Blood Transfusions

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.
Except when we consider intravenous feeding(, which goes through the bloodstream via an IV).

Moreover, one has to understand that before IVs, the way blood was "transfused" in ancient times was by mouth.
 

Cynthia

Member
Except when we consider intravenous feeding(, which goes through the bloodstream via an IV).

Moreover, one has to understand that before IVs, the way blood was "transfused" in ancient times was by mouth.
Food NEVER goes into the bloodstream. An IV with saline is to plump up dehydrated blood cells, to prevent dehydration, low blood pressure and shock when a patient cannot ingest water.

Sometimes glucose (a form of liquid sugar) is added to the IV if the patient gets low blood sugar FROM NOT EATING. etc. Glucose helps the brain function.

But neither of those therapies provide nutrition to the digestive system. Without nutrition, they would slowly starve.

If in fact blood was spit into another persons mouth (in some ignorant misguided attempt to keep them alive) they would have not benefitted in any way imaginable. It would have technically qualified as eating blood. But since that doesn't happen today, it should no longer be a fear for the devout JW and blood transfusions should no longer be referred to by them as 'eating blood' because that is simply ignorant.
 
Food NEVER goes into the bloodstream. An IV with saline is to plump up dehydrated blood cells, to prevent dehydration, low blood pressure and shock when a patient cannot ingest water.

Sometimes glucose (a form of liquid sugar) is added to the IV if the patient gets low blood sugar FROM NOT EATING. etc. Glucose helps the brain function.

But neither of those therapies provide nutrition to the digestive system. Without nutrition, they would slowly starve.
Again:
Parenteral nutrition, often called total parenteral nutrition, is the medical term for infusing a specialized form of food through a vein (intravenously).
If in fact blood was spit into another persons mouth (in some ignorant misguided attempt to keep them alive) they would have not benefitted in any way imaginable. It would have technically qualified as eating blood.
Who mentioned "spitting blood into another person's mouth"?

No matter as such would also be viewed (by the ancients) as a method to transfuse blood.
But since that doesn't happen today,
Actually, it does.
it should no longer be a fear for the devout JW and blood transfusions should no longer be referred to by them as 'eating blood' because that is simply ignorant.
IMHO, it's more ignorant to say that "intravenous feeding" is done without the use of food.
 

TibiasDad

Member
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.

This is the reason that James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem is the point and motivatwas will for these prohibitions,

Acts 15:19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

James did not want to offend the Jewish faction of the Gentile cities and towns that the church was springing up in, because the church is seen to be coming out of the synagogue and he is trying to not burn any bridges with his Jewish brothers and culture. Paul was not so concerned about that, but was happy that being circumcised was no longer necessary to be Christian.


Doug
 
This is the reason that James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem is the point and motivatwas will for these prohibitions,

Acts 15:19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

James did not want to offend the Jewish faction of the Gentile cities and towns that the church was springing up in, because the church is seen to be coming out of the synagogue and he is trying to not burn any bridges with his Jewish brothers and culture. Paul was not so concerned about that, but was happy that being circumcised was no longer necessary to be Christian.

Doug
James' (and the other apostles') conclusion was influenced by Peter's statement:
God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the holy spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:7-10. See also Acts 15:14.)
In short, the decision was made so that: "we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19).

Offending the Jews was not something they cared about (as "it seemed good to us and the holy spirit" that these prohibitions be given per Acts 15:28).
 

TibiasDad

Member
James' (and the other apostles') conclusion was influenced by Peter's statement:

In short, the decision was made so that: "we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19).

Offending the Jews was not something they cared about (as "it seemed good to us and the holy spirit" that these prohibitions be given per Acts 15:28).

And so, if the requirement of circumcision was a burden to be foregone, and "clean and unclean" foods were not to be enforced, why would any of the ceremonial and dietary laws still be in force? Again, if one law is necessary to obey, the whole law is necessary to be obeyed. (Jas 2:8-13) If eating blood is still in force, then the unclean animals laws are still in force. But the unclean animal laws are not important anymore and have been set aside, and the rules of the Old Covenant were insufficient and unable to accomplish God's plan, were also set aside.


Doug
 
And so, if the requirement of circumcision was a burden to be foregone, and "clean and unclean" foods were not to be enforced, why would any of the ceremonial and dietary laws still be in force?
Acts 15:28.
Again, if one law is necessary to obey, the whole law is necessary to be obeyed. (Jas 2:8-13)
James 2:8 is an allusion to Matthew 22:39, 40.
If eating blood is still in force, then the unclean animals laws are still in force. But the unclean animal laws are not important anymore and have been set aside, and the rules of the Old Covenant were insufficient and unable to accomplish God's plan, were also set aside.


Doug
Not according to Acts 15.
 

TibiasDad

Member
Acts 15:28.

And this why...
"For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” (15:21)

James 2:8 is an allusion to Matthew 22:39, 40.

