If the Watchtower believed the Trinity...

[OldShepherd]

Sorry Sparko, you missed my point. It's not point #2 I'm driving at. It's #1, and you hit it right on the head. They don't know, though it's in the Bible multiple times in both the OT and NT. Why isn't Christendom teaching their members about abstaining from blood? Does your church? Has your preacher ever talked about how serious of a command it is?

BTW, what religion are you?

Christians are intelligent enough to realize that God knew there was a difference between eating blood, as a pagan ritual, etc. and a person voluntarily giving his own blood, to help another person, without forfeiting their life.

And I am not interested in any knee jerk dog vomit about “only God can give life,” etc, blah, blah, blah. There is not a parent in the world who would not lay down their life to protect their child. No difference.

OBTW where is any verse that prohibits even touching blood. There are 139 vss. that mention blood in the O.T. Evidently Moses and the priests never heard of any verse prohibiting touching blood.

Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Leviticus 4:6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.

Leviticus 4:17 And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, even before the vail.

Leviticus 4:25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.

Leviticus 4:34 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:

Leviticus 14:25 And he shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:

Leviticus 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

Numbers 19:4 And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times:

[n0rstar]

The Trinity, Another Great paradox of the Bible. How I enjoy beleavers endless squabbling over the frivolous.

The Trinitarian Scriptual Support

• Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (see Trinitarian formula).
• Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'"
• John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." together with John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." and John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
• John 8:23-24: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."
• John 8:58 "'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'"
• John 10:30: "I and the Father are one."
• John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
• Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
• Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

The Nontrinitarian Scriptual Support

• Matthew 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6saying to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written,
  “He will command his angels concerning you”,
  and “On their hands they will bear you up,
  so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.” ’
• Matthew 3:17 Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
• John 6:40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’
• John 17:25: Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth
• John 12:50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.
• 1 Timothy 2:5-6: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times.
• Hebrews 5:8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered;
• 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
• Ephesians 1:20: God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,

Setting these scriptures apart from the over all teaching, and focusing on the words alone take you from a simple message to a schisim of faith. More evidence points to Jesus being unequal to God; let alone God himself. With thorough reading and understanding of the New Testiment Canon it's quite evident. For that fact historical trends and evidences can prove Jesus was merely a martyr that was exhaulted and exagerated by people who needed a hero figure for their time, Much like Achillies, Odysseus or Muhammad.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin, Christians are not as legalistic as JW's are. We don't think our salvation lies in obeying every nitpicking rule.

By your own mouth you say it. I thank Jehovah daily for being separated from false worship.

"For this is what the love of God means, that we obey his commandments."

"But Lord, did we not...in your name? And yet I will say to them, Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness"

"he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."

I got dozens and dozens more. (Literally, DOZENS like this). Shoot, you can't hardly open a page in the NT without finding them.

[NonTrinitarian]

Christians are intelligent enough to realize that God knew there was a difference between eating blood, as a pagan ritual, etc. and a person voluntarily giving his own blood, to help another person, without forfeiting their life.

I'm sorry, was that supposed to be an answer for WHY Churches are not teaching their members to abstain from blood? (As in at least not eating it)

And I am not interested in any knee jerk dog vomit about “only God can give life,” etc, blah, blah, blah. There is not a parent in the world who would not lay down their life to protect their child. No difference.

Maybe in Christendom but JW's are a little more loyal to God than your average church member. So if someone put a gun to your child's head and said fall down and worship Satan else I'm going to kill your only Child, what would you do?

OBTW where is any verse that prohibits even touching blood. There are 139 vss. that mention blood in the O.T. Evidently Moses and the priests never heard of any verse prohibiting touching blood.

I'm sorry, are you arguing with me or someone else? Can you show me where I EVER said you can't even touch the blood? Nice strawman there. Sparko, where can I get one of those strawman pictures at?

