Sorry but I WAS one of them, **** Can someone explain their religion to me.

*** sorry I edited your post seriously. We respect the faith of all on here.

I really don't think that their religion is a lot of BS, as you say. You were one of them and you didn't understand their doctrine ? I don't think they deviate from some others. They believe in Jesus as our savior as far as I know. I don't listen to them when they come to the door. I have my own views but was raised Anglican in a good Scottish home.

It makes a lot of sense to them. To each his own.

Ms tickle

I have serously edited the post, so some of tickle post may not make 100 percent sense, ( sorry)

We respect as much as possible the religious views of all faiths on their respective boards.

I wish more faiths worked as hard as thiers did to get the word out.

I wish more faiths worked as hard as thiers did to get the word out.
If mainstream Christianity followed their example by offering home Bible study, WOW!!

Chuck my post reads exactly as I put it. I didn't put anything in there that would be derogatory to any religion; only saying I 'dont listen to them when they come to the door', as my parents didn't before me. Anyone who dresses all in black, wearing long black coats and carryng black briefcases, walking in twos, is somewhat scary to me after I home from work and it is dark and home alone. Sorry, I just don't see the point of why they do that.

Oh, sorry, chuck, I thought you meant you had edited my post :)

I've never seen Witnesses dressed in black. Usually they wear church-y clothing (women in floral dresses and the men in suits or sweaters/sweater vests with long-sleeved shirts). I know they try to give a homey and friendly appearance.

Normally in pairs of one man and one women or maybe two women, sometimes in a larger group at apartment complexs but split up to cover a area. Yes never in black actually very nicely dressed,
Now I wear black, when I go out.

The free home Bible study comes with, like FrChuck said, a teacher, your choice of male or female, is usually once a week (often during the day), and is very appealing to young moms, rural people, people struggling to learn English, people who don't want to go to a church for fear of being stared at or ignored, shy people, and homebound seniors.

If anyone wants to know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, simply go directly to their official website: Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site (http://www.watchtower.org). They are very open and clear about their beliefs and it's easy to find out what they REALLY believe.

There are a few outspoken opposers who write lies and half-truths to try to sway people away from Jehovah's Witnesses. If I want to learn something about ANY regligion, I find it is always best to simply go directly to THEM. They know their belief best. Those who claim they are "former" believers almost always have some kind of axe to grind and you can't believe a word they say.

(By the way, they do NOT "dress in black" as one responder writes. They wear noram "business" attire and their dress is as varied as you can get. Why not listne? If one were to listen to their message, generally you'd find it encouraging and non-threatening.)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness3.htm

This site spells out the differences in religion in a tolerant unbias way. If you go to Christian website's, or Jehovah Witness website's; of course they are
In the business of selling you on their religion, so it's in your best interest to try and find unbias information (not opinion's necessarily as they can be heavily in favor or opposed) so that you can decide for yourself if it is for you.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' BELIEFS AND PRACTICES (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness3.htm)

This site spells out the differences in religion in a tolerant unbias way. If you go to Christian website's, or Jehovah Witness website's; of course they are
in the business of selling you on their religion, so it's in your best interest to try and find unbias information (not opinion's necessarily as they can be heavily in favor or opposed) so that you can decide for yourself if it is for you.

I'm sure that is one of the fine goals of this site. Unfortunately, some of the personal opinions expressed in any forum are just that, personal opinions. While each of us have the right to them, and they provide diverse views, they seldom provide us with FACTS, accurate information that we need and deserve to make an informed decision. After getting the facts, sure, listen to others' personal opinions but recognize them as only that. As an example, if I want to buy a new car and I'm considering, say, a Honda Accord. Where should I go first to get the FACTS? Ford? Chevy? Toyota? No, I would go to Honda. Others (competitors) would not be unbiased. Now, after we get the facts from the manufacturer, I may want to talk to other Honda Accord owners and see how they liked it. If I really want to get a good balanced view I would be sure to also speak with a number of current Honda Accord owners, as well as former owners. So, in this case, step one is to go Jehovah's Witnesses' website to learn as much as I can about them, FROM them. Religion is a much more difficult thing to judge since it involves strongly personal thing. Adding to the difficulty, a "former" member of any religion may have had a bad personal experience, possibly due to their actions or not, but, if they are upset with their "former" religion, their comments will be strongly weighted to their feelings and may or may not include accurate information about their former religion. Hopefully you get my point.

