₦airaland Forum

What, does the Bible say, is the penalty for
eating blood? According to Genesis 9:4, Leviticus
7:24-27; 17:14-4, and Acts 15:8, God forbids the
eating of blood. The punishment for eating blood
was “cutting off”—excommunication—outlawed
from the people. Eating blood, fat or flesh of an
animal not properly killed was atoned for by
washing one’s clothes and person, and remaining
unclean until evening. But, is this how the
Watchtower interprets the Bible?
The Watchtower contradicted the Scriptures
when it first dreamed up this ban on blood
transfusions. To enforce the Society member’s
adherence to this ban, the Jehovah’s Witness
president was quoted as saying that, in the
Bible, “Deliberate violation of this law regarding
the sacredness of blood meant ‘cutting off’ in
death ” (AID TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING pg.
244). Is this what the Bible says? Definitely not!
And there is no law in the Bible forbidding blood
transfusions. Jesus said, “nothing from without
a man, entering into him can defile him” (Mark
7:14, KJV). Since there is no law in the
Scriptures forbidding blood transfusions, the
Scriptural rule applies: “for where no law is,
there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15).
According to Numbers 15:32-36, the punishment
for breaking the Sabbath was death. This was a
more serious crime than eating blood. But, why
did Jesus work on the Sabbath? The answer is
found at Matthew 12:11-12, Luke 14:5 and Luke
6:9. Jesus, the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew
12:8, Luke 6:5, KJV), permitted work on the
Sabbath, which was necessary to save life. Why,
then, won’t the Watchtower allow the lives of
needy Jehovah’s Witnesses to be saved? This
cult is, in effect, killing its own members!
Therefore it is good to donate blood, and it is
lawful to receive a blood transfusion, if it will
save life.
The Watchtower has been a confused
organization since its inception. The president of
Jehovah’s Witnesses once declared, “Organ
transplants are forbidden by God as they are
equivalent to cannibalism” ( The Watchtower ,
11/15/67 & 6/8/68). This later became, “Organ
transplants are not forbidden by God as they are
not equivalent to cannibalism” ( The Watchtower ,
3/15/1980). God changed His mind. Finally,
“Blood transfusion is essentially an organ
transplant” (JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND THE
QUESTION OF BLOOD, pg. 41). By their own
logic, since God lifted the ban on transplants,
blood transfusions are no longer forbidden by
God. Unfortunately, the Watchtower contradicts
its own words—and also the divinely inspired
words of the Scriptures: Why does the
Watchtower forbid the eating of blood (as
Leviticus 3:17 states), but allows the eating of
fat (as Leviticus 3:17 also states)? Christians!
Don’t let Jehovah’s Witnesses fool you! Their
beliefs are scripturally illogical. Believing them
could kill you!

RikoduoSennin: Now who told you JW don't take drugs?

Who told you blood transfusion is a quarantee for life to be saved during medical procedure

Yes, suicide is a sin. JW just want the best medical treatment without violating God's law in the process, just because they want to save themselves now to die later (Gen 2:21- God performed BLOODLESS surgery).

Now as par the book of Acts;

Acts 15:1,2,24 - The issue raised was about circumcision and keep the Law. Note: the Gentiles were not under the Mosaic law, they don't obey the command on Blood.

Acts 15:20,29- Here the Gentiles were adopt some part of that Mosaic law not all/every part. This few parts include "do not eat STRANGLED animals, and ABSTAIN from blood".

Why should they not eat Strangled animals? Because the blood in this animals have not been bled out! Meaning the Gentiles where instructed to respect the use of blood.

"Abstain" from blood. The word abstain says it all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your thread raises two questions!

1) Is it against the bible to consume blood (both human and animals).

2) Is our life more important than obeying God's command? Keep in mind Jesus words "he who loses his life for my sake will gain it".

u need to know that blood transfusion is not against God's commands. u need to understand this fact.

