Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hello Brothers and Sisters;
I am not sure if this topic has been covered or not but I was interested in getting everyone's reasoning on Why Christians Abstain from Blood.
I know from the scriptures that it is not just for medical reasons but because Jehovah views blood as sacred. The Mosiac Law regarding abstaining from blood (as one) died when Christ Jesus died but the commandment continued even to this day. In the day of Noah after the flood Noah and his family was granted by Jehovah that they could eat the flesh of the animals but forbade them to not eat the blood. The blood is essential to life whether it be human or animal but the really essence is the sacredness of it and that is because of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I would appreciate everyone's reasoning on this topic. Hope everyone has a wonderful and blessed day.
Love,
Your Sister,
LoveJehovah

Blood is sacred yes and Christians are to abstain from eating blood but it doesnt say anything about transfusing blood. Granted, blood transfusion is a 20th medical practice but i dont think that is what the bible meant by 'eating blood'.

And what better way to sanctify life than saving a life by a blood transfusion?

Dears ,
let us see what is the teaching from God's Spirit:

28. ‘It’s apparent to the Holy Breath and to us, that we shouldn’t put any burdens on you, other than these necessary things: 29. Stay away from things that are sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things that are strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you stay away from these things, you will do well. Good health to you!’. Acts 15.
2001 Bible Translation

We see , there are two indications about abstaining from blood:
-- "stay away from blood"
-- "...... ....... from things that are strangled"
So we understand , beside the abstaining from things strangled - of whom blood was not poured on ground -, there is the general commandment :"stay away from blood ! "
That one includes every posibility of using blood (posibility known or not known to humans at that time ).
Some will say : we may demostrate our love for our neighbours giving to them blood (for health purpose ). Or our life may reach the point of needing blood for transfusion. What will christian do ?
Jesus answers :
33. Those saving their lives will lose it, but those who would lose it will come back to life. Luke 17.
25. The one who is concerned about his life will lose it, but whoever doesn’t care about life in this world will keep it safe and live through the age. John 12.

Jesus concluded :
50. ‘I know that His Commandments mean life through the age. So, I say whatever the Father told me to say. And that’s what I’m saying.’
John 12.

r.v.

There are many comments (some useful, imo) on this topic, at these links:

"Blood Transfusions"

http://www.paradisecafediscussions.net/s...hp?tid=167

and "The Real Reason Jehovah's Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions"

http://www.paradisecafediscussions.net/s...p?tid=1208

Christian love to seekers of/for truth...

gogh

Hi R. V. "dear",
If you want to believe that, go for it. You are not to be ridiculed.
The Jerusalem council ( Acts 15) was formed to deal with the circumcision issue. The Council decided that the congregations being directed ( The non-Jewish ones in Antioch, Seria and Cilicia, 15:23 ), need not get circumcised, but added vs. 29,
29 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!”

Why did they mention these things, which have nothing to do with circumcising? Because these practices were prevalent in those areas, at Pagan temples. People would go there for "entertainment and dinner" which included sex and the killing of animals and drinking the blood. The council was saying to stay out of those places. :readthis:

This was not a general command given as a law to all Christians.
How do we know that?
Because Paul himself said it's OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols
(1 Cor. 8: 7&8)
How can we make the leap from not drinking fresh blood in a idol tempel to a blood transfusion? :detective: Scripturally we can't.
So we must look at why killing an animal, and drinking the blood was a law given to Moses. (Christian are not under the law anyways, but we might see a principal)
The law was to remind the Israelites that life comes from Jehovah and belongs to him, so symbolically, they were to give it back to Him by pouring the blood out on the ground.
BTW, we should realize that Israelites ate cooked blood all the time in small quantities in the cooked meat they ate. It was OK as long as the animal was properly bled.
In a modern transfusion, no animal is killed.
True Christian should be aware that life is from Jah, and that sharing a living part of our bodies so that someone else might live a little longer, is Nobel, because life is sacred.

Do you think that these scriptures you quoted mean that we should not try to save or protect our present lives?

33. Those saving their lives will lose it, but those who would lose it will come back to life. Luke 17.
25. The one who is concerned about his life will lose it, but whoever doesn’t care about life in this world will keep it safe and live through the age. John 12.

I have to disagree dear.........................e-m

I wont quote these because i want you to look them up.

I myself currently will stay away from transfusions because they hurt peoples conciences,and it feels wierd to me but i also am not a fan of transplants. neither of these things existed in bible times so i know Jehovah wont be mad at me if my conciense doesnt allow it.

But is either forbidden in scripture?
No Colossians 2: 16-17
Also remember what Jesus said Mark 7:18-20

These both clarify what emagine said,remember we learn not to take obscure texts but to compare and take the bible as a whole.

Our law, the Christian law,is beyond those things now to what is in our heart motivations.

Also remember Jesus said i want mercy and not sacrifice.

In line with this we have an old testament account.Read
1 Samuel 14:32-35

Why were they forgiven,what was the motivation behind this?


Now that we are no longer under the law but now the law written upon our hearts than by all means refuse.