I'm sure that is one of the fine goals of this site. Unfortunately, some of the personal opinions expressed in any forum are just that, personal opinions. While each of us have the right to them, and they provide diverse views, they seldom provide us with FACTS, accurate information that we need and deserve to make an informed decision. After getting the facts, sure, listen to others' personal opinions but recognize them as only that. As an example, if I want to buy a new car and I'm considering, say, a Honda Accord. Where should I go first to get the FACTS? Ford? Chevy? Toyota? No, I would go to Honda. Others (competitors) would not be unbiased. Now, after we get the facts from the manufacturer, I may want to talk to other Honda Accord owners and see how they liked it. If I really want to get a good balanced view I would be sure to also speak with a number of current Honda Accord owners, as well as former owners. So, in this case, step one is to go Jehovah's Witnesses' website to learn as much as I can about them, FROM them. Religion is a much more difficult thing to judge since it involves strongly personal thing. Adding to the difficulty, a "former" member of any religion may have had a bad personal experience, possibly due to their actions or not, but, if they are upset with their "former" religion, their comments will be strongly weighted to their feelings and may or may not include accurate information about their former religion. Hopefully you get my point.

I do get your point, but every Mormon or Jehovah's Witness I've ever encountered at my door is always evasive when it comes to certain questions; making their brand of religion seem Christian in order to win you over. Where in fact neither are Christian by the definition that neither of them recognise the Holy Trinity amongst other Christian fundamentals.

My point is that in MY experience groups such as these will only tell you so much in order to get you in the door. They will then shower you with love and acceptance so you feel you belong and then you are well on your way to becoming a member. They are typical sales techniques and ALL religions are guilty of them, including Christianity.

In some religions there is heavy pressure to give a lot of your material wealth to the Church, Hall, Temple; and for those who are vulnerable this could be a terrible mistake.

Of course if I go to the Honda website it's only going to tell me the good things about Honda; they aren't going to tell me that their cars rust out in 5 years which was the case back in the late 70's or early 80's.

That is why it's important to try and find sources of information both positive and negative about whatever choice you make; not simply going to the website of the thing you are interested in.

I do get your point, but every Mormon or Jehovah's Witness I've ever encountered at my door is always evasive when it comes to certain questions; making their brand of religion seem Christian in order to win you over. Where in fact neither are Christian by the definition that neither of them recognise the Holy Trinity amongst other Christian fundamentals.

My point is that in MY experience groups such as these will only tell you so much in order to get you in the door. They will then shower you with love and acceptance so you feel you belong and then you are well on your way to becoming a member. They are typical sales techniques and ALL religions are guilty of them, including Christianity.

In some religions their is heavy pressure to give alot of your material wealth to the Church, Hall, Temple; and for those who are vulnerable this could be a terrible mistake.

Of course if I go to the Honda website it's only going to tell me the good things about Honda; they aren't going to tell me that their cars rust out in 5 years which was the case back in the late 70's or early 80's.

That is why it's important to try and find sources of information both positive and negative about whatever choice you make; not simply going to the website of the thing you are interested in.


As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I take offense to your comment. I'm proud to be a Christian, as are we all, since Jesus and his sacrifice on behalf of all mankind is at the very core of our beliefs and practices. Being that the "holy trinity" has absolutely no Biblical basis or support, I'd have to say that those who adhere to such a false, god-dishonoring teaching of men are the ones that don't fit the bill of being a Christian. These days, the smart course IS to go to the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses or directly to one of us in order to get accurate and reliable information as to who we are, what our beliefs are, and so forth. Going to any other website just puts one in a position of begging to hear all kinds of misleading, inaccurate (and often times lying and bigoted) "information" on us. Going to an outside website or source for information can be like going to the KKK if you want to know about African Americans or people of the Jewish persuasion. You can't seriously take anything they have to say as being remotely credible.

Yes, belief in the Trinity is not the defining element that makes one a Christian, while most Christian faiths do, not all agree on it specifily.

There will be no more name calling or those posts will be deleted

Since we're on the topic of JW's, I do have a question, one I've never been able to understand completely.

My neighbors are JW's, very nice people, but, when their daughter had a medical emergency they refused medical treatment stating it was against their beliefs, that if she was worthy God would save her.

Why are JW's against medical treatment? Or is that not the case with all JW's?

Since we're on the topic of JW's, I do have a question, one I've never been able to understand completely.