It is more than that, it establishes a principle that the law is an all or nothing thing. If you keep the great command of Matt 22:39-40, you keep the whole law; if you break one law, you've broken law as a whole, you've broken all of it! The same principle applies to the revocation of the law. If one part of the dietary laws is set aside, the whole of the dietary laws are set aside. The unclean animal prohibition is set aside, so the blood prohibition is also set aside. If you have to keep one, you have to keep all. That is the principle of Jas 2:8.

Not according to Acts 15.

Exactly according to Acts 15 as I have explained. Your objection to the contrary notwithstanding.


Doug
 
And this why...
"For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” (15:21)
Or, more accurately, the decision was made so that: "we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19).
It is more than that, it establishes a principle that the law is an all or nothing thing. If you keep the great command of Matt 22:39-40, you keep the whole law; if you break one law, you've broken law as a whole, you've broken all of it!
The same principle applies to the revocation of the law. If one part of the dietary laws is set aside, the whole of the dietary laws are set aside. The unclean animal prohibition is set aside, so the blood prohibition is also set aside. If you have to keep one, you have to keep all. That is the principle of Jas 2:8.
Yeah...no.

If you keep the "royal Law", you cannot break any of the (other) laws because keeping the "Great Commandment" is keeping the whole law!
Exactly according to Acts 15 as I have explained. Your objection to the contrary notwithstanding.


Doug
It's not my objection. Scripture rejects your thought process, for you cannot set aside the (entire) Law but at the same time be told to "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood".
 

TibiasDad

Member
Or, more accurately, the decision was made so that: "we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God" (Acts 15:19)....It's not my objection. Scripture rejects your thought process, for you cannot set aside the (entire) Law but at the same time be told to "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood".

It's a both/and situation, not either/or. It is the same scenario with eating food that may offend a weaker brother. (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 8:11) The Jerusalem Council did not want to burden the Gentiles or offend the Jewish people at large. Paul clearly says that nothing regarding food and drink has anything to do with righteousness, and not amount of proof texting can discount his words, namely,

12So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Doug
 
It's a both/and situation, not either/or. It is the same scenario with eating food that may offend a weaker brother. (Rom 14:21, 1 Cor 8:11) The Jerusalem Council did not want to burden the Gentiles or offend the Jewish people at large. Paul clearly says that nothing regarding food and drink has anything to do with righteousness, and not amount of proof texting can discount his words, namely,

12So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Doug
Nothing you've stated here shows that "it is a both/and situation"--for you cannot:

both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from food polluted by idols"; nor can you
both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from sexual immorality"; nor can you
both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from the meat of strangled animals"; nor can you
both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from blood".

If you're following (any part of) the Law, you're not "setting aside the entire Law".
 

TibiasDad

Member
Nothing you've stated here shows that "it is a both/and situation"--for you cannot:

both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from food polluted by idols"; nor can you
both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from sexual immorality"; nor can you
both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from the meat of strangled animals"; nor can you
both set aside the entire Law and (at the same time) "abstain from blood".

If you're following (any part of) the Law, you're not "setting aside the entire Law".

Not true, the law is set aside because we are not under law but under grace. Now the only law is love, and the eating or not eating is only an issue if our doing so infringes on the growth or witness to another person. It is not wrong to eat or not eat in and of itself, but if my doing so harms someone else, then it is wrong. If I eat blood, I am not sinning. But if I eat blood knowing that you are offended by it, then I am not keeping the one law, the law of love. Food is not the law, love is!

Also, the sexual immorality is not in the same category as the dietary regulations. Moral law is never set aside, ceremonial and dietary regulations are fulfilled and no longer relevant.

Doug
 

TibiasDad

Member
If you keep the "royal Law", you cannot break any of the (other) laws because keeping the "Great Commandment" is keeping the whole law!
No to both.

The Royal Law is a moral law, is is not a ceremonial or dietary law. Again, that's why Paul says that you can eat whatever you want, and what you think is right (regarding food) is between you, your own conscience, and God. Rom 14 is all that is needed to make the point, not that there are not plenty more to do the same.


Doug
 
Not true, the law is set aside because we are not under law but under grace. Now the only law is love, and the eating or not eating is only an issue if our doing so infringes on the growth or witness to another person. It is not wrong to eat or not eat in and of itself, but if my doing so harms someone else, then it is wrong. If I eat blood, I am not sinning. But if I eat blood knowing that you are offended by it, then I am not keeping the one law, the law of love. Food is not the law, love is!

Also, the sexual immorality is not in the same category as the dietary regulations. Moral law is never set aside, ceremonial and dietary regulations are fulfilled and no longer relevant.

Doug
Revelation 2:14.

(BTW, Paul speaks specifically about "food sacrificed to idols", so I'm not sure why you merged meat strangled and eating blood into the text.)
 
The Royal Law is a moral law, is is not a ceremonial or dietary law. Again, that's why Paul says that you can eat whatever you want, and what you think is right (regarding food) is between you, your own conscience, and God. Rom 14 is all that is needed to make the point, not that there are not plenty more to do the same.


Doug
Revelation 2:20.
 
Top