Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood

@divegeester said
The crux of my issue with your religion and it’s beliefs is the outworking of this dangerous doctrine about blood and it’s impact on minors who are in gross danger of there parents allowing then to be sacrificed to your version of god in the name of this doctrine. If you adults want to sacrifice yourselves on the alter of error to this tyrant God of blood that is your ow ...[text shortened]... o wrote it and in what context in was written, the date, the edition and a link to it.

Thank you.

I guess we will never know as it seems Galveston75 doesn’t want to discuss it.

As usual.

@suzianne said
However, the Old Testament and its hundreds of laws are not meant for Christians. I see links to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but none to the Gospels or any quotes from Jesus himself. The Mosaic Laws simply do not apply to Christians. Jesus has told those who follow him what is expected of them, and it isn't a list of over 900 laws about dietary restrictions or worship instructions.

Check this out:

So, does the divine prohibition against blood apply to Christians?

When dealing with the question of circumcision for Gentile Christians, what was decided regarding blood?

This matter came up for discussion in 49 C.E., during a conference of the apostles and older men of Jerusalem who served as a central body of elders for all Christians. The conference was held in response to a question about circumcision. This apostolic council decided that non-Jews who accepted Christianity did not have to get circumcised. During the discussion Jesus’ half brother James brought to the council’s attention certain other essential things that he deemed important to include in their decision, namely, “to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:19-21) He referred back to the writings of Moses, which reveal that even before the Law was given, God had disapproved of immoral sex relations, idolatry and the eating of blood, which would include eating the flesh of strangled animals containing blood.​—Genesis 9:3, 4; 19:1-25; 34:31; 35:2-4.

This decision of the apostolic council became a part of what?

The decision of the council was sent by letter to the Christian congregations. It is now included in the Bible as part of the inspired Scriptures that are beneficial “for teaching, . . . for setting things straight.” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) The decision was:
What did that decision explicitly state, and how do we know that it was not merely the apostles’ opinion?
“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.”​—Acts 15:28, 29.

Yes, even though Christians were not under the Mosaic law, it was “necessary” that they abstain from blood. Was that just the apostles’ personal opinion? Not at all. As they stated, that decision was made in accord with God’s holy spirit.
According to Professor Walther Zimmerli, what distinction did that decree make?
Concerning that Christian decree, Professor Walther Zimmerli, of the University of Göttingen, Germany, commented:
“The first Judeo-Christian congregation in the decision reported on in Acts 15 made a distinction between the Law given to Israel through Moses and the command given [through] Noah to all the world.”​—Zürcher Bibelkommentare.⁠6
What indicates that the command to abstain from blood was a moral requirement and not merely a dietary one?
The command to ‘abstain from blood’ was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as ‘abstaining from idolatry or fornication.

Was the decision recorded in Acts 15:28, 29 merely a temporary requirement, not an obligation that continued to rest on Christians?

Some persons have held that the apostolic decree was not a permanent obligation for Christians. But the book of Acts clearly indicates otherwise. It shows that, about ten years after the Jerusalem council issued that decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Acts 21:25) This shows that they were aware that the requirement to abstain from blood was not limited to Gentile converts in one area nor applicable for just a brief period.

What does Eusebius say as to the prohibition of blood being recognized in his day?

But what was the situation in later centuries when Christianity spread into distant places? Let us consider the evidence from the centuries following the publishing of the decree recorded in Acts 15:28, 29.

Eusebius, a third century writer who is considered the “father of Church history,” relates what occurred in Lyons (now in France) in the year 177 C.E. Religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating infants. During the torture and execution of some Christians, a girl named Biblias responded to the false accusation, saying: “How can we eat infants​—we, to whom it is not lawful to eat the blood of beasts.”⁠7

What did Tertullian and Minucius Felix say as to Christians not eating blood in their day?

Similar false charges moved the early Latin theologian Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) to point out that though Romans commonly drank blood, Christians certainly did not. He writes:
“Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”⁠

Also, referring to the decree of Acts 15:28, 29, he says: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be [an interdict] much more upon human blood.”⁠

Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., makes the same point, writing: “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”⁠

What statements did a bishop and a Catholic Biblical scholar make on the subject of blood?

The historical evidence is so abundant and clear that Bishop John Kaye (1783-1853) could state categorically: “The Primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in abstaining from things strangled and from blood.”⁠

Jehovah's Witnesses and the question of Blood. Pages 55-56.

There is a lot more info on this if' you'd like to see it?

@galveston75 said
So, does the divine prohibition against blood apply to Christians?

Are you pleased that beaurobert's wife is still alive?

@galveston75 said
So, does the divine prohibition against blood apply to Christians?

The crux of my issue with your religion and it’s beliefs is the outworking of this dangerous doctrine about blood and it’s impact on minors who are in gross danger of there parents allowing then to be sacrificed to your version of god in the name of this doctrine. If you adults want to sacrifice yourselves on the alter of error to this tyrant God of blood that is your own stupid business, but your children need to be protected from your madness.