My neighbors are JW's, very nice people, but, when their daughter had a medical emergency they refused medical treatment stating it was against their beliefs, that if she was worthy God would save her.

Why are JW's against medical treatment? Or is that not the case with all JW's?


Perhaps you misunderstood or misheard.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can assure you that we will zealously and aggressively seek the absolutely best of medical care for ourselves and our children... the only exception being that we absolutely will NOT take blood into our bodies or that of our children, in harmony with the Bible prohibition in Acts 15 to "abstain.......from blood".

Perhaps you misunderstood or misheard.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can assure you that we will zealously and aggressively seek the absolutely best of medical care for ourselves and our children.........the only exception being that we absolutely will NOT take blood into our bodies or that of our children, in harmony with the Bible prohibition in Acts 15 to "abstain.......from blood".

You're correct, their daughter was hemorraghing, needed a transfusion, that is what they objected to and wouldn't allow.

I have to say though, there are so many different diseases, medical conditions that require blood to be given, how can you forbid it if that's the only thing that will save your loved ones life?

My mother died of cancer, if it wasn't for blood transfusions she would have died 10 months earlier than she did, same with my father. I miscarried 3 years ago and would have died had it not been for someone else's blood, leaving my 2 kids without a mother.

I know it's your belief, and that's your right, but I don't understand why JW's won't allow something that can save a life, has been proven to save lives. What happens if, as a JW, you decide to allow a blood transfusion? Can you still be a JW?

You're correct, their daughter was hemorraghing, needed a transfusion, that is what they objected to and wouldn't allow.

I have to say though, there are so many different diseases, medical conditions that require blood to be given, how can you forbid it if that's the only thing that will save your loved ones life?

My mother died of cancer, if it wasn't for blood transfusions she would have died 10 months earlier than she did, same with my father. I miscarried 3 years ago and would have died had it not been for someone elses blood, leaving my 2 kids without a mother.

I know it's your belief, and that's your right, but I don't understand why JW's won't allow something that can save a life, has been proven to save lives. What happens if, as a JW, you decide to allow a blood transfusion? Can you still be a JW?


We have utmost confidence and trust in our Creator and our very source of life that should a serious medical situation arise, we will be more likely to be rewarded with a resurrection and eternal life if our death comes out of our obedience to His laws and principles. Jesus himself promised in John 5:28, 29 that there would be a resurrection, and those in the memorial tombs would hear his voice and come out. Jesus himself in his own actions while on the earth proved he has the ability and the desire to bring the dead back to life. It doesn't really make much sense to try and prolong our lives (or our loved ones' lives) in this system of things in which the norm is aging, disease, violence, crime, and death by accepting a blood transfusion only to lose out on the prospect of eternal life in paradise if we remain faithful to God.

A blood transfusion is NO guarantee of a saved life, no matter what doctors try and say or how much they try and push it on you. In fact, it's becoming more and more common for even non-Jehovah's Witnesses to see and choose to have bloodless surgeries performed. There are even entire hospitals dedicated to bloodless surgeries, in part because of the fine results found through alternative methods that don't require the intake of blood. Make no mistake, though, we want to live, and we want our loved ones to live... but not at the risk of breaking God's law and the possibility of the loss of their eternal future.

The stand Jehovah's Witnesses make on blood is firm. The Bible's law on blood is likewise firm. If an individual chooses to purposely and willfully break the Bible's law on blood, then their right and privilege to be called one of Jehovah's Witnesses must be called into question. Depending on the circumstances, they may even be removed from the congregation. Mind you, that's not in every case, but they will need to be held to account for their decision... if not by the congregation elders, then at God's due time before God himself.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I take offense to your comment. I'm proud to be a Christian, as are we all, since Jesus and his sacrifice on behalf of all mankind is at the very core of our beliefs and practices. Being that the "holy trinity" has absolutely no Biblical basis or support, I'd have to say that those who adhere to such a false, god-dishonoring teaching of men are the ones that don't fit the bill of being a Christian. These days, the smart course IS to go to the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses or directly to one of us in order to get accurate and reliable information as to who we are, what our beliefs are, and so forth. Going to any other website just puts one in a position of begging to hear all kinds of misleading, inaccurate (and often times lying and bigoted) "information" on us. Going to an outside website or source for information can be like going to the KKK if you want to know about African Americans or people of the Jewish persuasion. You can't seriously take anything they have to say as being remotely credible.