is blood transfusion wrong? the answer is no.
Is Receiving a Blood
Transfusion a Sin? – Part 1
Definitions:
eat vt 1: to take in through the
mouth as food: ingest, chew,
and swallow in turn.
ingest vt: to take in for or as if
for digestion.
intravenous adj : situated,
performed, or occurring within
or entering by way of a vein.
transfuse vt 1a: to cause to
pass from one to another:
TRANSMIT… 2a: to transfer (as
blood) into a vein of a person or
animal.
transfusion n 1: an act, process,
or instance of transfusing; esp:
the process of transfusing fluid
into a vein or artery.
digestion n: the action, process,
or power of digesting: as a: the
process of making food
absorbable by dissolving it and
breaking it down into simpler
chemical compounds that
occurs in the living body chiefly
through the action of enzymes
secreted into the alimentary
canal.
(Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1983, pp. 393, 621, 635,
1253, 354).
“It shall be a perpetual statute for your
generation throughout all your dwellings, that ye
eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17, KJV).
This law, given by God, forbids the eating of
blood, and of fat. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe
that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin worse
than theft or adultery. Indeed, thieves and
adulterers are more quickly forgiven by
Watchtower judicial committees than individuals
found guilty of taking blood. A Witness must
refuse blood in all circumstances, even when this
is certain to result in death. The organization
also requires adults to refuse transfusions for
their minor children. But, is accepting a blood
transfusion really the same as ‘eating’ blood?
What exactly defines ‘eating’? According to the
above definitions, eating entails a process, which
begins with ingestion —or the taking in of food for
digestion—into the mouth where it is then
chewed, and swallowed. During and after this
process, the food is digested—starting partially
by the saliva and the chewing in the mouth, and
then ending completely by the hydrochloric acid
in the stomach. But isn’t blood a liquid, and
aren’t liquids drunk? The eating of blood means
the eating of flesh containing blood. This goes
into the mouth as a solid, and the term ‘drink’,
here, does not apply. But drinking entails the
swallowing of liquid, and the drinking of blood is
therefore, also, included in the above
commandment.
What exactly defines ‘blood transfusion’ ?
According to the above definitions, a blood
transfusion is the process of transferring the
blood of one person into the vein or artery of
another person. This is done in emergency
situations where a person is in need of life-
saving blood to replace or replenish his body’s
own blood supply. A Jehovah’s Witness will
argue that receiving a blood transfusion is the
same as ‘eating’ blood, because it resembles
intravenous feeding. They claim it is intravenous
ingestion. But is ‘ingestion’ the same as
‘eating’ ? Hardly. Eating involves ingestion, but
ingestion does not necessarily involve eating.
So, according to the definitions given above, is
receiving a blood transfusion the same as eating
blood? Before this question can be answered,
another must be asked: Does the process of
receiving a blood transfusion follow the process
of eating, as defined above? Let’s examine the
facts and then ask ourselves: Does one receive a
blood transfusion through the mouth? Does the
blood received undergo the mouth-action called
‘chewing’? Does it then undergo the mouth-
action called ‘swallowing’? Will the blood
received undergo ‘digestion’? If the answer to the
above questions is NO, then receiving a blood
transfusion is NOT the same as eating blood. If
you could stuff a drumstick into your vein, would
you call that ‘eating’ chicken?

Raiders: Soldiers will go to hell because the bible say thou shall not kill.

where do you hear that?

RikoduoSennin: I tell you, the bold section is plain false! Please talk to a professional Medical doctor and see if there is really nothing wrong with blood transfusion medically.( Ask what really happened to Pope John Paul).

Blood transfusions like any medical procedures has its risks, not limited to these; it does not save life 100% rather it is 50-50, it holds the risk of infections such as HIV, hepthatitis,etc, it causes complications between the new blood and the old- organ failure (No two humans have exactly the same blood components), it is difficult to screen blood samples (100% disease free).

In the bible book of Acts, Why were christians urged not to eat "anything strangled", what do you think is the principle behind that instruction?

Over Man history, men have been consuming human blood for medicinal purposes- research about that, but is our life more important than obeying God's law?

Taking alcohol/drugs through the veins is still like ingesting it- it affects the body the same.


JW put their Faith in Jehovah's law "Do not eat blood- because it is sacred/life", Whether they survive medical procedure without taking blood or not, they are not afraid of death after all they have the hope of everlasting life in a perfect new world if they obey Jehovah, what is better than that.

refusal to take drugs or do a blood transfusion to save your life amount to suicide. when u refuse to take medication to get well, what u are doing is suicide. and suicide is a sin.

