- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote I was not referring to what Jesus did but his pointing out what David did. What do you have to say about King David? Alright.
According to Leviticus 24:5-9, the loaves of presentation that were replaced on each Sabbath were reserved for the priests to eat. THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND THIS use was that the loaves were holy and were to serve as food for the men engaged in God’s service—the priests. Giving them to a common laborer or eating them just for pleasure would definitely be wrong. However, the priest Ahimelech did nothing sinful when he shared the showbread with David and his men.
David appeared to be on a special assignment from King Saul. David and his men were hungry. Ahimelech determined that they were ceremonially clean. While their eating of the loaves of presentation was technically unlawful, it was in harmony with the basic designated use of the showbread. This consideration permitted Ahimelech to make an exception to the rule.
The foregoing, however, does not mean that God’s law can be violated when circumstances become difficult. For example, a seemingly critical situation developed when Israelite warriors were fighting the Philistines. King Saul had said: “Cursed is the man that eats bread before the evening and until I have taken vengeance upon my enemies!” The Bible says: “On that day they kept striking down the Philistines.” The soldiers were battle-weary and hungry, ‘and the people began slaughtering animals on the earth and fell to eating along with the blood.’ (1 Samuel 14:24, 31-33) They sinned against Jehovah by violating his law on blood. Their actions were not in accord with the only God-designated use of blood, namely “to make atonement” for sins. (Leviticus 17:10-12; Genesis 9:3, 4) Mercifully, Jehovah accepted special sacrifices in behalf of those who had sinned.—1 Samuel 14:34, 35.
Jehovah expects us to obey his laws under all circumstances. “This is what the love of God means,” says the apostle John, “that we observe his commandments.”—1 John 5:3.
God has certainly set blood apart for a special use. What is the designated use of blood in the Bible?
“For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11)
“The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Le 17:14)
After the Flood, Noah and his sons, the progenitors of all persons alive today, were commanded to show respect for the life, the blood, of fellowmen. (Ge 9:1, 5, 6) Also, God kindly allowed them to add animal flesh to their diet. However, they had to acknowledge that the life of any animal killed for food belonged to God, doing so by pouring its blood out as water on the ground. This was like giving it back to God, not using it for one’s own purposes.—De 12:15, 16.
Man was entitled to enjoy the life that God granted him, and anyone who deprived him of that life would be answerable to God. This was shown when God said to the murderer Cain: “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Ge 4:10) Even a person hating his brother, and so wishing him dead, or slandering him or bearing false witness against him, and so endangering his life, would bring guilt upon himself in connection with the blood of his fellowman.—Le 19:16; De 19:18-21; 1Jo 3:15.
The whole atonement arrangement was based on blood. “Nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law,” wrote the apostle Paul, “and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”—Hebrews 9:22.
Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by GodLev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)
Heb. 9:11-14, 22: “When Christ came as a high priest . . . he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God? . . . Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”
Eph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.”
Stepping back for a moment, and not thinking of blood, what do you make of this:
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.”
Is the idea of losing your life for Jesus sake or for following Jesus…wrong, absurd? How do you view the idea of actually having such faith that your very life would be called into account because of it?In Canada, JW's used to have to sign a piece of paper saying they wouldn't hold the hospital liable because of not using blood.
NOW, interestingly, people have to sign a piece of paper saying they won't hold the hospital liable when they do use blood.Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,13:23) Quote I was not referring to what Jesus did but his pointing out what David did. What do you have to say about King David? Alright.
According to Leviticus 24:5-9, the loaves of presentation that were replaced on each Sabbath were reserved for the priests to eat. THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND THIS use was that the loaves were holy and were to serve as food for the men engaged in God’s service—the priests. Giving them to a common laborer or eating them just for pleasure would definitely be wrong. However, the priest Ahimelech did nothing sinful when he shared the showbread with David and his men.
Then why did Jesus point it out?