Do you find anything wrong with the following claims from the very website that I recommended:

They do not believe in the Trinity. Instead, they follow a strict monotheism, in which:
- Jehovah is the Supreme Being,

- Jesus is the son of God, the first created being, who is separate from Jehovah. Christ is believed to have originally existed in a pre-human state as the Archangel Michael. He later took human form as a man like any other person, except that he was sinless at birth and remained so through life. After his execution, Christ was resurrected as an invisible, non-material, glorious spirit creature. He was enthroned by Jehovah as King and ruler over all creation, and "given all authority in heaven and on earth."

- The Holy Ghost is not a separate entity, but is an energy or force -- the method by which God interacts with the world.

- The Heavenly Kingdom took effect in 1914 with the invisible enthronement of Christ as King. It is currently occupied by a little flock or Anointed Class of about 144,000 people who were selected by God after Christ's ascension into heaven at Pentecost (33 CE) and during subsequent centuries. Some 8,500 are still living on earth; this number is declining due to deaths among the group.

- They reject the traditional symbol of Christianity, the cross, because it is of pre-Christian, pagan origin. They accept an alternative translation of the Greek word "stauros," rendering it as "torture stake." They believe that Jesus was executed by being nailed to a single upright wooden stake with no cross beam.

- Christ's Second Coming was not a physical return to earth. It was an invisible event in 1914 in which Satan and Christ engaged in a heavenly battle. Afterwards, Christ began to the rule the Heavenly Kingdom as King of Kings. Satan was expelled to Earth. World War I was a visible sign of Satan's ousting from Heaven and earthly imprisonment. This event marked the beginning of the woes that would accompany the "last days of this system of things."

- In the very near future, the battle of Har-Magedon (Armageddon) will begin. Jesus, under Jehovah's divine rage, will execute vengeance upon most non-Witnesses and most followers of those other religious traditions which ignore the Bible or follow interpretations of the Bible that do not agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. The Witnesses refer to those religions as "Babylon the Great," or the "world empire of false religion" (Revelation 17). After much suffering, massive human extermination, and many upheavals, the world will be purified. The Earth will be returned to a peaceful, cleansed state ruled by Jesus Christ and populated by a "great crowd" who accept his rule and God's sovereignty. "God's Kingdom," a theocracy, will be established on earth and operate for 1000 years. This is known as the millennium or the "New System" of things. The "other sheep" (those who survive Armageddon), will live in peace in the newly created paradise. At this point "there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15). The faithful will be granted eternal life. Others will be given a second chance to accept God's rule. Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs on this near universal resurrection are often misunderstood or misrepresented by critics of the WTS.

- After the 1000 years of God's Kingdom, Satan and his demons will be released for a short time. They, and their human followers, will then be destroyed.

- Humans do not have an immortal soul that continues on after death. When they die, they cease to exist. With the exception of those who have sinned against the Holy Spirit, and those who killed Jesus, and those who God has judged to receive eternal death, all are resurrected. God creates a new body for the resurrected one, similar to their former body, which for most had long since decomposed. The new body is mentally and physically healthy, with the original personality and memories intact. They will be judged according to their deeds.

- They totally deny the existence of the traditional Christian view of Hell. Satan is regarded as having created the concept of Hellfire in order to turn people against God. They believe that hell is the "common grave of mankind" where people go when they die. They are not conscious there. Unbelievers simply cease to exist at death; they are annihilated.

- The requirements for salvation are somewhat similar to those found in other conservative Protestant groups. It requires "taking in knowledge" of God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3), repentance of sins, acceptance of the sacrificial atonement of Jesus, and conforming, as much as humanly possible, to the teachings of the Christ as stated in the Bible. Good works are an expected evidence of the member's prior salvation but are not the source of salvation.

- God's name, in the English language, is Jehovah. Most Christian theologians believe that Yahweh is a closer approximation.

- The over one thousand conservative Protestant faith groups in North America, including the WTS, have always held different interpretations of key biblical passages and of Jesus' teachings.

I don't believe in Jehovah witnesses at all.. their fake.. they believe in Jesus.. but not God.. I don't care to hear from them.. there not going to get me to believe that there's not a trinity.. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.. 3 in 1... I will not open door to Jehovah's.. if I do.. there going to get my opinion on a lot of things that they may not want to hear.

John 1:1-3, 1:11-1:14,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. He came to what was His own, but His own people did not accept Him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of GOD. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth."

