- This topic is empty.
- Posts
You've asked me this several times now. Since I consider it to be very obvious by my statements that we “abstain from blood,” I am hesitant to answer you only because it feels like you're trying to trick me.
Nick, Jehovah's Witnesses obey this direction:
ACTS 15:19-20
“Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.”ACTS 15:28-29
“For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!””ACTS 21:25
“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.””Thanks david.
I thought only the Jews eat meat prepared in the kosher way, but now you tell me JW's also do this?Some random thoughts:
In the 1980's in Canada, where I'm from, more than a thousand people were contaminated with the AIDS virus from “tainted blood” and blood products.
Victims who contracted HIV from blood have said they were not warned about the risks. In several cases they did not know they had received a blood transfusion until they learned they were infected with the AIDS virus.
As more witnesses testified, attention has turned to another tragedy of great proportions—hepatitis from blood. According to The Globe and Mail, it is estimated that “as many as 1,000 Canadians a year die of hepatitis C.” The newspaper adds that “UP TO HALF OF THEM may have contracted the disease from blood transfusions.”
There have been accusations of politics and rivalry among those whom the government committee called “major stakeholders” in Canada’s $250-million-a-year blood system. The Red Cross and government agencies have come under fire. No one seems to be in charge of the complex national blood system.
Dr. Mark Boyd of McGill University told The Medical Post in 1993: “We really should be somewhat grateful to Jehovah’s Witnesses because they have shown us how well we can do without blood transfusions.” A U.S. presidential commission noted in 1988: “The surest preventive measure with regard to the blood supply is to eliminate the exposure of a patient to the blood of others, whenever possible.”
dave
Quote Thanks david.
I thought only the Jews eat meat prepared in the kosher way, but now you tell me JW's also do this?Perhaps the word “kosher” is confusing us. Here is what I said:
Quote Nick, Jehovah's Witnesses obey this direction: ACTS 15:19-20
“Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.”ACTS 15:28-29
“For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!””ACTS 21:25
“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.””So, what are you asking me that I haven't answered?
ACTS 15:28-29
“For the HOLY SPIRIT and WE OURSELVES [governing body of Christians back then] have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these NECESSARY THINGS, to KEEP ABSTAING from things sacrificed to idols and FROM BLOOD and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!””Quote Hi david,
The original question was about pork and not blood. . . . can you address the relationship between the decision to not take blood but accept pork in the diet?–NICK
Well, let's look at this scripture closely. Does it say:
'to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from pork and from things strangled and from fornication'? (acts 15:29)
No. The law was done away with, nailed to the torture stake. It was a tutor leading to Christ. It showed that men were sinful and needed something more–Christ.
But, and this is a big “But,”…the command to pour the blood back to the ground came before the law. It predates the law and it was again stated as a necessary thing after the law, in Acts. Jehovah views blood as the soul or life. It is to go back to him. He has always viewed it this way. I see no mention of pork in the Greek scriptures.
david
EPHESIANS 1:7
“By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses…..”ACTS 20:28
“….to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].”ROMANS 3:25
“God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. ….”REVELATION 5:9
“….because you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue….”It's interesting how blood is spoken of in the Bible,
GENESIS 9:4
“Only flesh with its soul [or 'life']—its blood—YOU must not eat.”LEVITICUS 17:14
“For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.””Why these commands? Why?
Why does it not speak of Jesus sacrifice, but his blood as being so precious?
When a Christian follows the command to abstains from blood, he is in effect expressing his faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem him and save his life.
MATTHEW 16:24-25
“Then Jesus said to his disciples: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and continually follow me. For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.”Quote Abstaination would mean not drinking it only unless stated otherwise. –T8, Jun 15/06
'If you follow my commands, you will live…forever.'–God
'Abstain from blood.'–GodThis deserves more than a cursory glance. God's view of blood has repeatedly been stated in scripture. Why was it in there in the first place? Forget blood transfusions for a second. Why did God command to Noah not to eat blood?
Quote I would hope that I would rather die than deny my God.
But I wouldn't die for something unnecessarily. I hope not anyway.When it comes to something that is going to save my life, I would choose it, unless God forbade it of course. But I am not sure that blood is forbidden.
–t8.
