At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Of course the Bible's stand on the infusion of blood is extremely clear: Christians are to have nothing to do with it, whether the taking of it into their own bodies or the giving of it to others to do the same.
Nothing TJ3 can state, through his means of contorting, changing, perverting, or otherwise twisting of scripture can change that Biblical fact and prohibition.
Of course the Bible's stand on the infusion of blood is extremely clear: Christians are to have nothing to do with it, whether the taking of it into their own bodies or the giving of it to others to do the same.
Nothing TJ3 can state, through his means of contorting, changing, perverting, or otherwise twisting of scripture can change that Biblical fact and prohibition.
The Bible says nothing of the sort - once again, you have completely failed to provide any rebuttal to my scriptural overview of the issue. That is because scripture absolutely opposes the false teaching of the Watchtower Society on this issue.
The Bible says nothing of the sort - once again, you have completely failed to provide any rebuttal to my scriptural overview of the issue. That is because scripture absolutely opposes the false teaching of the Watchtower Society on this issue.
The Bible definitely says that Christians are to abstain from blood. Christians are not to take it into their bodies in any way, shape, or form.
Your "scriptural overviews" are tainted 100% by your admitted biases and bigotry, this shooting down any attempts you are making at a credible argument. That in itself is the rebuttal, so in other words, you refute yourself at every turn. What scripture actually does is oppose your errant, false religious teachings that originate with Satan.
You know that God gave the Israelites hundreds of regulations. Once Jesus died, his disciples were not obliged to keep all those laws. (Romans 7:4, 6; Colossians 2:13, 14, 17; Hebrews 8:6, 13) However, in time a question arose about one key obligation—male circumcision. Would non-Jews who wanted to benefit from Christ’s blood have to be circumcised, showing that they were still under the Law? In 49 C.E., the Christian governing body addressed that issue. (Acts, chapter 15) Aided by God’s spirit, the apostles and older men concluded that obligatory circumcision ended with the Law. Still, certain divine requirements remained for Christians. In a letter to the congregations, the governing body wrote: “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.
Plainly, the governing body viewed ‘abstaining from blood’ to be as morally vital as abstaining from sexual immorality or idol worship. This proves that the prohibition about blood is serious. Christians who unrepentantly commit idolatry or sexual immorality cannot “inherit God’s kingdom”; “their portion will be . . . the second death.” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Revelation 21:8; 22:15) Note the contrast: Disregarding God’s guidance concerning the sacredness of lifeblood can result in everlasting death. Showing respect for Jesus’ sacrifice can lead to everlasting life.
How did the early Christians understand and act on God’s guidance about blood? Recall Clarke’s comment: “Under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins.” History confirms that the early Christians treated the matter seriously. Tertullian wrote: “Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy.” Whereas pagans consumed blood, Tertullian said that Christians “do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them.” Yes, despite threats of death, Christians would not consume blood. God’s guidance was that important to them.
Some may imagine that the governing body simply meant that Christians were not to eat or drink blood directly nor to eat unbled meat or food mixed with blood. Granted, that was the first import of God’s command to Noah. And the apostolic decree did tell Christians to ‘keep themselves from things strangled,’ meat with blood left in it. (Genesis 9:3, 4; Acts 21:25) However, the early Christians knew that more was involved. Sometimes blood was taken in for medical reasons. Tertullian noted that in an effort to cure epilepsy, some pagans consumed fresh blood. And there may have been other uses of blood to treat disease or supposedly improve health. Hence, for Christians, shunning blood included not taking it in for “medical” reasons. They maintained that stand even if it put their life at risk.
What does this argument that you are having have anything to do with answering the original poster's question, please? People looking at the title of the original post will be looking for answers to the original question. If you want to discuss the topic of blood usage as ordained in the Bible, you might want to post a separate question about it as a new thread please. Thank you.
Linear Mode
