23 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerOk guys. It says what it says. You can play with it anyway you want and thats your conscience and spiritual insight that has to work or not for you.
I am not aware of any tradition in which Jews would eat or consume human blod 2000 years ago, so, no, I am pretty sure they meant animal blood.
If you think blood transfusions are not wrong then yes you'll find any meaning that you can in that command. But again...it says nothing about some paganistic form of worship..does it? Who was this being spoken to? To some pagans standing there? No..it was spoken to God's servants, the Christians.
But it clearly says to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD period. No exceptions in any way. Do you see any there? If you do please show me.
Ok since neither of you want to take the simple effort to go back to the explination of eating meet I'll do this again......
What did God tell Noah to do in regards to eating meet as he did give us permission to eat it? Wasn't the command to bled the animal out as in cutting it's neck and let it hang until the blood stopped flowing? Would that make sence as a normal way to bleed out any animal?
Does not the meet industry do the same in it's bleeding practices?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exsanguination
So since this would be the normal way that most any animals that we might purchase today would be bled, it was the same way that God would have approved Noah doing it then.
So no not every atom of blood would be gone in the meat. That would be impossible. But with good cooking practices this would not be a problem for the informed Christian.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75You are making a big mistake in this fact. The fact of context who was Paul writing to? What were the people who Paul was writing to seeing everyday? Paul even uses and references the very Roman world in which he dwelt in. The Romans made sacrifices to their gods. I think you need to look at history and context a bit more there G-75.
Ok guys. It says what it says. You can play with it anyway you want and thats your conscience and spiritual insight that has to work or not for you.
If you think blood transfusions are not wrong then yes you'll find any meaning that you can in that command. But again...it says nothing about some paganistic form of worship..does it? Who was this being s ...[text shortened]... e. But with good cooking practices this would not be a problem for the informed Christian.
Manny
23 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Galvo can you explain to me what his objection is to the scripture for i have read it twice and still cannot grasp it.
Ok guys. It says what it says. You can play with it anyway you want and thats your conscience and spiritual insight that has to work or not for you.
If you think blood transfusions are not wrong then yes you'll find any meaning that you can in that command. But again...it says nothing about some paganistic form of worship..does it? Who was this being s e. But with good cooking practices this would not be a problem for the informed Christian.
Is it because there is a small residual amount left after an animal is properly bled that it cannot really mean abstain from eating blood? Is that really what they are saying? Or is it simply things that were killed exclusively in ritual sacrifice, trying to construe of course, that somehow, if an animal was not killed in ritual sacrifice, eating its blood was permitted? If this is the case than they are the ones who are taking the scripture out of context, for clearly, the principle is, as per the Mosaic law, 'you must not eat the blood'. Or is it that abstaining from blood doesn't really mean abstaining from blood, it means something else?
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by menace71try looking at it in the context of the entire Bible, who knows, perhaps you may be able to discern the constituent parts so as to make a whole.
You are making a big mistake in this fact. The fact of context who was Paul writing to? What were the people who Paul was writing to seeing everyday? Paul even uses and references the very Roman world in which he dwelt in. The Romans made sacrifices to their gods. I think you need to look at history and context a bit more there G-75.
Manny
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by menace71So why would Paul be addressing the average everyday Roman with these instructions????????
You are making a big mistake in this fact. The fact of context who was Paul writing to? What were the people who Paul was writing to seeing everyday? Paul even uses and references the very Roman world in which he dwelt in. The Romans made sacrifices to their gods. I think you need to look at history and context a bit more there G-75.
Manny
Anyway the book od Acts is actually addressed to Theophilus if you'll notice verse one..
(The‧oph′i‧lus) [Loved by God; Friend of God].
The person to whom Luke addressed both his Gospel and the Acts of Apostles. (Lu 1:3, 4; Ac 1:1) His being called “most excellent” may indicate a high position of some kind, or it may simply be an expression of high esteem. Theophilus apparently was a Christian, having been orally taught about Jesus Christ and his ministry. Luke’s written statement served to assure him of the certainty of what he had learned previously by word of mouth.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI honestly don't know what they mean?
Galvo can you explain to me what his objection is to the scripture for i have read it twice and still cannot grasp it.
Is it because there is a small residual amount left after an animal is properly bled that it cannot really mean abstain from eating blood? Is that really what they are saying? Or is it simply things that were killed exclusivel ...[text shortened]... at abstaining from blood doesn't really mean abstaining from blood, it means something else?
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHence why most cook meat right? I think most here would agree that drinking blood for the most part is repulsive (Most I say) but to go from not drinking or eating blood to not accepting a blood transfusion is a stretch. The Roman world was full of sacrifice to their god's it would have been common in that time and place to see animals sacrificed everyday I think. This is a foreign concept to modern western people.
