaining that Christian don't do this type of stuff. He knew that drinking human blood and eating flesh is cannibalism and all people inlcuding the Christians think it is disgusting. He was concerned with cannibalism (the eating of blood and flesh of men) and his concern over murdering animals and eating their flesh and nothing else. Tertullian even explains how blood was used to nourish a fetus.

    If Tertullian or Eusebius were alive today, they would sue the "a$$e$ of this leaders of this organization.

    hawk (who says I like what LeeElder has done to his cover page at www.ajwrb.org)

    http://www.ajwrb.org

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Excellent points, hawkaw!

    Do have complete quotes from Eusebius and one showing the full context of the Biblis story? Also, a detailed explanation of why the reference to the Eusebius quote is a lie, and why the WTS's use of the Biblis story is a misrepresentation?

    AlanF

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Hi Alan

    Do have complete quotes from Eusebius and one showing the full context of the Biblis story?

    May I suggest ( http://www.biblefacts.org/index2.html

    In it please refer to ( http://www.biblefacts.org/eusebius/euseb_b5.html#t27.htm.2 (Book 5 Chapter 1). Titled "The Number of those who fought for Religion in Gaul under Verus and the Nature of their Conflicts." Paragraph 3, last few sentences (Note "biblis" is spelled "biblias" in this version):

    .....And these indeed were burned, but he continued unbending and unyielding, firm in his confession, and refreshed and strengthened by the heavenly fountain of the water of life, flowing from the bowels of Christ. And his body was a witness of his sufferings, being one complete wound and bruise, drawn: out of shape, and altogether unlike a human form. Christ, suffering in him, manifested his glory, delivering him from his adversary, and making him an example for the others, showing that nothing is fearful where the love of the Father is, and nothing painful where there is the glory of Christ. For when the wicked men tortured him a second time after some days, supposing that with his body swollen and inflamed to such a degree that he could not bear the touch of a hand, if they should again apply the same instruments, they would overcome him, or at least by his death under his sufferings others would be made afraid, not only did not this occur, but, contrary to all human expectation, his body arose and stood erect in the midst of the subsequent torments, and resumed its original appearance and the use of its limbs_ so that, through the grace of Christ, these second sufferings became to him, not torture, but healing. "But the devil, thinking that he had already consumed Biblias, who was one of those who had denied Christ, desiring to increase her condemnation through the utterance of blasphemy, brought her again to the torture, to compel her, as already feeble and weak, to report impious things concerning us. But she recovered herself under the suffering, and as if awaking from a deep sleep, and reminded by the present anguish of the eternal punishment in hell, she contradicted the blasphemers. 'How,' she said, 'could those eat children who do not think it lawful to taste the blood even of irrational animals?' And thenceforward she confessed herself a Christian, and was given a place in the order of the witnesses.

    Also try ( http://www.swcp.com/~vogs/eusebius.html - Translated by G. A. Williamson (1895-1960?)) for Book 5, Titled "GALLIC MARTYRS OF VERUS' REIGN"

    .... But his poor body was a witness to what he had suffered--it was all one wound and bruise, bent up and robbed of outward human shape, but, suffering in that body, Christ accomplished most glorious things, utterly defeating the adversary and proving as an example to the rest that where the Father's love is [1 John 4:18] nothing can frighten us, where Christ's glory is [2 Cor. 8:23] nothing can hurt us. A few days later wicked people again put the martyr on the rack, thinking that now that his whole body was swollen and inflamed a further application of the same instruments would defeat him, unable as he was to bear even the touch of a hand; or that by dying under torture he would put fear into the rest. However, nothing of the sort happened; to their amazement his body became erect and straight as a result of these new torments, and recovered its former appearance and the use of the limbs; thus through the grace of Christ his second spell on the rack proved to be not punishment but cure.

    Biblis again, one of those who had denied Christ, was handed over to punishment by the devil, who imagined that he had already devoured her [1 Peter 5:8] and hoped to damn her as a slanderer by forcing her to say wicked things about us, being--so he thought--a feeble creature, easily broken. But on the rack she came to her senses [2 Tim. 2:26], and, so to speak, awoke out of deep sleep, reminded by the brief chastisement of the eternal punishment in hell [Matt. 25:46]. She flatly contradicted the slanderers; 'How could children be eaten by people who are not even allowed to eat the blood of brute beasts?' [Acts 15:29] From then on she insisted that she was a Christian, and so she joined the ranks of the martyrs.

    When the tyrant's instruments of torture had been utterly defeated by Christ through the endurance of the blessed saints, the devil resorted to other devices--confinement in the darkness of a filthy prison; clamping the feet in the stocks, stretched apart to the fifth hole; and the other agonies which warders when angry and full of the devil are apt to inflict on helpless prisoners. Thus the majority were suffocated in prison--those whom the Lord wished to depart in this way, so revealing His glory [John 2:2]. Some, though tortured so cruelly that even if they received every care it seemed impossible for them to survive, lived on in the prison, deprived of all human attention but strengthened by the Lord and fortified in body and soul, stimulating and encouraging the rest. But the young ones who had been recently arrested and had not previously undergone physical torture could not bear the burden of confinement, also died in prison.

    In the above, I have tried to give you the paragraphs and sentences around the talk on biblis (biblias).

    Alan you also asked the follwing:

    Also, a detailed explanation of why the reference to the Eusebius quote is a lie, and why the WTS's use of the Biblis story is a misrepresentation?

    I suspect (knowing you) you know the author. Go to
    ( http://www.youthonfire.com/x_service/lesson/Jehovahs_witnesses/Blood_Doctrine.html

    The section is titled "How the WTS Tries to Overcome the Biblical Evidence". Note the last few paragraphs in this section.

    I will also be reading through Eusebius a bit more and may add my two cents worth later.

    Hawk

  • MacHislopp
    MacHislopp

    Hello Hawkaw,Alan F. and Maximus

    thanks for this excellent topic and the various
    quote from the A.Nicean writers and of course Tertullian!
    Another one for the files.

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Greetings back J.C. Mac.

    I think I am on to another one but this is going to take some reading.

    Hold on and see me tomorrow. I have to take care of my little guy and get him fed.

    Take care and who reminds you of the "con" - when the WTS says they value a child's life and want him/her to live ..... the WTS actually means that after all the non-blood management is complete, you as a doctor and parent are suppose to sit back and let that little child die instead of receiving a life saving transfusion that has a 0.0001479% chance of having AIDs in it ... sick.

    hawk

    (www.ajwrb.org

  • Maximus
    Maximus

    Hawk, I'd love to hook up off-campus if you would.

    E-mail is unlocked.

    M

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Maximus,

    I sent you an Email but unfortuately I won't be able to talk to you "off-campus" until tomorrow. I have got family priorities tonight. Feedin kid, going to pick wife up, study at the hospital, and on and on - family life - Sorry.

    Look forward to talking tomorrow if you want too?

    hawk

    p.s. - if you want, just let me know if my Email got to you on this message board

  • Maximus
    Maximus

    Understand completely, happy to comply precisely.

    Cherish that family!

    M

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit