Blood Transfusions

[Dant01]

.
Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For example
they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in Halloween, serve
in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.

Their feelings about special days are protected by the fourteenth chapter of Romans
so it would be extremely unchristian to criticize them on that front.

Their feelings about blood transfusions appear tenable from the passages below.

• Gen 9:3-4 . . Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in
the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul-- its
blood --you must not eat.

• Lev 7:26-27 . .You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell,
whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must
be cut off from his people.

• Lev 17:10-14 . . As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who
is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set
my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off
from among his people.

• 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 blood.

The Society construes those passages to imply that transfusing blood is all the
same as using it for food.

Rather than get into a semantic quarrel with the Society over its interpretation of
those passages; I suggest another tact. And our purpose is not to win a debate;
only to offer a second opinion.

The Jews' sabbath law is very narrow. In point of fact, the covenant that Moses'
people agreed upon with God imposes capital punishment for sabbath violators. (Ex
31:14-15)

Now, that is very interesting because Jesus broke the sabbath on a number of
occasions, and when doing so based his actions upon the principle that human life,
safety, and welfare trump strict compliance with law; even God-given law.

One of the best illustrations I've seen of a die-hard legalist was a cartoon showing a
man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red light while huge landslide
boulders are within seconds of crushing to death him, his family, and the family
dog. While his wife and children shriek in mortal panic, the legalist calmly points
out that he can't move the car until the light turns green.

Legalists typically refuse to accept the possibility of extenuating circumstances,
which Webster's defines as: to lessen, or to try to lessen, the seriousness or extent
of by making partial excuses; viz: mitigate.

Although it's illegal to run red lights, those boulders rumbling down the hill to crush
the man's family to death unless he moves the car, are an acceptable excuse to go
before the light turns green. In those kinds of cases, human life, safety, and
welfare trump strict conformity to the law.

Compare Ex 1:15-21 where Jewish midwives lied through their teeth in order to
save the lives of little Jewish boys. Did God punish the midwives for the sin of
dishonesty? No, on the contrary; He overlooked it and instead rewarded the
midwives' actions with families of their own. In point of fact, their actions were
adjudged as fearing the true God. (Ex 1:21)

Should someone reading this section chance to discuss blood transfusions with a JW
from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go about it with the utmost in
diplomacy, care, and civility because this is a hot-button issue. Should your JW
audience come to the realization that they've made a monstrous mistake, they will
be overwhelmed with guilt, disillusion, and humiliation; not to mention fear of the
organizational tsunami that'll come their way should they dare to question the
Society's stance on blood transfusions.
_

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

.
Some of the Watchtower Society's ethics rub people the wrong way. For example
they don't celebrate birthdays, observe Christmas, participate in Halloween, serve
in the military, nor allow blood transfusions.

Their feelings about special days are protected by the fourteenth chapter of Romans
so it would be extremely unchristian to criticize them on that front.

Their feelings about blood transfusions appear tenable from the passages below.

• Gen 9:3-4 . . Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in
the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul-- its
blood --you must not eat.

• Lev 7:26-27 . .You must not eat any blood in any places where you dwell,
whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must
be cut off from his people.

• Lev 17:10-14 . . As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who
is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set
my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off
from among his people.

• 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 blood.

The Society construes those passages to imply that transfusing blood is all the
same as using it for food.

Rather than get into a semantic quarrel with the Society over its interpretation of
those passages; I suggest another tact. And our purpose is not to win a debate;
only to offer a second opinion.

The Jews' sabbath law is very narrow. In point of fact, the covenant that Moses'
people agreed upon with God imposes capital punishment for sabbath violators. (Ex
31:14-15)

Now, that is very interesting because Jesus broke the sabbath on a number of
occasions, and when doing so based his actions upon the principle that human life,
safety, and welfare trump strict compliance with law; even God-given law.

Jesus never "broke the Sabbath" as the Law allowed what Jesus did--such as plucking grain and doing good deeds--to be done on the Sabbath.

One of the best illustrations I've seen of a die-hard legalist was a cartoon showing a
man behind the wheel of his car stopped at a red light while huge landslide
boulders are within seconds of crushing to death him, his family, and the family
dog. While his wife and children shriek in mortal panic, the legalist calmly points
out that he can't move the car until the light turns green.