this is what i said regarding dat book of acts.
Coming to the New Testament, we again come to
a favorite passage of the Jehovah's Witnesses,
Acts 15:2029. This is of course after the new
covenant was effective; a brief look at the
background of the statement is helpful here. The
problem prompting this statement was one which
involved the relationship between Jew and
Gentile, a problem that had arisen after Cornelius
was baptized (Acts 10:48). False teachers had
come from Judea teaching that it was necessary
to be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:
i ). Paul and Barnabas were dispatched to
discuss the matter with the elders and apostles in
Jerusalem. There Peter told them how God had
shown him that the Gentiles should also have the
gospel. The multitude then kept silent as
Barnabas and Paul told of the great wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles. Then James
spoke. He reminded them that what Peter had
said was in harmony with the prophets of old.
Now the time had come for the decision regarding
what to tell the brethren at Antioch. These were
Gentile Christians (vs. 23). As already noted,
there had been misunderstandings from the
beginning in the Jew-Gentile relationship. Notice
that the four things here prohibited (pollutions of
idols, fornication, things strangled and blood)
were items of heathen worship with which the
Gentiles were familiar. It did not bother them to
eat in the temples of the idol worshiper. Paul told
the Corinthians that whatever is sold in the
shambles, eat, asking no questions (1 Cor.
10:25). Thus it was obviously not wrong to eat
meat sacrificed to idols under some conditions.
But sometimes it was wrong (1 Cor. 10:28). It
was wrong if it caused a weak brother to eat
meats in violation of his conscience (see also 1
Cor. 8:13).
Then why did James now tell them to abstain
from pollutions of idols, . blood, etc.? The answer
comes in verse 21. "For Moses from generations
of old hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
Here is another reference to the Jew-Gentile
relationship. Love and restraint must be practiced
(1 Cor. 8:9; 10:32; Rom. 14:13-15). These four
things were linked together on the basis of the
Jew Gentile relationship, not because they were
equal morally. These were especially
objectionable to the Jews. Thus in the letter they
were forbidden. So out of deference to the Jewish
brethren and in an attempt to maintain the unity
of brethren, they were to abstain from these
things. See Acts 15:21.
But is it not wrong, to practice these things now
under all conditions? What about fornication? Is it
not wrong under all circumstances? Yes, many
other passages tell us it is (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19,
etc.). But in the passage before us it is connected
with the heathen worship with which the Gentiles
were familiar and no doubt refers to the practice
of the heathen religious worship. Even fornication
was an act of worship among the pagans. Lenski
says, "It was a part of their idol
worship" (Interpretation of the Acts of the
Apostles, Lenski, p. 615). He then continued, "The
wisdom of some of the Corinthian Christians
argued that fornication was merely an external
matter. The old pagan ideas about sexual
impurities not being impurities kept clinging to the
converts from paganism in some form or other.
Hence this warning appears as the second on the
list of Peter" (Ibid., p. 615).
Thus, it is the belief of this writer that the things
prohibited here were not meant as restrictions
under all circumstances and to all generations,
but were stated in view of the strained Jew-
Gentile relationship at that time. As already
stated, we know eating meat sacrificed to idols
was not sinful. So this would explain why
sometimes it was wrong and sometimes it was
not. Since these things were pagan religious
practices, the Gentile Christians were to refrain
out of love for their Jewish brethren who objected
to them.

Efere701: Yes, I am one of Jehovah's witnesses and I have just presented to you the bible's thought on the blood issue. Obeying God even when it comes matters of life and death brings great blessings.it is even as the bible says: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it".- matt 16:25

d truth is what i have shown in d write up above.

Nigeria is one of the countries where you can do whatever you like and still move freely as if nothing has happened. it's a pity.

Efere701: JW's have understood God's view of blood from the bible. When it comes to the Law to abstain from blood, we see it given to Noah and his family - Genesis 9:4,5. We also see it given to the israelites - Leviticus 17:10, 11. We also read of it in the early christian congregation - Act 14:28, 29.

The question is, was it just animal blood alone? What is the principle behind God's telling his people in the past to abstain from blood. Lev 17:10, 11 explains the principle behind the Law, it says: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonment for your souls". In truth, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Medical science totally agrees with this. The blood contains red and white blood cells as well as plasma and plateletes. It is said that in the absence of one of these components, life cannot continue. Blood plays a vital role in life, so for that reason the bible equates blood to life.

If blood = Life, then it shld be respected, not misused because it is God's, hence the law to pour it out to the earth after cutting the throat of an animal. That Formed the basis for the Law to abstain from blood. And that includes human blood, for Lev 17:10 starts by saying "as for any man...who eats ANY SORT OF BLOOD...I shall indeed cut him off. This was not simply refering only to animal blood.

There is also the account in 2samuel 23:15-17 where David was very thirsty, 3 of his men forced their way into the enemy camp, drew water from a cistern, and brought it to him. How did David react? He asked: "shall I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their souls?" In Davids eyes, the water was, in effect, the lifeblood of his men. So despite his thirst he "poured it out to God".

David understood the prínciple behind the Law to abstain from blood, JW's also do thus their respect for blood(Life).

are u a Jehovah witness? so u wud choose rather for someone to die than to do blood transfusion?

there is absolutely nothing wrong with blood transfusion.