Galvo can you explain to me what his objection is to the scripture for i have read it twice and still cannot grasp it.
Is it because there is a small residual amount left after an animal is properly bled that it cannot really mean abstain from eating blood? Is that really what they are saying? Or is it simply things that were killed exclusivel ...[text shortened]... at abstaining from blood doesn't really mean abstaining from blood, it means something else?
Manny
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75It was written by Luke to Theophilus
So why would Paul be addressing the average everyday Roman with these instructions????????
Anyway the book od Acts is actually addressed to Theophilus if you'll notice verse one..
(The‧oph′i‧lus) [Loved by God; Friend of God].
The person to whom Luke addressed both his Gospel and the Acts of Apostles. (Lu 1:3, 4; Ac 1:1) His be ...[text shortened]... ement served to assure him of the certainty of what he had learned previously by word of mouth.
Who was Theophilus? A Roman or Greek. Who do you think Paul was spreading the Gospel to? Greeks and Romans LOL Every day folks of that place and time. Context man context!!! Thats part of the reason for your skewed picture of the Scriptures. Your whole history and understanding is colored by what the Watchtower tells you is so.
Theo=God Theist or Atheist = non-no God Theophius friend or lover of God.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by menace71did you not see the wonderful illustration? please tell me if you are told to abstain from eating blood, why injecting it intravenously then becomes acceptable.
Hence why most cook meat right? I think most here would agree that drinking blood for the most part is repulsive (Most I say) but to go from not drinking or eating blood to not accepting a blood transfusion is a stretch. The Roman world was full of sacrifice to their god's it would have been common in that time and place to see animals sacrificed everyday I think. This is a foreign concept to modern western people.
Manny
Doctor, Manfred you must not drink alcohol, ok Doctor that's fine, ill inject it intravenously! is that we you are saying? who is the one stretching the principle, you or I?
23 Sep 10
I actually agree with you on the fact that eating blood is gross at minimum. If someone is drinking human blood very sick indeed I have no argument there. It's silly anyway what person in their right mind is going to drink human blood? I think it's a commonly held and universal concept to man to cook meat. Maybe it is from pre-mosaic times that man understood this and that from God telling Noah.
Context is very important
Manny
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot really. I think your organisation is scum. I am sure you have ensnared others with this specious reasoning. You tell them that blood transfusions carry multiple risks. You explain to them that there are alternative blood fractions (although I am sure you omit to mention that blood fractions also have risks.) You tell them that most cases do not require blood transfusions. By the end of the session you probably dupe a whole lot of gullible people into thinking that you have saved their lives. It is really quite disturbing.
thanks i have established what i intended to do.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75And as more and more blood substitutes are made for use instead of blood, it is something that all should look at first instead of real blood.
Well what we are trying to establish here is simple. First that blood transfusions, as we all acknowledge can be dangerous in many different ways. They may be getting safer thru the medical field doing more and more things to test for problems and correct that, but the fact is there is still a risk.
And as more and more blood substitutes are made for u ...[text shortened]... So until his command changes about the use of blood we follow his command to abstain from it.
According to the information RC tendered earlier, blood fractions also have similar risks. He pointed to hundreds of cases of haemophiliacs who had contracted HIV.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by menace71are you taking the fifth amendment Manny, less you incriminate yourself? answer the question!
I actually agree with you on the fact that eating blood is gross at minimum. If someone is drinking human blood very sick indeed I have no argument there. It's silly anyway what person in their right mind is going to drink human blood? I think it's a commonly held and universal concept to man to cook meat. Maybe it is from pre-mosaic times that man understood this and that from God telling Noah.
Context is very important
Manny
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by menace71Context man..context.
It was written by Luke to Theophilus
Who was Theophilus? A Roman or Greek. Who do you think Paul was spreading the Gospel to? Greeks and Romans LOL Every day folks of that place and time. Context man context!!! Thats part of the reason for your skewed picture of the Scriptures. Your whole history and understanding is colored by what the Watchtower tells you is so.
Theo=God Theist or Atheist = non-no God Theophius friend or lover of God.
Actually this comment was made while Paul and Barnabas were back in Jerusalem and with the congregation there and they we're discussing some points. Once they decided the correct view on these point a letter was sent to the Brothers in Antioch which was in Turkey.
"With the great influx of non-Jews, the question arises whether these should be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas take the issue to the apostles and the older men in Jerusalem, where the disciple James presides and arranges to send out the unanimous decision by formal letter: “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.” (15:28, 29) The encouragement of this letter causes the brothers in Antioch to rejoice.