Quote Eating blood means that it goes down the digestive tract into the stomach. Receiving a blood transfusion goes into an entirely different system, the cardiovascular system, the blood veins to the heart. –T8
In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29)
Our Creator referred to blood when he gave the Law code to ancient Israel. While many people respect the wisdom and ethics in that code, few are aware of its serious laws on blood. For instance:
“If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Leviticus 17:10, 11)
God then explained what a hunter was to do with a dead animal: “He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. . . . You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off.”—Leviticus 17:13, 14
Scientists now know that the Jewish Law code promoted good health. It required, for example, that excrement be deposited outside the camp and covered and that people not eat meat that carried a high risk of disease. (Leviticus 11:4-8, 13; 17:15; Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life.
Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.
The Law repeatedly stated the Creator’s ban on taking in blood to sustain life. “You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right.”—Deuteronomy 12:23-25, NIV; 15:23; Leviticus 7:26, 27; Ezekiel 33:25.
Contrary to how some today reason, God’s law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose.
During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and “fell to eating along with the blood.”
In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood?SURE, OF COURSE YOU SAY, AS YOU'VE SAID A FEW TIMES. I MUST LIVE SO I CAN SERVE GOD, SO IN THIS CASE, I CAN BREAK HIS LAW AND TAKE IN BLOOD.
No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.
Where does Christianity stand on the question of saving human life with blood?
Transfusions were certainly not known in the days of Noah, Moses, or the apostles? So if God wanted to make clear that we weren't only not to “eat” blood, but not use it for anything, and only look to Jesus blood, then He could say: “Don't get blood transfusions.” Of course, this is crazy. Did the Greeks have a word for “transfusions”? Or, He could have inspired a much broader term, such as saying: “Abstain…from blood.”
Was blood used as medicine in Roman times? The naturalist Pliny (a contemporary of the apostles) and the second-century physician Aretaeus report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. Tertullian later wrote: “Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy.” He contrasted them with Christians, who “do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them.”
So, early Christians would risk death rather than take in blood.Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.
hmmm. That also goes against what some on here are saying about saving your own soul so you can serve the Lord, but breaking his command to stay alive.
What of transfusing blood? Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: ‘Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.
Bartholin concluded: “Either manner of taking [blood] accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nourished or restored.”
–De sanguine vetito disquisitio medica (A Medical Disquisition Concerning the Prohibition of Blood), by Thomas Bartholin, Frankfurt, 1673, page 11.In the second half of the 17th century, there were further experiments with blood transfusions. The Italian physician Bartolomeo Santinelli doubted their medical value. But he opposed them for another reason too. Here is what he wrote:
“Let it be allowed to cross the boundaries of medicine for a little while, and in order to satisfy abundantly the curious reader, since the unsuitableness of transfusion has already been proved by medical reasons, let it be permitted to confirm that further by monuments of the sacred pages, for thus its repugnance will become known not only to physicians but to all sorts of learned men. . . . Although indeed the prohibition of the use of blood would have in view only that man should not eat it, for which reason it would seem to pertain less to our cause, nonetheless the purpose of that injunction is contrary to today’s transfusion [practice], so that the one who employs it [blood transfusion] would appear to oppose God who extends clemency.”–Confusio transfusionis, sive confutatio operationis transfundentis sanguinem de individuo ad individuum (A Confounding of Transfusion, or a Refutation of the Operation of Transfusing Blood From Individual to Individual), by Bartolomeo Santinelli, Rome, 1668, pages 130, 131.
david
Quote (david @ Oct. 15 2006,03:30) The Law repeatedly stated the Creator’s ban on taking in blood to sustain life. “You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right.”—Deuteronomy 12:23-25, NIV; 15:23; Leviticus 7:26, 27; Ezekiel 33:25.
Hi david.The scriptures you quote are talking about ingesting blood. Eating or drinking it.
The Digestive System and The Circulatory System are different.
As far as I know, putting something into the circulatory system is not ingesting it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I also don't think we ever need to eat or drink blood. But humans do need blood and will die if they lack it.
That's the way I see it. I don't think that anyone should let their child die because they refuse to allow a life saving blood transfusion. But if medical knowledge has improved and provides a safer and better way to save a person who is lacking blood, then I am all for that too.
To me this is another good reason why denominations and man-made doctrines should be avoided. If you are free to be led by the Spirit in all things, then you do not have the burden of having to adhere to the commandments of men. But if we are under the authority of man-made rules and regulations, then we are not free to hear what the truth is. We are then more likely to not look at things purely, but with the taint or essense of the authority that you are burdened to.