Rich4god: SMH... So una still dey argue... Who among you then have the true spirit... Christians eh...

d guy just want to argue. d truth is very obvious here. it seems he is a babe in christ.

tb joshua? i will not talk for now.

Numerous passages are cited which say
we have eternal life: John 10:28; 17:3;
5:24; 3:36; 6:47; 3:16; I John 5:12,13.
Some argue that, if we have it, and if it is
eternal, then we cannot lose it. If we do,
it wasn't eternal.
We have eternal life now only as a promise
or hope.
1 John 2:25 - This is the promise He has
promised us, even life eternal.
James 1:12 - The crown of life which the
Lord promised to those who love Him.
Titus 1:2; 3:7 - The hope of eternal life,
which God promised .
We receive eternal life, in the sense of a
present possession, only after earthly life is
over and then only if we endure faithfully
till life is over.
Luke 18:30 - We receive eternal life "in
the world to come."
Romans 2:5-7 - Eternal life will be given
at the judgment IF we continue patiently
in well doing. [This is the same time that
the wicked will receive eternal
punishment - Matt. 25:46. Does this
happen in this life?]
Revelation 2:10 - Be faithful until death
and receive the crown of life.
In this life, we "have" eternal life in the
sense of a promise or a hope based on
faith. But we actually enter eternal life
at the judgment if and only if we
continue living faithfully till life is over.
This is a conditional promise. We will be
lost if we fail to meet the conditions.

@paxonel.

Romans 6:1. shall we continue in sin because of grace? d answer is no.
what if we continue?

Romans 6:12-13. shall we allow sin to reign in our mortal bodies? the answer is no.
what if we allow sin?

should we yield our bodies as instrument of sin?
the answer is no.
what if we yield our bodies?

Galatians 5:19-21. shall people who commit those thing enter heaven?
the answer is no
what if a christian commit any of them?

paxonel: you say those that die in their sin abi? for your information no christian is a sinner, so the issue of christians dying in their sin is totally out
it is unbelivers (non christians) that are sinners, they are the people that will die in their sin if they refuse to join christianity ( believe in Jesus )
we christians have been made righteous through Christ. please don't ridicle the effort of Jesus christ who has cleansed us
Romans 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie (through my imperfection) unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
i don't know whether you are understanding these scriptures you are quoting.
I told you, those scriptures is only advising us not to commit sin, the issue of salvation or eternal life is out of it ,salvation is a seperate thing entirely away from the advice
OK,just point to me were it is written clearly that if a Christian commit sin he will go to hell fire
Just show me the Scripture, because this one ehh..
lol

Once saved, always saved" is a tempting
doctrine because it is comforting.
It tells people what they would like to
hear. We would all like to think that,
even if we or our loved ones fall into sin,
they will still receive eternal life.
But it is a false doctrine because it
clearly contradicts Scriptures in nearly
every book of the Bible.
It is also a dangerous doctrine because it
leads people to think they are safe even
if they don't examine their lives, don't
study the Bible, and don't repent of sin.
Furthermore, it leads preachers to not
warn sinners that they need to repent.
I have personally known people who told
me of terrible sins they deliberately and
knowingly committed, justifying
themselves because they believed it
would not affect their salvation. I have
known teachers who justified those very
people saying that they would not have
lost their salvation even when committed
those sins.
Suppose a child is about to cross a busy
street. Shouldn't the parent warn the
child to look carefully for traffic before
they cross the street? People who
advocate "once saved, always saved" are
like a parent who not only does not warn
the child, but worse yet tells him there is
nothing to worry about because he can't
get hit, and if he does get hit, he won't
die!
Why should the child be warned?
Because there is a very real danger. And
the situation is most dangerous if the
child is not on guard. The worst thing
anyone can do to the child is to tell him
there is no danger. Yet that is exactly
what preachers do when they teach
"once saved, always saved." And this has
eternal consequences, because souls are
at stake.
Nevertheless, if the child is careful, he
can cross the street safely despite the
danger. So the best favor anyone can do
for the child is to warn him of the
danger, so he can avoid it. That is
exactly what we do when we preach the
Bible passages that warn Christians to
avoid sin. It is not that we believe
Christians have no security, but we know
people are only secure when they are
aware of the dangers, so they can be on
guard.