[Shazard]

It is talking about EATING blood. You know, as a meal? A transfusion is not eating blood. If you EAT blood it just gets digested. A transfusion means the blood is used directly AS blood and it is used to save lives, not as a meal.

More it is speaking about KILLING. Murder. During Mosaitic law one who kills the animal have to pour the blood on ground as sign that he is giving the life to God. As recognition of value of life. If one "eats blood" it is understood as one murdered the one who is eaten. For example Mosaitic law does not requires to bleed allready dead animal. Only requirement is to be washed after eating such animal. Also God permits such unbleed animal to sell to forigner.
"Eat Blood" = "Murder". And ALLWAYS when it is speaking about not eating blood it is speaking about not eating DEAD ANIMAL blood. During transfusion blood from ALIVE human is transfused into blood of patient. Eating and transfusion is not the same. And example about "eating alchocol" will not work as alchocol is not life but poison. So you can't equate alchocol with blood. So get it right and learn read Bible in context. But JW can't... they are just UNABLE to read more then 2 sentences in their Bible. So their beliefs allways will be wotth 2 sentences.

[NonTrinitarian]

More it is speaking about KILLING. Murder. During Mosaitic law one who kills the animal have to pour the blood on ground as sign that he is giving the life to God. As recognition of value of life. If one "eats blood" it is understood as one murdered the one who is eaten. For example Mosaitic law does not requires to bleed allready dead animal. Only requirement is to be washed after eating such animal. Also God permits such unbleed animal to sell to forigner.

The bold is pure opinion with no scriptural support. Just make up your own rules as you go along, huh? And the underlined part. On what is this theory based? If God says to not eat blood elsewhere, does he need to repeat it for every instance? Or does not the command, "Don't eat blood" mean "don't eat blood?" If my daughter has a boyfriend and I say "Don't have sex" does that only apply for her existing boyfriend? If she came back after having sex with another boy and said "Well Daddy, you didn't say I couldn't have sex with Bobby. I thought you were only refering to Ralph", would that be a defensable excuse? Certainly not! When God says don't eat the blood, He meant it, period.

But even more obvious than that is that early Christians understood it our way. (not transfussions, obviously) They refused to include blood in their foods.

Do you today?

[Anarthrous]

Google search "First Blood Transfusion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_transfusion

"Roman Catholic authors take pains to discredit the contemporary chronicler Stefano Infessura's story of Innocent VIII's deathbed. In 1492, as the Pope sank into a coma, the harrowing story was told that, at the suggestion of a physician, the blood of three boys was infused into the dying pontiff's veins. They were ten years old, and had been promised a ducat each. All three died. Historians of medicine note this event as the first reported historical attempt at a blood transfusion."

http://www.bloodbook.com/trans-history.html

"1492 - Pope Innocent VIII, in Rome, had an apoplectic stroke; became weak and went into a coma. His physician advised a Blood transfusion as a therapeutic measure for the Pope's illness. Employing crude methods, the Pope did not benefit and died by the end of that year."

[NonTrinitarian]

Google search "First Blood Transfusion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_transfusion

"Roman Catholic authors take pains to discredit the contemporary chronicler Stefano Infessura's story of Innocent VIII's deathbed. In 1492, as the Pope sank into a coma, the harrowing story was told that, at the suggestion of a physician, the blood of three boys was infused into the dying pontiff's veins. They were ten years old, and had been promised a ducat each. All three died. Historians of medicine note this event as the first reported historical attempt at a blood transfusion."

http://www.bloodbook.com/trans-history.html

"1492 - Pope Innocent VIII, in Rome, had an apoplectic stroke; became weak and went into a coma. His physician advised a Blood transfusion as a therapeutic measure for the Pope's illness. Employing crude methods, the Pope did not benefit and died by the end of that year."

Thanks for the research. Were you just doing this for informational purposes or are you trying to prove something?

[Sparko]

By your own mouth you say it. I thank Jehovah daily for being separated from false worship.

"For this is what the love of God means, that we obey his commandments."