There have been a number of documented cases where JWs have died because they refused or were refused a blood transfusion. You read about these cases from time to time in the newspaper and the ones you read about are usually in relation to children who died because their parents refused a transfusion for their child. I wonder how the parents must feel knowing that they could have saved their child, but let him/her die because the JW organisation says it is wrong to have a transfusion.
I think of my son in that situation and I would never let him die needlessly. I love him too much. Of course I also love God and hopefully wouldn't break his commandments, knowingly at least. But I believe in this case I don't need to choose between God or my child. I do not believe it is wrong to accept blood, or a blood product, or alternative, into my Circulatory System. I personally do not have a problem with medicine or drugs either, so long as they were applied or used in an appropriate way.
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.Regarding the fact that transfusions didn't exist in Noah or Moses time as being the reason why it is not specifically outlawed only proves that there isn't a scripture that condemns transfusions. To say that scripture condemns it when it didn't exist at the time the scripture was written is only speculation.
But from what I can see it is the ingestion of blood that is against the Law. Personally I have no desire to ingest blood anyway, so it is not as if I could be tempted.
As far as blood transfusions go, if it is wrong to have the blood of another in the circulatory system to give life, then what of a mother and unborn child?
Surely the child relies on the mothers blood for life. Actually I do not know much about it. Did I get that part right?
A baby has it's own blood source and not that of the mother. Nutrients are passed through the placenta to the fetus.
I read this on Wikipedia.
The circulatory system of a human fetus works differently from that of born humans, mainly because the lungs are not in use: the fetus obtains oxygen and nutrients from the woman through the placenta and the umbilical cord.
Blood from the placenta is carried by the umbilical vein. About half of this enters the ductus venosus and is carried to the inferior vena cava, while the other half enters the liver proper from the inferior border of the liver. The branch of the umbilical vein that supplies the right lobe of the liver first joins with the portal vein. The blood then moves to the right atrium of the heart. In the fetus, there is an opening between the right and left atrium (the foramen ovale), and most of the blood flows from the right into the left atrium, thus bypassing pulmonary circulation. The majority of blood flow is into the left ventricle from where it is pumped through the aorta into the body. Some of the blood moves from the aorta through the internal iliac arteries to the umbilical arteries, and re-enters the placenta, where carbon dioxide and other waste products from the fetus are taken up and enter the woman's circulation.
Quote If you are free to be led by the Spirit in all things, then you do not have the burden of having to adhere to the commandments of men. But if we are under the authority of man-made rules and regulations. . . . –t8
So you're saying if we're lead by the holy spirit, then we don't have to adhere to what the apostles and older men of the Christian congregation stated as necessary?
ACTS 15:28-29
“For the holy spirit AND WE OURSELVES have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from ….blood.”If you consider it a “burden” to have to follow what other men were inspired by God to write, then what can I say?
This isn't really a man made rule T8. It was before the days of Noah. It was in the law. It was also deemed a necessary thing after the law, by the holy spirit and by the governing body of Christians in the first century.
Can we for a moment consider WHY these things are commanded, instead of looking at what is specifically commanded.
Why, did God choose to restrict people in this way?
Anyone?
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 14 2006,16:33) I read this on Wikipedia. The circulatory system of a human fetus works differently from that of born humans, mainly because the lungs are not in use: the fetus obtains oxygen and nutrients from the woman through the placenta and the umbilical cord.
Blood from the placenta is carried by the umbilical vein. About half of this enters the ductus venosus and is carried to the inferior vena cava, while the other half enters the liver proper from the inferior border of the liver. The branch of the umbilical vein that supplies the right lobe of the liver first joins with the portal vein. The blood then moves to the right atrium of the heart. In the fetus, there is an opening between the right and left atrium (the foramen ovale), and most of the blood flows from the right into the left atrium, thus bypassing pulmonary circulation. The majority of blood flow is into the left ventricle from where it is pumped through the aorta into the body. Some of the blood moves from the aorta through the internal iliac arteries to the umbilical arteries, and re-enters the placenta, where carbon dioxide and other waste products from the fetus are taken up and enter the woman's circulation.
Hi t8,Just to be clear, I believe that the second paragraph of your post describes the fetus' own blood circulatory system and is independent of its mother's. That's been my understanding anyway.
While there can be cross transfusion between mother and child during pregnancy, it is not the norm or natural process, and is mainly associated with abnormalities or trauma when vessels tear and causes this to happen.