paxonel: the question is are we christians unclean? the answer is NO,
we have been made righteous, we have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he(God) hath made him (Jesus ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him
so we have been declared righteous
we have been made fit for the kingdom
we didn't do it for ourselves, it is Christ who did it for us
by the let me ask you, you want to depend on keeping the law abi? mention one person you know that has kept the law sucessfully, just one
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
so why are you killing yourself? why don't you just take advantage of the grace that has been made available by Jesus which is the perfect will of God for you?
i tell you if keep believing in that thing you are still holding called your righteousness you are the one holding false doctrine and you are the one going to perish in hell

if a christian commit adultery, fornication for instance that christian will be unclean. for dat person to be made clean again, he has to confess his sins and forsake them. then he will be washed with d blood of Jesus. that is what d bible teaches.

besides, grace should not be used as a cloak to sin. we must forsake sin or we perish. cos sin brings death.

henrychubayo: OP were you a JW before?

i'm not. one of their member told me that they dnt do blood transfusion.

paxonel: he will get the punishment here on earth. bu heaven? it is impossible for him to loose heaven unless he denounced Christianity
the point you people fail to understand is heaven is already in you. you are in heaven already. you don't work for it, it's a free gift, so long you believe in Jesus and remain in christianity. you have eternal life right inside you in your spirit

this is a lie raised to the power of thousands. dnt be deceived, those that die in their sins will perish. d wages of sin is death according to d bible.
.
Romans 6:12-18 - We must not let sin reign
in our bodies.
These were baptized into Christ (v3,4),
set free from sin, and become servants of
righteousness (v18).
They are warned not to let sin reign in
their bodies nor present their members
as instruments of sin (v12,13). The result
of that would be death (v16). This must
be spiritual again, since all die
physically. The wages of sin, even for
those here addressed, is death, in
contrast to eternal life (v23).
Hebrews 6:4-8 - We must avoid falling
away.
This is addressed to those once
enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift
and the good word of God and were
partakers of the Holy Spirit (v4,5).
We are warned not to fall away (v6). If
they continue in this pattern of life
(implied), they cannot be restored. They
are crucifying Jesus afresh and putting
Him to an open shame (v6). Their
destiny is to be burned like a field of
thorns (v8).

paxonel: exactly!
so all we need to do for ourselves is to avoid sin, work hard, make money,develop our environment (replenish this earth ) show love to the poor and enjoy our lives on earth

what if they dnt avoid sin? remember that no unclean thing will enter into heaven according to d bible. so why are u preaching a different gospel to deceive people. d bible say that those that preach a different gospel are under God's curse. repent now so that u will not perish in hell fire. cos all d false prophets will have their part in d lake of fire. dnt be one of them.

paxonel: he will get the punishment here on earth. bu heaven? it is impossible for him to loose heaven unless he denounced Christianity
the point you people fail to understand is heaven is already in you. you are in heaven already. you don't work for it, it's a free gift, so long you believe in Jesus and remain in christianity. you have eternal life right inside you in your spirit

this is d false doctrine peddles by false prophet like u and others.

paxonel: to express unbelief simply means to denounce christianity, because it is in Christianity that we have our believe in Jesus
remember, Jesus is the founder of christianity. he founded Christianity the very day he died and ressurected, so that as many that believe in him from that day of crucifixion is saved
everybody in Christianity believe so everybody in Christianity are saved
unbelievers are Muslims, those in Judaism ( the religion of the jews ) and every other religion outside Christianity
God has rejected Judaism(who had the old abrahamic covenant ) and lifted christianity( the new covenant in Christ ) for salvation
christianity is our faith, without christianity our faith it is impossible to please God

so those that believe are saved irrespective of their works?

kevoh: Let's not go round in cirles. My 1st post on this thread clearly covers the good,the bad and the ugly of all Pastors.

i just want to let u know that there are pastors who despite rich, comfortable still cares for d poor.

paxonel: a christian can only rebel against God only when he denounced christianity to join other religion, by so doing he has denounced the faith, he has lost his salvation
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: .....

so u believe that someone can lost his salvation now . gud. but tell me what will befall a christian who at a point begins to commit fornication, adultery, stealing, murder, etc and fails to repent of his sin and forsake them and died in his sins? will he make heaven?

kevoh: At the phrase in bold face, you clearly know what I mean from my response. Don't be pretending.

it is not all pastors that are insensitive to the plight of the poor. i hope you know that?

ROSSIKE: Someone far more intelligent than a tout like you.

u can't even engage in intelligent discussion. what a waste of space.

ROSSIKE: Poster, go for English lessons. Your spelling and diction are atrocious. Really, forget about the bible for a while and go try and improve yourself.

i think u shud go and fry urself in hot oil. i know u are too dull to debunk the write up. finding an easy way of escape.