"But Lord, did we not...in your name? And yet I will say to them, Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness"

"he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."

I got dozens and dozens more. (Literally, DOZENS like this). Shoot, you can't hardly open a page in the NT without finding them.

Even Paul said that he continued to struggle with sin.

Romans 7: 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

So since you continue to sin, I suppose that means you are going to hell, eh nontrin? Or are you claiming you are without sin? If you are doing that then you are condemning yourself.

1 John 1: 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

You JW's seem to be in a tight spot. You claim that if you sin, you are going to hell, but you can't claim to be without sin. Looks like you are condemning yourselves with your own doctrine.

[Sparko]

I'm sorry, are you arguing with me or someone else? Can you show me where I EVER said you can't even touch the blood? Nice strawman there. Sparko, where can I get one of those strawman pictures at?

He was responding to Cal, your buddy who said abstaining went beyond just eating blood because in the OT even touching blood made you unclean, thereby suggesting you can't even touch blood.

[Anarthrous]

Thanks for the research. Were you just doing this for informational purposes or are you trying to prove something?

I just thought that it was thoughtprovoking, surprising, and interesting since I thought the first blood transfution was alot closer to the 20th century.

If the story is true, I feel bad for whoever had the idea to bleed boys, they will likely be punished severely.

[Anarthrous]

You JW's seem to be in a tight spot. You claim that if you sin, you are going to hell, but you can't claim to be without sin. Looks like you are condemning yourselves with your own doctrine.

There is a difference between sinning because of our impefection, and knowingly or willingly practicing sin.

Illustration of a person following their heart
"Blood sausage sounds decent, and I really like Italian sausage, and those scriptures don't really mean 'abstain from blood'....chomp chomp chomp..."

1 Corinthians 4:6 (NIV)
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

[Cal_Minian]

He was responding to Cal, your buddy who said abstaining went beyond just eating blood because in the OT even touching blood made you unclean, thereby suggesting you can't even touch blood.

I said that in the context of showing that to the Israelites the laws on blood were not merely dietary. They touched every aspect of their lives.

The prohibition for Christians is not dietary either. We are not under dietary laws but under the law of Christ and that of Christian principles.

To say that one interprets abstaining from blood in Acts is a dietary requirement is to place oneself under law again.

Additionally, the prohibition, while it exluded eating blood went much farther.

NRS Acts 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols [idolatry] and from blood [using blood for any purpose] and from what is strangled [eating blood] and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

For the Hebrews they were supposed to use blood in their sacrifices to God. But Christians are not to do even that because now it is Christ's blood that fulfills that purpose.

Therefore the prohibition includes even more than it did previously, abstaining from blood in every sense possible.

[NonTrinitarian]

He was responding to Cal, your buddy who said abstaining went beyond just eating blood because in the OT even touching blood made you unclean, thereby suggesting you can't even touch blood.

Really? Being "unclean" would mean you can't do something? Tell me, oh wise one, how did the Israelites have sex and make more children if that were so? Sex made an Israelite unclean. Are you saying that Cal is saying that sex was prohibited?

You guys read into words what is not there. No wonder you believe all the crazy stuff you do.

[NonTrinitarian]

You JW's seem to be in a tight spot. You claim that if you sin, you are going to hell, but you can't claim to be without sin. Looks like you are condemning yourselves with your own doctrine.

Hmm, I can't think of one JW article that says if you sin you'll go to hell. What we do say is that if you practice sin, you will be destroyed.

"For if we practice sin WILLFULLY after having received the accurate knowledge...there is a certain fearful judgement."-Heb 10:26

A real bright observation there Sparko. About what I would expect of you. Ignore Jesus' words and keep saying "Well, I sin anyway so I can do what I want."

I can hear you now. "But Lord, Lord, did I not...in your name.?"

"I never knew you, get away from me you worker of lawlessness."

I'll let you debate with Jesus about how we all sin and he died for our sins and that you can do whatever you want.