Matt 16:18,
"And so I say unto you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."... Jesus

I recently started a thread on Jehovah's Witnesses... You may join the discussion..
------------
JOHN CHAPTER 1

The scope and design of this chapter is to confirm our faith in Christ as the eternal Son of God, and the true Messiah and Savior of the world, that we may be brought to receive him, and rely upon him, as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and to give up ourselves to be ruled, and taught, and saved by him.
--------------
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The meaning of this verse is quite clear. The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ is God.

The trinity is in the Bible and it's true...

Then try reading Revelation 3:14, because in speaking of Jesus it describes him as "the beginning of the creation by God".

The meaning of THAT verse is very clear: The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ is the very first of God's creations... which is proof positive that he IS NOT and CANNOT BE God.

The "trinity" is NOT a Bible teaching, nor is it at all supported by the Bible. It is a false, god-dishonoring, blasphemous teaching of man... and not at all true.

Fanspoman, I'm a Deist, so, even though I believe in God I do so despite the bible and it's "teachings".

I have to say this. Had I not had a blood transfusion during my miscarriage I wouldn't be here today, that's a fact. Sometimes God helps those who help themselves.

Fanspoman, I'm a Deist, so, even though I believe in God I do so despite the bible and it's "teachings".

I have to say this. Had I not had a blood transfusion during my miscarriage I wouldn't be here today, that's a fact. Sometimes God helps those who help themselves.


But then again why would God help those who choose to break his laws? It's safe to say your being here (while fortunate) isn't a result of God's efforts. It would be hypocrisy to make a law and then help someone who chooses to break it.

But then again why would God help those who choose to break his laws? It's safe to say your being here (while fortunate) isn't a result of God's efforts. It would be hypocrisy to make a law and then help someone who chooses to break it.

But not everyone subscribes to this "law". I think it becomes a question of who is reading the bible correctly, or who is following the correct path. Christians don't believe that having a blood transfusion breaks the laws of God.

So, even though it is your belief, I don't think you can call it "law". Law would imply that it is a rule for everyone to follow, and that simply isn't the case. I'm not a JW, therefore, according to my belief (which I have as much right to as you do yours) I didn't break any laws.

As for my being here not being a result of God's efforts. Well, not directly, it was the doctors who saved my life, but, who created the doctors, who allowed them to seek the knowledge that would help them save lives? That would be God.

Then try reading Revelation 3:14, because in speaking of Jesus it describes him as "the beginning of the creation by God".

The word used in that passage in the original language refers to rank or position, and does not suggest that Jesus was created.

The word used in that passage in the original language refers to rank or position, and does not suggest that Jesus was created.


You're right, it doesn't "suggest" that Jesus was created. It flat out SAYS Jesus is the first of God's creations.

But not everyone subscribes to this "law". I think it becomes a question of who is reading the bible correctly, or who is following the correct path. Christians don't believe that having a blood transfusion breaks the laws of God.

So, even though it is your belief, I don't think you can call it "law". Law would imply that it is a rule for everyone to follow, and that simply isn't the case. I'm not a JW, therefore, according to my belief (which I have as much right to as you do yours) I didn't break any laws.

As for my being here not being a result of God's efforts. Well, not directly, it was the doctors who saved my life, but, who created the doctors, who allowed them to seek the knowledge that would help them save lives? That would be God.


It really isn't even an ambiguous passage in the Bible, in reference to God's stand on blood. It says to "abstain......from blood". It doesn't get much clearer than that, and a true Christian would recognize that a blood transfusion violates the part where it says to "abstain" from blood.

It is "law". Because for everyone striving to faithfully obey God, they need to recognize the laws and principles of the Bible and put them into practice in their lives... and for those kinds of individuals, it is an undeniable law. Whether you want to believe otherwise, the Bible is really crystal clear on the matter. In any case, you'll be held accountable to God for that decision.

God did not make the decision for that particular person to become a doctor. That was all on the individual and their exercise of their free will.

Just looking at John 1:1-3 it is hard not to say that God manifest himself in three ways for our benefit. We are fragile humans and God was good enough to know that we needed to be assisted in his revelation to us in three different ways...
God did not change; we are locked in this time, space frame work for now, and God knows our limitations so he revealed himself in three ways as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is still just the One God. In a way we can think of this as a way God revealed to ourselves and the rest of the world, we as individuals are: one person who is young, middle aged and old throughout our lives, but we are still just one person. God is not limited in his revelation as we are in ours.