Ukutsgp: why didn't God forgive Satan then after he rebelled against him? why did God totally cast him out?

also dnt u think that the prodigal son who left the father's house would have been lost forever if he didn't come back to his senses and returned to his father? is it God that will back d disobedient ones or they will repent and come back to God?

dnt u think a christian can turn and rebel
against God or leave God and become Satan's agent?

ur argument is full of holes. it is so because u dnt read nor understand d bible.

@paxonel
u have nt addressed this questions. dnt skip them.

paxonel: Christ died for all, but not everybody believe, so not everybody make heaven.

what about those who believes and draws back to perdition? i can believe today and tomorrow express unbelief like d Israelite in the wilderness.

kevoh: No he should collect it, sell it and give the money to the poor. That's what Jesus would have advised anyway, emphasis on THE POOR. James 1 : 27 comes to mind. That's what Mr. Pope is trying to exhibit to the world.

You can't be cruising around in private jets when your brothers in Liberia are lacking funds for basic medical aid to control Ebola?

he should sell it and be trekking. isn't it? and who told u dat pastors dnt set aside money to help d widows and orphans? last week our church even donated food items and cash to the orphanage homes and some widows. pls say what u know.

Keep the above thought in mind as we now
consider another favorite passage of the
Jehovah's Witnesses, Lev. 17:11-12. Again the
eating of blood is prohibited, but notice in verse
11 that it is stated, "For the life of the flesh is in
the blood: and I have given it to you upon the
alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it
is the blood that maketh an atonement for the
soul." The New American Standard translation
says, "for it is the blood by reason of the life that
makes atonement." In this verse, God told the
Israelites why they were not to eat blood. But the
law of sacrificing animal blood for sins is no
longer binding, as we are saved by the blood of
Christ. Thus the reason for considering the blood
such a sacred thing has been removed. The blood
of animals will not take away sins (Heb.
9:12-14).
Coming to the New Testament, we again come to
a favorite passage of the Jehovah's Witnesses,
Acts 15:2029. This is of course after the new
covenant was effective; a brief look at the
background of the statement is helpful here. The
problem prompting this statement was one which
involved the relationship between Jew and
Gentile, a problem that had arisen after Cornelius
was baptized (Acts 10:48). False teachers had
come from Judea teaching that it was necessary
to be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts 15:
i ). Paul and Barnabas were dispatched to
discuss the matter with the elders and apostles in
Jerusalem. There Peter told them how God had
shown him that the Gentiles should also have the
gospel. The multitude then kept silent as
Barnabas and Paul told of the great wonders God
had wrought among the Gentiles. Then James
spoke. He reminded them that what Peter had
said was in harmony with the prophets of old.
Now the time had come for the decision regarding
what to tell the brethren at Antioch. These were
Gentile Christians (vs. 23). As already noted,
there had been misunderstandings from the
beginning in the Jew-Gentile relationship. Notice
that the four things here prohibited (pollutions of
idols, fornication, things strangled and blood)
were items of heathen worship with which the
Gentiles were familiar. It did not bother them to
eat in the temples of the idol worshiper. Paul told
the Corinthians that whatever is sold in the
shambles, eat, asking no questions (1 Cor.
10:25). Thus it was obviously not wrong to eat
meat sacrificed to idols under some conditions.
But sometimes it was wrong (1 Cor. 10:28). It
was wrong if it caused a weak brother to eat
meats in violation of his conscience (see also 1
Cor. 8:13).
Then why did James now tell them to abstain
from pollutions of idols, . blood, etc.? The answer
comes in verse 21. "For Moses from generations
of old hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
Here is another reference to the Jew-Gentile
relationship. Love and restraint must be practiced
(1 Cor. 8:9; 10:32; Rom. 14:13-15). These four
things were linked together on the basis of the
Jew Gentile relationship, not because they were
equal morally. These were especially
objectionable to the Jews. Thus in the letter they
were forbidden. So out of deference to the Jewish
brethren and in an attempt to maintain the unity
of brethren, they were to abstain from these
things. See Acts 15:21.
But is it not wrong, to practice these things now
under all conditions? What about fornication? Is it
not wrong under all circumstances? Yes, many
other passages tell us it is (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19,
etc.). But in the passage before us it is connected
with the heathen worship with which the Gentiles
were familiar and no doubt refers to the practice
of the heathen religious worship. Even fornication
was an act of worship among the pagans. Lenski
says, "It was a part of their idol
worship" (Interpretation of the Acts of the
Apostles, Lenski, p. 615). He then continued, "The
wisdom of some of the Corinthian Christians
argued that fornication was merely an external
matter. The old pagan ideas about sexual
impurities not being impurities kept clinging to the
converts from paganism in some form or other.
Hence this warning appears as the second on the
list of Peter" (Ibid., p. 615).
Thus, it is the belief of this writer that the things
prohibited here were not meant as restrictions
under all circumstances and to all generations,
but were stated in view of the strained Jew-
Gentile relationship at that time. As already
stated, we know eating meat sacrificed to idols
was not sinful. So this would explain why
sometimes it was wrong and sometimes it was
not. Since these things were pagan religious
practices, the Gentile Christians were to refrain
out of love for their Jewish brethren who objected
to them.
In conclusion we believe that the Jehovah's
Witnesses are wrong in their position on several
counts. (1) They cannot show that eating blood
(even if sinful now) and blood transfusions are
the same. Blood transfusions save lives; they do
not destroy life. (2) The scriptures they use show
(even under Moses' law) that the prohibition
concerned animal blood, not human blood. (3) In
misusing the Old Testament they fail to see that
the blood was sacred; for this reason, they were
to refrain from eating it. (4) And, finally, they
misapply Acts 15, which does not make a blanket
prohibition.