Quote David appeared to be on a special assignment from King Saul. David and his men were hungry. Ahimelech determined that they were ceremonially clean. While their eating of the loaves of presentation was technically unlawful, it was in harmony with the basic designated use of the showbread. This consideration permitted Ahimelech to make an exception to the rule. How can something be “technically unlawful” but not be a sin?
Quote The foregoing, however, does not mean that God’s law can be violated when circumstances become difficult. For example, a seemingly critical situation developed when Israelite warriors were fighting the Philistines. King Saul had said: “Cursed is the man that eats bread before the evening and until I have taken vengeance upon my enemies!” The Bible says: “On that day they kept striking down the Philistines.” The soldiers were battle-weary and hungry, ‘and the people began slaughtering animals on the earth and fell to eating along with the blood.’ (1 Samuel 14:24, 31-33) They sinned against Jehovah by violating his law on blood. Their actions were not in accord with the only God-designated use of blood, namely “to make atonement” for sins. (Leviticus 17:10-12; Genesis 9:3, 4) Mercifully, Jehovah accepted special sacrifices in behalf of those who had sinned.—1 Samuel 14:34, 35. Jehovah expects us to obey his laws under all circumstances. “This is what the love of God means,” says the apostle John, “that we observe his commandments.”—1 John 5:3.
Of what benefit is ingesting blood? None. There IS a benefit to blood transfusions if necessary.I think it is up to the individual if he wants to misinterpret scripture to the detriment of those in his family. Free will, free choice.
I think that really there is no point of getting a blood transfusion if there are perfectly good blood substitutes out there.
SevenaQuote (Sevena @ Feb. 15 2008,01:50) I think that really there is no point of getting a blood transfusion if there are perfectly good blood substitutes out there.
Sevena
Don't you want the most appropriate medical treatment? If it's a substitute you need then have than, take whole blood if that's required.Stuart
Quote (Sevena @ Feb. 15 2008,05:08) But in all honesty, using someone elses blood is wrong, it is their life's essence.
Sevena
What on earth do you mean by 'life essence'?Kidneys are our flitration system. They are just as critical to our function. Is it wrong to donate a kidney to someone desparately in need of it?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2008,17:08) JWs are god-heads with no compassion for their fellow humans. I base this prejudice entirely on the numbers of them that die for want a simple, safe blood transfusion. What pig-headed brutality.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You love expounding your anger against all you meet.
Why are you always such a judgemental person?
Does your lack of hope make you depressed?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,06:38) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2008,17:08) JWs are god-heads with no compassion for their fellow humans. I base this prejudice entirely on the numbers of them that die for want a simple, safe blood transfusion. What pig-headed brutality.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You love expounding your anger against all you meet.
Why are you always such a judgemental person?
Does your lack of hope make you depressed?
I am angered by people whose pig-headed and selfish addiction to an ideology causes needless death. I am dismayed that you do not seem to be.You wouldn't have much of an idea of my attitude to most people I meet. Very few humans are religious fundamentalists.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
Most folk let other folks be and live their own lives.
But you have a desperate mission
to do what?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,18:26) Hi Stu,
Most folk let other folks be and live their own lives.
But you have a desperate mission
to do what?
If only JWs would let me be. They all too often darken my door with their dark-age literature.As for my 'mission', I don't have one, except to expect people not to lie about science.
Stuart
Quote (david @ Jan. 27 2008,01:29) God has certainly set blood apart for a special use. What is the designated use of blood in the Bible? “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11)
“The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Le 17:14)
After the Flood, Noah and his sons, the progenitors of all persons alive today, were commanded to show respect for the life, the blood, of fellowmen. (Ge 9:1, 5, 6) Also, God kindly allowed them to add animal flesh to their diet. However, they had to acknowledge that the life of any animal killed for food belonged to God, doing so by pouring its blood out as water on the ground. This was like giving it back to God, not using it for one’s own purposes.—De 12:15, 16.
