Ask Me Help Desk - Jehovah's Witnesses

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altenweg

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanspoman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanspoman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altenweg

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanspoman

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanspoman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanspoman

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanspoman

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altenweg

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altenweg

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.