Legalists typically refuse to accept the possibility of extenuating circumstances,
which Webster's defines as: to lessen, or to try to lessen, the seriousness or extent
of by making partial excuses; viz: mitigate.

Although it's illegal to run red lights, those boulders rumbling down the hill to crush
the man's family to death unless he moves the car, are an acceptable excuse to go
before the light turns green. In those kinds of cases, human life, safety, and
welfare trump strict conformity to the law.

I don't see how this is a good example (as this is nothing like disobeying God's commandment to abstain from blood to save one's life).

Compare Ex 1:15-21 where Jewish midwives lied through their teeth in order to
save the lives of little Jewish boys. Did God punish the midwives for the sin of
dishonesty? No, on the contrary; He overlooked it and instead rewarded the
midwives' actions with families of their own. In point of fact, their actions were
adjudged as fearing the true God. (Ex 1:21)

YHWH blessed them for "obeying God rather than man".

Moreover, there was no "law" against lying(. See Romans 5:13).

Should someone reading this section chance to discuss blood transfusions with a JW
from Christ's sabbath perspective; I urge them to go about it with the utmost in
diplomacy, care, and civility because this is a hot-button issue. Should your JW
audience come to the realization that they've made a monstrous mistake, they will
be overwhelmed with guilt, disillusion, and humiliation; not to mention fear of the
organizational tsunami that'll come their way should they dare to question the
Society's stance on blood transfusions.
_

One would have to get past the fact that like intravenous feeding(--where a patient receives nutrients through an intravenous line, or IV), a blood transfusion is a procedure which a patient receives whole blood or one of its parts through an IV--which is why it's viewed as "eating blood".

 

[TibiasDad]

Moreover, there was no "law" against lying(. See Romans 5:13).

Rom 5:13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

To say that there is no accountability for sin because there was no written law is not to say that it isn't lying. Sin was in the world, so they lied, whether they knew it or not, and whether they are accountable or not. Sin is what it is. Lying is a sin!

Doug

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Rom 5:13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

To say that there is no accountability for sin because there was no written law is not to say that it isn't lying. Sin was in the world, so they lied, whether they knew it or not, and whether they are accountable or not. Sin is what it is. Lying is a sin!

Doug

Pay attention to what is said(, for I never said they didn't sin). My point was that they were not held accountable(, which is why God overlooked it in the case of the midwives):

sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. (Romans 5:13)

 

[TibiasDad]

Pay attention to what is said(, for I never said they didn't sin). My point was that they were not held accountable(, which is why God overlooked it in the case of the midwives):

I beg to differ; you said, "there was no "law" against lying", which can only mean that lying wasn't a sin. If there is no "law" against something, then there can be no sin. If there is no law against "blowing bubbles with bubble gum" then there can be no charges leveled against me if I blow bubbles with my gum.


Doug

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

I beg to differ; you said, "there was no "law" against lying", which can only mean that lying wasn't a sin.

No, it meant there was no law against the sin.

If there is no "law" against something, then there can be no sin.

If that were true, Romans 5:13 would be false(, for it clearly states: "sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law).

If there is no law against "blowing bubbles with bubble gum" then there can be no charges leveled against me if I blow bubbles with my gum.


Doug

Likewise, if there is no law against lying, I can't be prosecuted for it.

 

[TibiasDad]

No, it meant there was no law against the sin.

If there is no law against it, how can it be sin? Sin is a transgression against the law. (1Jn 3:4)

Doug

 

[Cynthia]

Jesus never "broke the Sabbath" as the Law allowed what Jesus did--such as plucking grain and doing good deeds--to be done on the Sabbath.


I don't see how this is a good example (as this is nothing like disobeying God's commandment to abstain from blood to save one's life).

YHWH blessed them for "obeying God rather than man".

Moreover, there was no "law" against lying(. See Romans 5:13).

One would have to get past the fact that like intravenous feeding(--where a patient receives nutrients through an intravenous line, or IV), a blood transfusion is a procedure which a patient receives whole blood or one of its parts through an IV--which is why it's viewed as "eating blood".

Actually, only saline water with glucose or other liquid medications is given intravenously which is what happens to glucose naturally.

Liquid nutrition (food) is given in a tube that goes into the nose, down into the stomach to be digested. NOT intravenous (ie into the veins).

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Actually, only saline water with glucose or other liquid medications is given intravenously which is what happens to glucose naturally.

Liquid nutrition (food) is given in a tube that goes into the nose, down into the stomach to be digested. NOT intravenous (ie into the veins).

What you're referring to is tube feeding--not intravenous feeding.

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

If there is no law against it, how can it be sin? Sin is a transgression against the law. (1Jn 3:4)

Doug

Romans 2:12-14.

 

[TibiasDad]

One would have to get past the fact that like intravenous feeding(--where a patient receives nutrients through an intravenous line, or IV), a blood transfusion is a procedure which a patient receives whole blood or one of its parts through an IV--which is why it's viewed as "eating blood".

The problem is that intravenous, which means 'into or through the vein', is not only, or even primarily used for "feeding". But given that one of the primary uses of IV, is fluids, which is as important, if not more important at times than "food", and is itself a sustainous element. So why doesn't the Watchtower prohibit fluids, necessary for life to continue, by IV the way that they do blood? IVs are not really used for " feeding", but for medicinal purposes.And blood is not given as food, but life itself. Blood does not go into the stomach, and out of the body.

My father recently had a stroke and cannot swallow, and they don't use IVs to feed him, but a stomach port. The "food" that flows directly into the stomach is expelled in the usual manner, which in not how IVs work. Yes, fluids will eventually be eliminated , but not blood, blood is not food, and IVs are not typically used for feeding in any substantial way.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Romans 2:12-14.

You've cherry picked a verse and taken it out of context to make it say something it isn't meant to say.

Rom 2:9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

The issue at this point in Romans, is Paul equalizing the Jewish mindset with the Gentile's; he's beginning to to say something that he will say over and over, we're all in the same boat. Whether we have the law or not, we will be judged for what we do! We are all sinners, Jews and Gentiles. This is the only point of this passage.

And to the point of my previous post, this passage doesn't set aside or negate John's definition of sin in 1Jn 3:4. If sin is the transgression of the law, then the absence of the latter precludes the reality of the former.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Actually, only saline water with glucose or other liquid medications is given intravenously which is what happens to glucose naturally.

Liquid nutrition (food) is given in a tube that goes into the nose, down into the stomach to be digested. NOT intravenous (ie into the veins).

I saw this after I had finished a similar post, so I am glad to have another similar point of view. You are absolutely right!

Doug

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

The problem is that intravenous, which means 'into or through the vein', is not only, or even primarily used for "feeding". But given that one of the primary uses of IV, is fluids, which is as important, if not more important at times than "food", and is itself a sustainous element. So why doesn't the Watchtower prohibit fluids, necessary for life to continue, by IV the way that they do blood?

Does the Bible say "abstain from fluid" or "abstain from blood"?

IVs are not really used for " feeding", but for medicinal purposes.

So was drinking and bathing in blood in ancient times.

And blood is not given as food, but life itself. Blood does not go into the stomach, and out of the body.

Neither does the "food" given intravenously.

My father recently had a stroke and cannot swallow, and they don't use IVs to feed him, but a stomach port. The "food" that flows directly into the stomach is expelled in the usual manner, which in not how IVs work. Yes, fluids will eventually be eliminated , but not blood, blood is not food, and IVs are not typically used for feeding in any substantial way.


Doug

As I stated to Cynthia, that's not intravenous feeding.

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

You've cherry picked a verse and taken it out of context to make it say something it isn't meant to say.

Rom 2:9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

The issue at this point in Romans, is Paul equalizing the Jewish mindset with the Gentile's; he's beginning to to say something that he will say over and over, we're all in the same boat. Whether we have the law or not, we will be judged for what we do! We are all sinners, Jews and Gentiles. This is the only point of this passage.

And to the point of my previous post, this passage doesn't set aside or negate John's definition of sin in 1Jn 3:4. If sin is the transgression of the law, then the absence of the latter precludes the reality of the former.


Doug

If "sin is transgression of the law", how can one "sin apart from the law" (per Romans 2:12)?

 

[TibiasDad]

Does the Bible say "abstain from fluid" or "abstain from blood"?

So was drinking and bathing in blood in ancient times.

Neither does the "food" given intravenously.

As I stated to Cynthia, that's not intravenous feeding.

Food is not given in IV. Blood is not food. Food goes into the body and then is expelled in waste. Blood is not expelled from the body!

Blood transfusions are not given to “nourish”. They do not go into the digestive system. The IV is the means of delivery of the medicines needed, it is not the medication itself. Ancient practices are not the issue here and bear no correlation to blood tra

Besides all this word play, the NT teaches that no food is unclean, and that anything that is set before us can be eaten if it is received with thanksgiving. ( Acts 10, 1Cor 10)

Jesus said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (Jn 6:53) “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.” (Jn 6:66)

Doug

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

Food is not given in IV.

Intravenous feeding is:

Parenteral nutrition, often called total parenteral nutrition, is the medical term for infusing a specialized form of food through a vein (intravenously).

Blood is not food. Food goes into the body and then is expelled in waste.

Food is not "expelled in waste". Waste is expelled.

Blood is not expelled from the body!

The body 'expels blood' in two ways: bleeding out and hematemesis.

Blood transfusions are not given to “nourish”. They do not go into the digestive system.

Neither does "food" delivered intravenously.

The IV is the means of delivery of the medicines needed, it is not the medication itself.

This is a meaningless statement.

Ancient practices are not the issue here and bear no correlation to blood transfusions.

Except both are viewed as "medicinal".

In other words: the reason "blood transfusions" are acceptable to many is because they are "medicinal"--just as drinking blood was "medicinal" in ancient times.

(BTW, just as transfusions are a way of inserting blood into the body, drinking blood is a way to insert blood into the body.)

Besides all this word play, the NT teaches that no food is unclean, and that anything that is set before us can be eaten if it is received with thanksgiving. ( Acts 10, 1Cor 10)

Except when it is forbidden (Acts 15).

Jesus said “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (Jn 6:53) “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.” (Jn 6:66)

Doug

And yet, no one eats Jesus' (actual) body, nor do we drink Christ's (actual) blood.

 

[TibiasDad]

Intravenous feeding is:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Technically speaking, nutrients are what is in the tube, not "food", which is why the digestive system can be, and in most cases needs to be, bypassed. There's no need for waste to be expelled.

Food is not "expelled in waste". Waste is expelled.

Now your just being obnoxious!

The body 'expels blood' in two ways: bleeding out and hematemesis.

Now your just being disingenuous. Bleeding out by whatever cause, and vomiting blood are not normal bodily processes, nor does blood need to be "expelled" as waste.

Except when it is forbidden (Acts 15).

Paul came to a conciliatory agreement with the Jerusalem Council, but this was merely to allow them to grow in grace until they came to understand grace a little better. Acts 15:28-29 says,

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Yet Paul clearly tells the Corinthians in 1 Cor 10:23-33,

23“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” f

27If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

The only reason that we should necessarily avoid food sacrificed to idols, eating blood, or strangled animals, is for the sake of one who has not matured enough in Christ to understand. 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 have similar messages. Paul had ongoing issues with "those from James" (Gal 2:12), and he rebuked Peter for not being more mature in his faith. Paul was convinced that all food is clean, but that our freedom is not an excuse for inhibiting or destroying the faith of another. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit..."
(Rom 14:17)

And yet, no one eats Jesus' (actual) body, nor do we drink Christ's (actual) blood.

My point is, that Jesus is saying, in concept, that something that was typically understood as prohibited by Jews is now absolutely necessary for real spiritual life. Eating and drinking his body and blood, though not literal, was a real thing that is necessary for life in him. The very concept that one must eat or drink blood was anathema to a Jew, but Jesus was instituting a change of covenant, and part of that change was that spiritual life demands a "transfusion" of his "blood" in a real way, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." (Heb 8:7)

The old Covenant, with all its dietary laws, was no longer in effect! That's what Peter's vision of all the "unclean animals" was about. Those restrictions were no longer needed or in force, and as James teaches, if one law is necessary, all of them are necessary. JWs do not enforce all the dietary laws of the OT, so there is no reason to call for the enforcement of the no eating of blood. If the laws about unclean animals is abolished, so is the law about blood! That was Paul's message and gospel!