In relation to the article you have linked in your OP, I would like you to provide me with the link or the entire text from which this excerpt in bold was taken please:

”Some persons in the medical and legal professions have recognized that a competent adult has the right to refuse a blood transfusion. But they have held that if parents refuse permission for their child, a transfusion should be forced by court order. This position, however, lacks fundamental consistency and harmony, as pointed out in the journal Forensic Science:

““Are we then to assume that the courts are willing to assign a different religion to the children than that of their parents, when statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children are reared and indeed follow the same religious denomination as their parents? Would this also not be as much an infringement of religious rights of the children by the courts as those rights which the court is trying to protect for the adults under the First Amendment [of the Constitution] by denying the transfusion over the adult’s objections? Are the courts not assigning in essence a religion to the children if they deny transfusions on religious grounds for adults and permit them for the children of the same adults?””⁠

I would like to know exactly who wrote it and in what context in was written, the date, the edition and a link to it.

Thank you.

@galveston75 said
Check this out:

So, does the divine prohibition against blood apply to Christians?

When dealing with the question of circumcision for Gentile Christians, what was decided regarding blood?

This matter came up for discussion in 49 C.E., during a conference of the apostles and older men of Jerusalem who served as a central body of elders for all Christians. The ...[text shortened]... the question of Blood. Pages 55-56.

There is a lot more info on this if' you'd like to see it?

Are you going to post the entire WTO article here?

You realize that the apostles were Jewish, right?

They continued to adhere to scripture. Are you surprised by this?

@suzianne said
Are you going to post the entire WTO article here?

You realize that the apostles were Jewish, right?

They continued to adhere to scripture. Are you surprised by this?

What does that have to do with what God had written in the Bible? Where has God taken that law of abstaining from blood away from ones who supposedly live by the bible? When did the meaning and sanctity of blood in God's eyes change? If it has been changed, who changed it? Did you? Did your church? Who has because no human has any right at all to challenge what blood means to Jehovah.
Who has the power or authority to change anything in the Bible? Not you.
This is from Jehovah. You may decide to ignore anything you choose with any laws are in the Bible. We, Jehovah's Witnesses will never do that and no human will never make us and we will never give into pressures or ridicule from any mere human who has turned their back on Jehovah, ones who have even stopped using his name.
Do you not think that if it were OK for humans to use blood to put into another humans body to keep living, he would have made it more then perfectly clear?
Again as a Christian you should have a deep belief in a resurrection in the future. Do you?

@divegeester said
I guess we will never know as it seems Galveston75 doesn’t want to discuss it.

As usual.

Certainly not you......

@galveston75 said
Certainly not you......

I’m sorry that your message form Jehovah is confined to people you approve of.

@divegeester said
I’m sorry that your message form Jehovah is confined to people you approve of.

Two points for you.. First it is not humans who decide, it is Jehovah. It is he who directs those who teach to those who will not only listen but are willing to learn. just as those he approached.
Second my friend is you are not willing and humble enough to listen to anyone, so by all your past actions and pretty ignorant comments back, it is more then clear you do not want to learn the deeper truths in the Bible.
So why do you think I should keep responding over and over to your same old, trap setting questions? LOL. C YA Later....

@galveston75 said
Two points for you.. First it is not humans who decide, it is Jehovah. It is he who directs those who teach to those who will not only listen but are willing to learn. just as those he approached.
Second my friend is you are not willing and humble enough to listen to anyone, so by all your past actions and pretty ignorant comments back, it is more then clear you do not ...[text shortened]... I should keep responding over and over to your same old, trap setting questions? LOL. C YA Later....

Firstly I’m not your “friend” and likely never will be with your attitude.

Secondly, I would put good money on me being ONLY person in this forum who read the link in your OP.

Thirdly I am the ONLY person to have replied referencing the article and giving an intelligent and thoughtful response to it.

So you need to think carefully about that my “friend”, I am paying full attention - no one else is.

Your call.

Bump for any Jehovah’s Witness ...

Another bump for Galveston75, or indeed any Jehovah's Witness interested in more that posting random assertions that they belong to the one true religion who just happen to be the sole voice of God’s truth on earth.

Any of you, open invitation to respond to me reply in your own JW thread.

Here you go Galveston75...

The crux of my issue with your religion and it’s beliefs is the outworking of this dangerous doctrine about blood and it’s impact on minors who are in gross danger of there parents allowing then to be sacrificed to your version of god in the name of this doctrine. If you adults want to sacrifice yourselves on the alter of error to this tyrant God of blood that is your own stupid business, but your children need to be protected from your madness.

In relation to the article you have linked in your OP, I would like you to provide me with the link or the entire text from which this excerpt in bold was taken please:

”Some persons in the medical and legal professions have recognized that a competent adult has the right to refuse a blood transfusion. But they have held that if parents refuse permission for their child, a transfusion should be forced by court order. This position, however, lacks fundamental consistency and harmony, as pointed out in the journal Forensic Science:

““Are we then to assume that the courts are willing to assign a different religion to the children than that of their parents, when statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children are reared and indeed follow the same religious denomination as their parents? Would this also not be as much an infringement of religious rights of the children by the courts as those rights which the court is trying to protect for the adults under the First Amendment [of the Constitution] by denying the transfusion over the adult’s objections? Are the courts not assigning in essence a religion to the children if they deny transfusions on religious grounds for adults and permit them for the children of the same adults?””⁠

I would like to know exactly who wrote it and in what context in was written, the date, the edition and a link to it.

Thank you.