Interesting excerpt below. I hope to research further regardng it. I also find the suggestion related to fetal-maternal cross transfusion and autoimmune conditions interesting.
NOTE: A small number of people have two different ABO blood types. They are not simply AB codominant. Apparently, most of these blood chimera individuals shared a blood supply with their non-identical twin before birth. In some cases, people are unaware that they had a twin because he or she died early in gestation and was spontaneously aborted. As many as 8% of non-identical twins may have chimeric blood. Some people are microchimeric–they have a small amount of blood of a different type in their system that has persisted from a blood transfusion or passed across the placental barrier from their mother before birth. Likewise, fetal blood can pass into a mother's system. This fact has led some researchers to suggest that the significantly higher frequency of autoimmune disorders in women is a result of the presence of foreign white blood cells that had come from their unborn children during pregnancy.Hi David:
We still have a different understanding of what God would have us to do relative to blood transfusions. and so why do we not join hands in prayer asking God what He would have us to do relative to this matter.
You asked me how were we to come into unity in the thread of the Jehovah Witness church, and so this is the way that we can come into unity.
James 1:5-7 states: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord”.
I have had to ask God for understanding many times about various scriptures and he has never failed to answer.
I have gone to the official web-site of the JWs and looked at the your beliefs, and there are many on which I have a different understanding. I have not tried to discuss them with you because it seemed to me that you were pretty busy answering brother Casey's posts. And you said that you had some time constraints because of your job.
I love you and want God's very best for you and your family.
Hi David:
I hope that you and your family are doing well.
As part of my morning prayer routine I pray, “Father, if I am teaching any thing that is not your Word or doing any thing that is not your will correct me”. And I also, pray: “Father correct those who are teaching error”. David, when I share my understanding of scripture or doctrine, it is not to bash JWs or anyone else. My purpose is to seek unity with all who profess to be Christians so that people will want to join us in serving God. Jesus prayed, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”. (John 17:29-21)
As I have previously posted, God has shown me that when I have a different understanding than someone in authority is teaching to go to that person not judging them to be wrong but with the mentality that it might me that that is wrong. I am not suggesting rebelling against those in authority, but I believe that I have a right to question what is being taught. An example of this is the “trinity doctrine”. I just cannot tell those teaching this doctrine that I agree with the teaching. I would be lying if I did. If those with whom I disagree can show me by the scriptures that my understanding is not correct, I will welcome the correction. I certainly do not want to mislead anyone by teaching something that isn't God's Word. I would hope that you would not want that either.
I stated that there was no commandment stating that Christians should abstain from blood transfusions, and you rightly stated that there was no commandment relative to cigarettes either. And so, in my judgment, when we have this situation, we have to relate this to other similar situations in the Word of God.
We know that cigarette smoking will destroy the body. The lungs were not meant to take in all of that tar. Therefore, even without a scripture we know that God did not mean for us to smoke cigarettes.
Blood, however, is essential to the human body. If the blood is gone, the body dies. Without water or food the body will die. These are essentials to the human body for life.
The Word of God to Noah was, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat”. (Gen. 9:3-4) And so, in essence, he gave Noah permission to kill living creatures for meat, and later in the scriptures, He would make a distinction between clean and unclean animals, but he forbade them to eat the blood of the living creatures-that is amimals, fish, and fowl.
God continues with the following: “And surely your blood of your lives will require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man”. (Gen. 9:5-6)
And so God makes a distinction here between living creatures and man. Permission is given for humanity to kill living creatures for meat, but man is made in God's image, therefore, to kill a man by shedding his blood has serious consequences with God.
And so suppose, that you come upon a man who has been stabbed and is bleeding profusely or maybe it is your own child. You get them to the hospital, but the doctor tells you that without a blood transfusion the person will die. You refuse to allow the blood transfusion because of JWs beliefs. Are you then a partaker to that person's death? You could have saved their life by allowing the blood transfusion.
I realize that there are cases of tainted blood, and I also realize that there is experimentation with bloodless surgery, and if one could save the person's life without having to use a blood transfusion, that would be a better alternative.
The commandment from God was THAT WE SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM EATING THE BLOOD OF THE LIVING CREATURES THAT WE KILL FOR MEAT. I buy my meat at the Grocery store, and I cook it before I eat it. I do not eat the blood. I was raised on a farm, and we did kill animals for meat. I don't remember if I ever ate blood or not. I know that my parents tried to take advantage of as much of the amimal for meat as possible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