Doug

 

[Ongyo no Kiheiji]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Technically speaking, nutrients are what is in the tube, not "food", which is why the digestive system can be, and in most cases needs to be, bypassed. There's no need for waste to be expelled.

What you just described is--by definition--considered "food"(; hence the term "intravenous feeding").

Now your just being obnoxious!

I'm just being correct.

Now your just being disingenuous. Bleeding out by whatever cause, and vomiting blood are not normal bodily processes, nor does blood need to be "expelled" as waste.

Blood is expelled from the body as a "normal bodily process" (under certain conditions).

Likewise, waste is expelled from the body as a normal process (under certain conditions).

The difference between the two is frequency.

Paul came to a conciliatory agreement with the Jerusalem Council, but this was merely to allow them to grow in grace until they came to understand grace a little better. Acts 15:28-29 says,

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Actually, Paul looked to the 12 in Jerusalem to resolve disputed matters amongst the brothers.

And the 12 concluded there are four restrictions:

1) abstain from food sacrificed to idols,
2) abstain from blood,
3) abstain from the meat of strangled animals, and
4) abstain from fornication.

Yet Paul clearly tells the Corinthians in 1 Cor 10:23-33,

23“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” f

27If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

The only reason that we should necessarily avoid food sacrificed to idols, eating blood, or strangled animals, is for the sake of one who has not matured enough in Christ to understand. 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 have similar messages.

To be more accurate, in the text you quoted (along with the others you've mentioned) dealt with food sold and/or served outside religious settings. Thus, it was admonished not to "ask" where the food came from or whether it was sacrificed to idols.

However, one would not go to an idol's temple and partake as one "cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot share in the Lord’s table and the table of demons"(. It should be noted that neither text refers to eating meat that had been strangled).

Paul had ongoing issues with "those from James" (Gal 2:12), and he rebuked Peter for not being more mature in his faith. Paul was convinced that all food is clean, but that our freedom is not an excuse for inhibiting or destroying the faith of another. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit..."
(Rom 14:17)

Peter was rebuked for hiding the fact that he would eat with Gentiles(, ie, for being a hypocrite).

My point is, that Jesus is saying, in concept, that something that was typically understood as prohibited by Jews is now absolutely necessary for real spiritual life. Eating and drinking his body and blood, though not literal, was a real thing that is necessary for life in him.

The issue was that Jesus' figurative statement was viewed as literal, so saw Jesus promoting canabalism(, which is why many turned away).

If someone offered you a (literal) peice of human meat to eat, how woould you respond?

The very concept that one must eat or drink blood was anathema to a Jew, but Jesus was instituting a change of covenant, and part of that change was that spiritual life demands a "transfusion" of his "blood" in a real way, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." (Heb 8:7)

I find it interesting that your statement: "spiritual life demands a "transfusion" of his "blood" in a real way" associates drinking blood with a (blood) transfusion.

Yet, you rejected this thought when I mentioned that some ancient peoples drank blood for medicinal purposes (as drinking blood was the only medicinal way to "transfuse" blood into the body back then).

The old Covenant, with all its dietary laws, was no longer in effect! That's what Peter's vision of all the "unclean animals" was about. Those restrictions were no longer needed or in force, and as James teaches, if one law is necessary, all of them are necessary. JWs do not enforce all the dietary laws of the OT, so there is no reason to call for the enforcement of the no eating of blood. If the laws about unclean animals is abolished, so is the law about blood! That was Paul's message and gospel!

Doug

Paul didn't abolish the regulations set forth by the Apostolic Council at Jersualem (as these were things to be followed by the Gentile coverts).

Rather, the Council counselled Paul regarding these issues.

 

[Cynthia]

What you're referring to is tube feeding--not intravenous feeding.

Correct. And blood transfusions do not go into the stomach, which would be eating blood. Blood transfusions go intravenously, into the bloodstream. Blood into the bloodstream, food into the stomach. Two totally different things.