(our stance on though,seems highly hypocritical to myself and many others, the fractions are still blood, they arent "technically" not blood this is legalism to the highest degree,the outside blood cleaner thing being an extension of the body reminds me of when the Jews made the law for the sabbath on extending your home by putting a belonging x amount of feet the day before..just ridiculous)

But our stand isnt totally unacceptable,to some persons conciences, i agree with the stand (to a degree), its nasty to me to take blood,or a transplant even. But the reasoning on why you can take this and not that is spiritual dictatorship and rhetoric legalism semantics.

But you must weigh everything out and think.

Our system seems highly put together and reasonable to those who dont dig deep,its obvious we accept all fractions which together make up blood.
But guess what even if they said its all good now you can take it.

It doesnt make it right, YOU have a responsibility YOU,must dig ,or just plain not accept anything but if your concience bothers you either way than thats a problem.

Even if you decide well i feel i should take a transfusion.
Dont become disallusioned, some assume just because they can,and their concience allows them to take a transfusion, you can and everyone who didnt died for no reason. This is not true, at the time thier conciences told them it was wrong. And they died for Jehovah.Which is admirable and commendable.Just becaus you may feel its not in scripture,doesnt mean the principal isnt or that it isnt worng,simply because its against nature.
But if you feel it isnt than thats ok too. We each hve an accoutning individually towards God.

If this is true, Rus, then why does Paul say that eating food sacrificed to idols is a conscience matter (1 Cor. 8-9)?

Just a point to ponder: While I don't believe in receiving blood transfusions or eating blood (or having cadaver parts used in me), what we found on this so-called "Rainbow Covenant" while translating Genesis from the Septuagint is interesting. Here's what we found the words to actually say:

(Genesis 9:3-6) ‘All living and slithering animals can serve as meat for you. I have given them all to you as though they were green vegetation. But you must not eat flesh with its blood of life. Otherwise, I will require your blood at the hand of all the wild animals. I will also require a man’s life at the hand of his human brothers. Whoever spills the blood of men will also have their blood spilled, because I made man in the image of God.’"

Did you notice:
1. That the penalty for eating the blood of an animal was to be eaten by animals
2. That the reason for not eating the blood seemed to infer showing respect for the life of the animal.

Also, notice that the Bible is unclear about whether this rule (or these rules) was actually part of the "Rainbow Covenant," because the words were said before the covenant was mentioned... and it could have been quite a bit before. For, it is in verse 8 that the covenant is thereafter mentioned:

8 Then God spoke to Noah and his sons (who were with him) and said, 9 ‘Look, I am establishing a Sacred Agreement between you and Me, with your seed [that comes] after you, 10 and with everything that lives – the winged creatures, the [domesticated] animals, and all the wild animals of the earth – all that are with you and came out of the chest. 11 This is the Sacred Agreement that I’m making with you and with all flesh: Never again will a downpour of water kill all flesh, and never again will a water downpour destroy the whole earth.’

So, regardless of when God spoke those words and whether they were actually part of the covenant, it appears as though the prohibition on eating blood pertained to just the eating of animal blood, and it was to be poured out on the ground to show respect for the life of the animal that was killed. And if so, it was never meant to cover taking in the blood of living humans.

Hi all,

Now, while I do agree that blood is sacred to Jehovah as He spoke it to Moses "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.", I also think the WTS has gone beyond the things written.
I remember growing up, my grandmother would occasionally make czarnina (duck blood soup). I don't recall ever having it, and it sounds just as repulsive today! Also transfusions (other peoples blood), I do reject.

I would just like to bring out this one aspect.
What I don't see as sinning is the storage and re-intake of my own blood!
Those commands and warnings from the bible have to be considered as to the time period they were given in.
Jehovah endowed us with the thinking ability to learn and achieve many wonderful things.
Clearly, there is ambiguity on this issue as to our day, so each must decide for themselves as to where to draw the line, so as to not sin.

James

Interestingly, the abstaining from blood is not a "LAW" issue, it is a command issue. Before the LAW was instituted, the eating of blood was forbidden. Genesis 9:4 "Gen 9:4 “But do not eat flesh with its life, its blood." CEV

So those who state the ban on blood was nailed to the vross when Jesus died are wrong, because the ban on blood came BEFORE the LAW.

However, the issue still stands. Is it the eating of blood or the infusion of blood?

Found this commentary by Wesley:

That's what the Judaizers said about circumcision.

I guess I should go see my urologist, eh?

RR

Though I question whether man ate flesh or not before the flood (Abel was a shepherd and offered a choice lamb from his flock to Jehovah), it does appear as though man was not created to eat animals. Notice that from the start, men and animals were just to eat vegetation. For, Genesis 1:29 (LXX 2001) says, ‘Look, I have given you all the seed-bearing plants for planting that are on the entire earth, as well as all the seed-bearing trees for planting, as your food.’

So, men were apparently supposed to be vegetarians (though I'm not). And this law to Noah regarding not eating their blood (after Jehovah then permitted their eating flesh) appears to specifically apply to the blood of animals that are to be killed for food. And since this appears to be the reason and principle for all the succeeding laws, there is no indication that human blood from living human doners is implied.

Another thing to consider:

If it was wrong to eat animals before the Flood and not wrong afterward, does that not suggest that God changes his standards?

In this instance, not really. We assume the eating of animals were forbidden, however the scriptures are silent. However, why would God tell Noah, he could eat of the animals? And why still later in the LAW, gave detailes as to WHAT animals one could and could not eat?

Quite frankly, He's God, who are we to question Him?

RR