23 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kas the law is now nullified, the principle is that we abstain from blood and as you are aware a principle is much more encompassing than a law in that it can be applied to different situations and circumstances. Thus the law given to the Hebrews 'you must not eat the blood' carries with it a principle, reiterated to the first century Christians, who were now no longer under law, the Law that blood represents life which belongs to God carries with it a principle, the law that it was to be utilised for nothing other than sacrifice carries with it a principle, the principles given to the first century Christians to 'abstain from blood', the principle that Christ's own blood has a redeeming quality, all have a bearing and must be weighed in the conscience of the adherent. I shall find the scriptural references to each and every one if you like.
So I am guessing you think that blood transfusions come under the principle of abstaining from blood? Can you refer to other passages of Scripture which countenance this principle?
Historically, the Christian churches have always understood Acts 15:28 to have been a temporary commandment simply to allay tensions between Jews and Gentiles, which would lat (Acts 15: 19-21). This was simply to ensure that Christian Jews and Gentiles could assimilate.
I reject your tradition and your reasoning, for it nullifies and negates the word of God.
23 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71you cannot even tell the difference between a principle and a law, that's how much you have learned from being a 'Christian', give it up and get a bible study, or something, anything! something must be better than nothing.
No one Christian or non is buying your argument guys. G-75 or R.C.
You can't connect the two the scriptures and you organizations whacky reasoning on why JW's must refuse Blood transfusions. All that being said it's your right to decline a blood transfusion if it's ever needed for you. (hope not)
Manny
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by divegeesteri apologise for sounding condescending, it was not my intent.
I thought you said the law is nullified? How then can there be a difference.
Who says what is law and principle - you talk your own language.
Btw you are a very condescending person.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Bible does not make meaningful distinction between law and principle YOU do!
you cannot even tell the difference between a principle and a law, that's how much you have learned from being a 'Christian', give it up and get a bible study, or something, anything! something must be better than nothing.
Galv said a few post previously there were "no exceptions" sounds like a law to me?
JW's using so called "principles" are another way of the cults softening the hard-line LAW stance set by their founders.
Just my opinion of course...
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't believe it does negate the word of God. This was a message from Paul to a particular Gentile community with the express purpose of resolving Gentile-Jewish animosity. You extrapolate far too much to take this as a universal injunction to abstain from blood. It makes no sense in context. All Paul is saying 'Look guys, just for now, abstain from blood and strangled meat. It's causing too many quarrels.'
as the law is now nullified, the principle is that we abstain from blood and as you are aware a principle is much more encompassing than a law in that it can be applied to different situations and circumstances. Thus the principle given to the Hebrews 'you must not eat the blood', the principle that blood represents life which belongs to God, the pr ...[text shortened]...
I reject your tradition and your reasoning, for it nullifies and negates the word of God.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by divegeesterok
The Bible does not make meaningful distinction between law and principle YOU do!
Galv said a few post previously there were "no exceptions" sounds like a law to me?
JW's using so called "principles" are another way of the cults softening the hard-line LAW stance set by their founders.
Just my opinion of course...
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by divegeesterI don't think so. In fact, it is quite expressly what Jesus taught. Christians are told to obey the spirit of the law, the principle, rather than just cling to the letter of the law even in circumstances when the principle is violated. I don't think it applies to this case. It does not seem self-evident to me that there is any particular principle behind this law.
The Bible does not make meaningful distinction between law and principle YOU do!
Galv said a few post previously there were "no exceptions" sounds like a law to me?
JW's using so called "principles" are another way of the cults softening the hard-line LAW stance set by their founders.
Just my opinion of course...
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by divegeesterno there are literally hundreds of references from the Hebrew scriptures that are repeated in principle in the Greek portion. For example, you must not steal, you must not murder, are laws, we are no longer under law, but the principle that stealing is wrong, is reiterated by Paul, directly from the Law.
The Bible does not make meaningful distinction between law and principle YOU do!
Galv said a few post previously there were "no exceptions" sounds like a law to me?
JW's using so called "principles" are another way of the cults softening the hard-line LAW stance set by their founders.
Just my opinion of course...
23 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhat inferences from scripture lead you to believe that it was to be a temporary proviso, as if a principle can be governed by time?
I don't believe it does negate the word of God. This was a message from Paul to a particular Gentile community with the express purpose of resolving Gentile-Jewish animosity. You extrapolate far too much to take this as a universal injunction to abstain from blood. It makes no sense in context. All Paul is saying 'Look guys, just for now, abstain from blood and strangled meat. It's causing too many quarrels.'
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiesorry Manny that was uncalled for, you are of course free to express your distaste of our ever growing, ever beautiful and ever willing to come to your house to help you understand the Bible, organisation, as you so vehemently do.
you cannot even tell the difference between a principle and a law, that's how much you have learned from being a 'Christian', give it up and get a bible study, or something, anything! something must be better than nothing.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI agree with your post, so how are you disagreeing with what I said?
I don't think so. In fact, it is quite expressly what Jesus taught. Christians are told to obey the spirit of the law, the principle, rather than just cling to the letter of the law even in circumstances when the principle is violated. I don't think it applies to this case. It does not seem self-evident to me that there is any particular principle behind this law.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI hate the coin phrases too. Like Organization and Ransom sacrifice and all of these little phrases you guys use. You guys use these same words over and over again.
sorry Manny that was uncalled for, you are of course free to express your distaste of our ever growing, ever beautiful and ever willing to come to your house to help you understand the Bible, organisation, as you so vehemently do.
Manny