God is also not some ridiculous trinity, as is the popular belief in false religions the world over. Thank goodness he has provided us his Word, the Bible, which has shown conclusively that God created his son, Jesus, of whom all other things came into existence, and through whom we may have the hope of everlasting life.

You're right, it doesn't "suggest" that Jesus was created. It flat out SAYS Jesus is the first of God's creations.

First as in the one who is over all of creation.

Col 1:14-18
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
NKJV

It really isn't even an ambiguous passage in the Bible, in reference to God's stand on blood. It says to "abstain......from blood". It doesn't get much clearer than that, and a true Christian would recognize that a blood transfusion violates the part where it says to "abstain" from blood.

It is "law". Because for everyone striving to faithfully obey God, they need to recognize the laws and principles of the Bible and put them into practice in their lives.........and for those kinds of individuals, it is an undeniable law. Whether you want to believe otherwise, the Bible is really crystal clear on the matter. In any case, you'll be held accountable to God for that decision.

God did not make the decision for that particular person to become a doctor. That was all on the individual and their exercise of their free will.

Let us first deal with the verse from Genesis 9:4.

Gen 9:4
4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
NKJV

The context of this verse indicates that it was directed towards Noah and his family after they had come out of the ark on to dry land, and represents one of the dietary laws of the Old Testaments. This was one of the laws which was fulfilled when Christ came, shed his blood, and rose again, fulfilling the prophetic significance of many of the Old Testament laws.

Acts 10:12-16
12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
NKJV

Further, as stated previously in this article, the reference here is to animal blood, which is eaten, not human blood that is used in a blood transfusion. There is no credible medical publication anywhere, which would equate a blood transfusion with eating blood.

Let's cross reference Genesis 9:4 to Leviticus 3:17 which states:

Lev 3:17
17 'This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood.' "
NKJV

If you apply a consistent approach to interpretation, this would ban the eating of fat as well as blood based upon this verse. Let’s now look at Acts 15:29

Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
NKJV

There are some questions regarding the interpretation of Act 15:29. If you look at the context, it was a reaction against those who would try to force legalism on the Gentiles, and it was a decision made by the council to provide some guidance in this matter. Further, the reason for this prohibition was not to enforce legalism (as shown earlier - this was the exact opposite of the intent) but rather to avoid offending Jewish Christians (Acts 15:19-23). Thus, it was not a matter of the “soul” being in the blood, and thus an impact on our eternal destiny, but rather we are not to be a stumbling block to our brother in Christ.

God is also not some ridiculous trinity, as is the popular belief in false religions the world over. Thank goodness he has provided us his Word, the Bible, which has shown conclusively that God created his son, Jesus, of whom all other things came into existence, and through whom we may have the hope of everlasting life.

Who is the Redeemer in Is 48:17?

It really isn't even an ambiguous passage in the Bible, in reference to God's stand on blood. It says to "abstain......from blood". It doesn't get much clearer than that, and a true Christian would recognize that a blood transfusion violates the part where it says to "abstain" from blood.

It is "law". Because for everyone striving to faithfully obey God, they need to recognize the laws and principles of the Bible and put them into practice in their lives.........and for those kinds of individuals, it is an undeniable law. Whether you want to believe otherwise, the Bible is really crystal clear on the matter. In any case, you'll be held accountable to God for that decision.

God did not make the decision for that particular person to become a doctor. That was all on the individual and their exercise of their free will.

You didn't read my post, I already told you I'm not a Christian, I'm a Deist. I don't believe that the bible is the word of God.

I'm a reasonable person, I don't kill because it's wrong, I don't commit adultery because it's wrong, but I will get a blood transfusion for myself or my loved ones if it means saving my life or theirs. So far I haven't been struck down for disobeying one of "God's laws" that were written by men.

Guess they didn't think ahead.

You didn't read my post, I already told you I'm not a Christian, I'm a Deist. I don't believe that the bible is the word of God.

I'm a reasonable person, I don't kill because it's wrong, I don't commit adultery because it's wrong, but I will get a blood transfusion for myself or my loved ones if it means saving my life or theirs. So far I haven't been struck down for disobeying one of "God's laws" that were written by men.

Guess they didn't think ahead.

Hi Alty,

Maybe "abstain from blood" just means that you're always supposed to order your steak well-done.

You didn't read my post, I already told you I'm not a Christian, I'm a Deist. I don't believe that the bible is the word of God.