Man was entitled to enjoy the life that God granted him, and anyone who deprived him of that life would be answerable to God. This was shown when God said to the murderer Cain: “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Ge 4:10) Even a person hating his brother, and so wishing him dead, or slandering him or bearing false witness against him, and so endangering his life, would bring guilt upon himself in connection with the blood of his fellowman.—Le 19:16; De 19:18-21; 1Jo 3:15.
The whole atonement arrangement was based on blood. “Nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law,” wrote the apostle Paul, “and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”—Hebrews 9:22.
Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by GodLev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)
Heb. 9:11-14, 22: “When Christ came as a high priest . . . he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God? . . . Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”
Eph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.”
Stepping back for a moment, and not thinking of blood, what do you make of this:
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.”
Is the idea of losing your life for Jesus sake or for following Jesus…wrong, absurd? How do you view the idea of actually having such faith that your very life would be called into account because of it?In Canada, JW's used to have to sign a piece of paper saying they wouldn't hold the hospital liable because of not using blood.
NOW, interestingly, people have to sign a piece of paper saying they won't hold the hospital liable when they do use blood.
David,
While I agree with much you have said about blood I see it differently as I posted on the “Blood” thread:Quote Blood is the symbol of life and death, it was spilled on the altar as the substituted death for sins, this fore-shadowed the blood that would take away our sins. To take this symbol and treat it as common by consuming it as food shows a total disregard for things of God. With that said, to accept a transfusion in order to save a life, is right in line with what God has ordained for the meaning for the symbol. Wm
Personally I have never had a transfusion or given one, I was hesitant as I have found that the JW's have a lot of truths (but also IMO some big errors). I needed to make sure this was one of those, what I feel, to be errors (and of course I hate needles, lol).
However after studying the matter I believe that the difference between the consumption of Blood and the use of blood to save a life is two different matters.
You ask' “How do you view the idea of actually having such faith that your very life would be called into account because of it?”, I view it that I have already died to myself (putting to death my fleshly desires) my life is God's (always was but now to a positive end). In other words “So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.”
Wm
Do I view JWs Christian, in a general sense, yes. Are many of their beliefs peculiar, yes. I view them somwhere on the cusp between mainstream religion and cult, as they seem to have practices that lie somewhere in between. I admire the dedication of many of their members, but view their recruiting methods with suspicion. They are one of the few groups I no longer allow entry into my home, as they do not seem to respect other's beliefs, at least in the microcosm of my dealings with them.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2008,20:39) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,18:26) Hi Stu,
Most folk let other folks be and live their own lives.
But you have a desperate mission
to do what?
If only JWs would let me be. They all too often darken my door with their dark-age literature.As for my 'mission', I don't have one, except to expect people not to lie about science.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
So it is only in defense of science that
you attack faith in God and His words?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 16 2008,04:38) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2008,20:39) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 15 2008,18:26) Hi Stu,
Most folk let other folks be and live their own lives.
But you have a desperate mission
to do what?
If only JWs would let me be. They all too often darken my door with their dark-age literature.As for my 'mission', I don't have one, except to expect people not to lie about science.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
So it is only in defense of science that
you attack faith in God and His words?
How can you defend a faith that so plainly makes incorrect statements and then twists language out of recognition in order to justify those statements?Stuart
Hi Stu,
What incorrect statements?
Where are the twists?Just because you cannot assemble the puzzle does not mean it is impossible.
That would make you God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 16 2008,05:54) Hi Stu,
What incorrect statements?
Where are the twists?Just because you cannot assemble the puzzle does not mean it is impossible.
That would make you God.
No, what happens here (David's posts on natural history and Genesis are a classic example) is not trying to assemble a puzzle; it is taking a completely different jigsaw picture and filing down the pieces until they kind of fit together, ending up with a pleasant scene of London that includes the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty.Stuart
Hi Stu,
David is a servant of the Watchtower.
But scripture does form an amazing completeness.
There seems to be a plank in your eye disturbing your view.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