do the Jehovah witness still forbids blood transfusion in this 21st century? last time i checked there is nothing wrong with blood transfusion as it saves lives. the bible didn't forbids it. dnt conclude yet until u have read this.


Sometime after Judge Rutherford's death, the
Jehovah's Witnesses decided it was sinful to
have blood transfusions, even if one could save a
life. They are so confident that this is sin that
they will die or allow their children to die rather
than to submit to a blood transfusion. Some of
them carry identification cards in their pocket or
purse saying that they want blood transfusions
under no circumstances. So we do not question
their sincerity, only whether their belief in the
matter is substantiated by the Scriptures.
But where do they get the idea that it is sinful to
have blood transfusions, since the Bible nowhere
mentions such a thing (pro or con) and since it
was not discovered that blood circulated in the
human veins until Dr. William Harvey, an English
physician, discovered it about 1615 and the first
transfusions on record do not appear until several
years later? The way they reach this conclusion is
to say that transfusions and eating blood are the
same. "Jehovah's Witnesses see no difference
between being fed blood through the mouth or
nose or intravenously" (Religions In America, Leo
Rosten, Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York,
1963, p. 101). It is defined as "intravenous
feeding, it is a feeding upon blood, An unscriptural
practice" ("Make Sure of All Things," Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, p. 47).
After erroneously concluding that transfusions and
eating blood are the same, they twist the
scriptures to "prove" it is always sinful to eat the
blood of animals under any or all circumstances.
In arguing their case it is interesting to note the
"reasons" given. They tell us the practice is
dangerous but they do not refuse other medical
treatment that is equally dangerous. The dangers
involved in transfusions are relatively minor. But
the argument that is most humorous (if it were
not so serious) is the one which says that the
recipient of blood may take on the character of
the donor. Bro. Maurice Barnett quotes from
Awake; a Jehovah's Witness publication (July 8,
1969), which tells of Mr. Robert Khoury who
became a thief because the donor of a pint of
blood was a thief (the statement is quoted in
Jehovah's Witnesses, Vol. 1). I suppose a
transfusion from a genius would improve a man's
thinking if that is the case.
One of the favorite passages used by the
Jehovah's Witnesses to prove their case is Gen.
9:4. Here the eating of blood is forbidden. This, of
course, is before the law of Moses. However it
was in connection with the sacrifice for sin. Then,
and later under the law of Moses, the blood of
animals sacrificed for sin was made sacred to the
ones offering the sacrifice. Hence they were to
refrain from eating it. Blood represented the life
and thus, because of God's command, became
very sacred to them. Animal blood was shed
because the life of the animal was given in place
of the sinner. While the "type" lasted, they were
forbidden to eat the blood of animals. But now
that Jesus has shed His blood for sin, animal
blood is no longer a symbol of the life of the one
making the sacrifice. Thus, the sacredness of
animal blood was removed and there is no reason
to refrain from eating it.

hifaif: Not poor, just comfortable. You tend to forget that there is something between 'rich' and 'poor'. What is wrong with being comfortable?

The Pope drives one car and lives in a tiny apartment. As a Bishop, he took a bus to his office every morning just to have an opportunity to mingle with the people. Does that make him poor?