I'm a reasonable person, I don't kill because it's wrong, I don't commit adultery because it's wrong, but I will get a blood transfusion for myself or my loved ones if it means saving my life or theirs. So far I haven't been struck down for disobeying one of "God's laws" that were written by men.

Guess they didn't think ahead.


"I don't believe that the bible is the word of God". That won't be a suitable excuse when the time comes for you (as well as everyone else living) to be held to account by God. "So far I haven't been struck down for disobeying"... don't worry, that time is fast approaching. The God-inspired laws, written down by his servants, are unchangeable and time-tested.

First as in the one who is over all of creation.

Col 1:14-18
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
NKJV


No, first as in the first OF all creation, not "over".

Colossians 1:15-18
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things;
(NWT)

Starting with Genesis 9:4, as mentioned in the "Keep Yourselves in God's Love" publication: "After the Noachian Flood, God gave humans permission to eat the flesh of animals but not the blood. God stated: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat. And, besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back.” (Genesis 9:4, 5) This command applies to all of Noah’s descendants right down to our day. It reaffirms what was implied in God’s earlier words to Cain—that the soul, or life, of all creatures is represented by the blood. That decree also establishes that Jehovah, the Source of life, will hold to account all humans who disrespect life and blood.—Psalm 36:9."

This was NOT solely a law or command in the context of a dietary restriction, although that was included. The import of God's command to Noah was to establish to his human creation God's view on life and blood.

The scriptures mentioned in Acts 10:12-16 are in clear reference to the changes that the Jewish Christians had to deal with as they came out from the old Mosaic Law (which was done away with by Jesus' death) and began acting in harmony with the statutes and principles with with the new Christian congregation was under. Those verses have nothing to do with blood as concerning THIS discussion. Whether YOU deem a medical journal "credible" or not is irrelevant.....both to this discussion and to me personally. I could care less what you view as credible, particularly since you're a supporter of a man-taught doctrine, the trinity, which the Bible neither teaches nor supports. The fact remains that if a person is going to "abstain" from blood, which the Bible DOES specifically state........it means they have nothing to do with it altogether.

In reference to Leviticus 3:17, the reference to fat is in regards to the giving of our very best to our Creator. The May 15, 04 Watchtower states regarding that verse: "Since the fat was regarded as the best or the richest part, the prohibition against eating it evidently impressed upon the Israelites that the best part belonged to Jehovah. (Genesis 45:18) This reminds us that we should give our very best to Jehovah." - It doesn't change the fact that in every sense, whether dietary or otherwise, both the Jews and later the Christians, were NOT to have anything to do with blood.

In reference to the passages at Acts 15:28, 29, the "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" publication makes these points:

SHOWING RESPECT FOR BLOOD
10 After Cain killed his brother Abel, Jehovah told Cain: “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Genesis 4:10) When God spoke of Abel’s blood, he was speaking of Abel’s life. Cain had taken Abel’s life, and now Cain would have to be punished. It was as if Abel’s blood, or life, were crying out to Jehovah for justice. The connection between life and blood was again shown after the Flood of Noah’s day. Before the Flood, humans ate only fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts. After the Flood, Jehovah told Noah and his sons: “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.” However, God set this restriction: “Only flesh with its soul [or, life]—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 1:29; 9:3, 4) Clearly, Jehovah links very closely the life and the blood of a creature.
11 We show respect for blood by not eating it. In the Law that Jehovah gave the Israelites, he commanded: “As for any man . . . who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. . . . I said to the sons of Israel: ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh.’” (Leviticus 17:13, 14) God’s command not to eat animal blood, first given to Noah some 800 years earlier, was still in force. Jehovah’s view was clear: His servants could eat animal meat but not the blood. They were to pour the blood on the ground—in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.
12 A similar command rests upon Christians. The apostles and other men taking the lead among Jesus’ followers in the first century met together to decide what commands had to be obeyed by all in the Christian congregation. They came to this conclusion: “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 [leaving the blood in the meat] and from fornication.” (Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25) So we must ‘keep abstaining from blood.’ In God’s eyes, our doing that is as important as our avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality.
13 Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.
14 What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.
15 Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.—John 5:28, 29; Hebrews 11:6.
16 Today, faithful servants of God firmly resolve to follow his direction regarding blood. They will not eat it in any form. Nor will they accept blood for medical reasons. They are sure that the Creator of blood knows what is best for them. Do you believe that he does?

>Thread Closed<
As it has been hijacked.