"Abstain From Blood"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Who am I to judge the house servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls.

Who are the leadership of the Jehovah's Witness organization to judge you?

Did the change in your organization's corporate policy with regard to the interpretation of the Bible result in people leaving your denomination and/or getting disfellowshipped in 1944 onwards?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Who am I to judge the house servant of another?

Would you judge other Jehovah's Witnesses in this matter?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about them? they are still clinging to doctrines that have not been revised since AD 325.

How about the Church council in 381 AD? Haven't you ever read about it? 😏

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/2ecumen.htm

Originally posted by FMF
Who are the leadership of the Jehovah's Witness organization to judge you?

Did the change in your organization's corporate policy with regard to the interpretation of the Bible result in people leaving your denomination and/or getting disfellowshipped in 1944 onwards?

They are our elders and do a pretty excellent job of looking after us. You might as well
ask, who were the apostles who rendered judgement on issues on behalf of the
brothers in the first century. I dont know if people left or not, people leave for all sorts
of reasons.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about the Church council in 381 AD? Haven't you ever read about it? 😏

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/2ecumen.htm

thanks like three zillion years ago.

Originally posted by FMF
Would you judge other Jehovah's Witnesses in this matter?

Yes indeed, one must check the scriptures oneself to ascertain that the counsel is first
of all Biblically based and sound and to ascertain how it might apply personally.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes indeed, one must check the scriptures oneself to ascertain that the counsel is first
of all Biblically based and sound and to ascertain how it might apply personally.

galveston75 tried to make the case on this forum over the last few weeks, even to the extent of starting 3 or 4 threads, and yet failed to make a credible argument that the "abstain from blood" was anything to do with blood transfusions. He was unable to provide any biblical quotes that corroborated his purported "understanding".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They are our elders and do a pretty excellent job of looking after us. You might as well
ask, who were the apostles who rendered judgement on issues on behalf of the
brothers in the first century. I dont know if people left or not, people leave for all sorts
of reasons.

Weren't Christ's Apostles appointed by Christ himself? Do your organization's "elders" really equate themselves with the Apostles? And if you meant small "a" apostles later in the first century, aren't there countless of them who "rendered judgements" that may or may not be correct and that you can just pick and choose from. And aren't there "apostles" and "brothers" who taught incorrectly and/or fell victim to ecclesiastical politics? Do you consider yourself to be an apostle?

Originally posted by FMF
Weren't Christ's Apostles appointed by Christ himself? Do your organization's "elders" really equate themselves with the Apostles? And if you meant small "a" apostles later in the first century, aren't there countless of them who "rendered judgements" that may or may not be correct and that you can just pick and choose from. And aren't there "apostles" and "brot ...[text shortened]... ell victim to ecclesiastical politics? Do you consider yourself to be an apostle?

They follow the same pattern and are appointed when they meet the qualifications set
out in scripture, itself a product of Holy spirit. No I am not an apostle and neither are
they. They are Christian elders though, whose responsibility it is to look after the flock
of God. Whether rouge elements are present or not, time usually tells, after all, the
'man of lawlessness', is readily identifiable from traits described in scripture.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They follow the same pattern and are appointed when they meet the qualifications set
out in scripture, itself a product of Holy spirit. No I am not an apostle and neither are
they. They are Christian elders though, whose responsibility it is to look after the flock
of God. Whether rouge elements are present or not, time usually tells, after all, the
'man of lawlessness', is readily identifiable from traits described in scripture.

If they were mistaken in their "understanding of Biblical principles" with regard to what "abstain from blood" means" prior to 1944, is it possible that one day they will change their "understanding of Biblical principles" again and revert back to a policy of approving of blood transfusions [or at least not prohibiting them]. Is that possible when it comes to changing an "understanding of Biblical principles"?

Originally posted by FMF
galveston75 tried to make the case on this forum over the last few weeks, even to the extent of starting 3 or 4 threads, and yet failed to make a credible argument that the "abstain from blood" was anything to do with blood transfusions. He was unable to provide any biblical quotes that corroborated his purported "understanding".

I did not follow those threads and have only your word for it, if you dont think it applies
to blood transfusions, then that is your interpretation, the admonition from the book of
acts is clear, abstain from blood. If you doctor asked you to abstain from alcoholic
beverages, would you then in good faith conclude that it was perfectly legitimate and
viable to inject yourself intravenously with alcohol reasoning that he made no mention
of it, no, neither would I. The principle remains soundly fixed upon Biblical principle,
that being, to abstain from blood, in any form or guise, either through eating or
drinking it, or injecting it intravenously.

(Acts 15:28, 29) . . .For 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. Good health to
you!”

If you are unconvinced by either my arguments or Gmans, then that is your affair,
we have accepted them and they seem perfectly sound and legitimate to us.

Originally posted by FMF
If they were mistaken in their "understanding of Biblical principles" with regard to what "abstain from blood" means" prior to 1944, is it possible that one day they will change their "understanding of Biblical principles" again and revert back to a policy of approving of blood transfusions [or at least not prohibiting them]. Is that possible when it comes to changing an "understanding of Biblical principles"?

I doubt it, what is likely to transpire is that as medical science advances, there will be
more and more alternative treatments. Already there are hospitals dedicated to
bloodless surgery.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not follow those threads and have only your word for it, if you dont think it applies
to blood transfusions, then that is your interpretation, the admonition from the book of
acts is clear, abstain from blood. If you doctor asked you to abstain from alcoholic
beverages, would you then in good faith conclude that it was perfectly legitima ...[text shortened]... . If
you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to
you!”

Yes, galveston75 tried to make the case to no avail. he had to add words and extrapolate stuff that just was not there, something you are hotly against when any other Christians try to do it on this forum. The case he made was very weak and I don't think anyone was persuaded.

It would be odd that an important tenet of Christian teaching is so obscure and involves such extrapolation and surmise as galveston75 had to engage in. I myself have no reason to not believe a claim about what the Bible says, and in fact I accept countless claims about what scripture says, but neither of you have made the case.

You often urge others to consider the context, and the context was clearly consuming blood and stuff to do with the slaughter of animals. SwissGambit made the point very clearly on one of those threads. To extrapolate "no blood transfusions" from it is a stretch as big as the stretch of extrapolating "the Trinity" from the Bible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I doubt it, what is likely to transpire is that as medical science advances, there will be
more and more alternative treatments. Already there are hospitals dedicated to
bloodless surgery.

So you think a change in your organization's "understanding of Biblical principles" in a particular case is a one-off irreversible decision?