I do not respect the Pope for his supposed annoiting but for his humility and selflessness, qualities which these jet-loving pastorprenuers shamelessly lack

whether d popes drives one car and board taxis is not d issue. is to be rich a bad thing? does God forbids riches? what is ur business if they drive cars and fly jets? what if i buy a car and give it to my pastor, should he reject it?

@paxonel. i dnt think u read this, there are answers to every of ur questions in the article.
this is what i wrote in answer to those ur garbage.



Jesus' Blood Sacrifice Is Sufficient.
Some folks say that Jesus' death is all we
need to be saved. If we argue that there
are things we need to do to be saved,
including living a faithful life, they say
we are denying the power of Jesus'
death.
We agree Jesus' blood has the power to
cleanse all sin. But the question is
whether it cleanses conditionally or
unconditionally. We cannot earn
salvation, but are there conditions we
must meet to receive the forgiveness?
Jesus died for all people. If His death is all
we need, and people need do nothing at all,
then all would be saved.
1 Timothy 2:6 - Jesus gave His life a
ransom for all.
Hebrews 2:9 - By the grace of God, Jesus
tasted death for all men (the extent of
this is shown in v15).
John 3:16 - God gave His Son for the
world because of His love.
1 John 2:2 - Jesus is propitiation for the
sins, not just of Christians, but for the
whole world. [cf. I John 4:14]
Romans 5:18,19 - By Jesus' act of
righteousness (His death - v8,9),
justification came to all men.
If Jesus' death is "sufficient" and "all we
need," then why aren't all men saved,
since He died for all? But we know that
not all will be saved (Matt. 7:13,14; etc.).
So there must be something that
distinguishes the saved from the
unsaved. There are conditions we must
meet.
God is no respecter of persons.
Romans 2:6-11 - God distinguishes the
saved from the lost "without respect of
persons" or partiality. If Jesus' death was
all there was to it, then He must save
everybody or else be a respecter of
person. Instead, there is a distinction on
the basis of our conduct - whether we
work evil or continue in doing good.
Acts 10:34,35 - God is no respecter of
persons, but those who fear Him and
work righteousness are accepted. True,
we cannot earn salvation. But there is a
way God distinguishes between those
who will be saved by His son's blood
from those who will not - our faith and
works.
When people claim that Jesus' death is all
there is to it and people do not need to
do anything to be saved, they
unknowingly make God a respecter of
persons.
If Jesus' blood saves by itself with no
conditions to be met, then why is faith
necessary?
In practice, everyone admits there are
some conditions necessary to be saved by
Jesus' blood. Most people admit we must
believe. Many agree we must repent and
confess Christ. (See John 3:16; 8:24; 2
Pet. 3:9; Rom. 10:9,10; 6:3,4; Acts 2:38;
22:16; Mark. 16:16; etc.) But these are
simply conditions we must meet to
receive the benefit of Jesus' death. To
admit this is to admit Jesus' death alone,
without conditions people must meet,
will not save.
But if we agree there are conditions
people must meet to be saved, then why
object when we point out from the
Scriptures that these necessary
conditions include baptism and a
faithful life? These no more deny the
power of Jesus' death than do faith,
repentance, etc.
If you can recognize faith, etc., as
necessary to salvation without denying
the importance of Jesus' death, then in
the same way we believe baptism and a
faithful life are also necessary without
denying the importance of Jesus' death.
The Bible expressly shows that there are
conditions children of God must meet to be
cleansed by Jesus' blood.
1 John 1:7-9 - Children of God do sin
(v8,10). To be cleansed by Jesus' blood,
we must "walk in the light" and "confess
our sins." To deny this is to deny the
clear teaching of Scripture.
Acts 8:22 - A child of God (v12,13) who
sinned was clearly told that, to be
cleansed of his sin, he must repent and
pray. It is Jesus' blood that forgives. But
just as there are conditions we must
meet to be cleansed and become a child
of God, so there are conditions we must
meet to be cleansed after we are
children of God.

paxonel: it is only humans who are wicked that will cast their children out when they become disobedient not God. Good parents don't cast out their children, they purnish their children when they become disobedient, and bring them back again into their loving arms
This is what God also do to us (christians ) when we become disobedient
it is unbelievers that are rebellion to God because they refused to believe that Jesus is the Christ, not christians

why didn't God forgive Satan then after he rebelled against him? why did God totally cast him out?

also dnt u think that the prodigal son who left the father's house would have been lost forever if he didn't come back to his senses and returned to his father? is it God that will back d disobedient ones or they will repent and come back to God?

dnt u think a christian can turn and rebel
against God or leave God and become Satan's agent?

ur argument is full of holes. it is so because u dnt read nor understand d bible.