If the Watchtower believed the Trinity...

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,
The holy spirit said that abstaining from blood was "essential" and you contradict the spirit and say abstaining from blood is a non-essential. It does not matter to you because we can sin and be forgiven or if one's life if at stake we can break that law. You qualify the law where it was not qualified to start with. Thus your course grieves the holy spirit and thus blasphemes it.

You say "I never said I couldn't violate the laws on idolatry to save my families lives" and yet history tells us that true Christians in the 1st century obeyed God as ruler rather than men, even if it meant their lives and those of their families.

That is why I continue to state that Christ has left Christendom. It is moral relativism that rules. Save your skin. Contradict the holy spirit, and save your skin.

However Jesus said:

NRS Matthew 16:25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

But Sparko, you are not willing to lose your life for the sake of Christ. You will then lose your eternal life if you follow this course.


Regards,
Cal Minian

You speak out of both sides of your mouth again.

You said that any Christian who denied Christ to save their lives were not true Christians and the only true Christians were the ones who died for Jesus. Then you take a breath and say that Paul was a true Christian because although he denied Christ three times, he was forgiven because Jesus said you could deny him but not the holy spirit.

Make up your mind.


not only that but you seem to be saying that obeying the blood law by dying rather than accepting a blood transfusion is MORE important than not denying Christ.

You put blood regulations over Christ himself. Talk about legalism out of control.


Tell me: What does blood represent?

[NonTrinitarian]

I said that he showed that it was legal to violate the letter of the law. The sabbath law clearly states NO WORK and gives no exceptions. Therefore Jesus used common sense to show that the letter of the law doesn't need to be followed when the principal of helping and doing good come into play. Love is the fulfillment of the law and the purpose of it. Therefore showing love and helping another human being is always lawful despite the letter of the law.


When I said "Jesus broke the sabbath" I meant that from a legalistic by-the-letter interpretation of the OT sabbath law, Jesus violated it. But I never said that Jesus sinned as you accused me of saying. I was agreeing with Jesus that you don't have to follow the exact letter of the law. You can legally violate the letter of the law to do good and therefore it is NOT a sin.

Here lets do a thought experiment. You answer these questions:

1. Quote me the OT sabbath law...


2. Explain to me what it means by DO NO WORK.

3. Show me any exceptions to "Do no Work" listed anywhere in the Law. (that's in the OT if you didn't know)


4. Jesus said "it is Lawful to do good on the sabbath" - show me where he got this from. How did he come to that conclusion? Did he use some aspect of the Law here or was this just his own reasoning? Explain his thinking. What specific Law was he referring to by "lawful?"

I predict you won't bother, or at least will not answer straight.

I'll answer your questions if you give me a"straight" answer on mine. I'll repeat them for you:

So let's go with God's intent. Was it the INTENT of YHWH that healing on the Sabbath would be a violation of the sabbath and punishable by death? Yes or no?

(Note I'm not asking HOW the PHARISEES interpreted it)

When Jesus said "is IS LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath", was he going against God's INTENT? Yes or no?

[Sparko]

I'll answer your questions if you give me a"straight" answer on mine. I'll repeat them for you:

So let's go with God's intent. Was it the INTENT of YHWH that healing on the Sabbath would be a violation of the sabbath and punishable by death? Yes or no?

(Note I'm not asking HOW the PHARISEES interpreted it)

When Jesus said "is IS LAWFUL to do good on the Sabbath", was he going against God's INTENT? Yes or no?

I already answered that implicitley in my answer above. I said that only if you are a legalistic by the letter weenie would you interpret the sabbath law to be saying you can't heal on the sabbath. That was my argument.

If you read the law by what it says and are very strict in following exactly what it says, then you have to agree it forbids any work, right?

obviously God didn't mean that to stop someone from being helped or healed on the sabbath. That is common sense and what Jesus was saying when he said it was legal to heal on the sabbath. There was no law that said you could heal on the sabbath, Jesus was just using common sense.


I am saying that exact same reasoning applies to the blood laws!

If you go by the legalistic letter of the law you can say "well abstain included blood transfusions even though it never mentions them specifically," but if you use common sense, you would know that God never meant the blood law to prevent someone from being healed using blood. He was speaking about misusing blood in idol worship and sacrificial situations.

But you keep arguing for common sense regarding the sabbath law, but arguing legalism regarding the blood law. Contradictory stances.

Blood symbolizes life, right? It is that reason why it is sacred. Well you are putting the symbol itself to be more important than what it represents. You are saying the symbolism of blood representing life is more important than life itself! That is idolatry. You are worshipping blood.

To use blood to save lives is to use blood for the purpose it was made for. It carries life and is sacred. Giving the gift of life fulfills the purpose of blood, not cheapens it as Cal said earlier.

Now if you still disagree go back and answer my questions.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear ApologiaNick,
It sounds like you understand that there is a prohibition against what you did but that your life was more important than the prohibition, in other words you don't consider the command to abstain from blood as "essential."

However that is not what God said

NRS Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewel

Instead you add your creeds to Scripture and call them essentials.

For what it is worth, if you ask for repentance and change your practice and listen to the holy spirit you can be forgiven.

Regards,
Cal Minian

Dear Dr. Philisee,

Actually, I see nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, if I have a child someday with the same condition and they're told the same kind of operation, I will gladly let them donate blood to themselves as well. I have no qualms about that because I know that the upholding of life is the most important thing, and I just see the rendering of this verse to go against blood transfusions to be nonsensical entirely.

Apparently though to the JW, the rule, though misunderstood, is more important than the life of the person.

[Sparko]

Just in case anyone is interested, I just gave blood today at my Church.



I helped save lives today. What did you pharisee JW's do today?

BTW: Is it a sin to GIVE blood as well as RECEIVE it?

[Sparko]

Apparently though to the JW, the rule, though misunderstood, is more important than the life of the person.

Yup. At least Cal and Nontrin have shown themselves to be good JW's in this thread. As you pointed out to me yesterday, they have faithfully followed the watchower instructions to not show any independent thinking. They do that very well.

BTW, why are nontrin and Cal even interacting with us? According to the watchtower if we knowingly reject watchtower teachings, we are to be considered apostates and if they talk or interact with us, they are in danger of being influenced by us and could get disfellowshipped! We might brainwash them.

So if it is ILLEGAL for them to interact with us, why are they interacting in a thread with us discussing legal matters like blood (which we knowingly deny the watchtower's teaching on)

*** w81 9/15 23-4 Disfellowshiping-How to View It ***
16 Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing.

Cal even said he was no longer going to interact with me but he must have been unable to resist the temptation to defy the watchtower and sin. I sure hope that isn't a moral code and sinning against the Holy Spirit since that would mean he can't be forgiven.

[Cal_Minian]

Dear Dr. Philisee,

Actually, I see nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, if I have a child someday with the same condition and they're told the same kind of operation, I will gladly let them donate blood to themselves as well. I have no qualms about that because I know that the upholding of life is the most important thing, and I just see the rendering of this verse to go against blood transfusions to be nonsensical entirely.

Apparently though to the JW, the rule, though misunderstood, is more important than the life of the person.

Dear ApolgiaNick,
You have a different defintion of "essentials" than do I and the holy spirit. But that is your choice and you are the one who pays the consequences. That is free will.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Cal_Minian]

I already answered that implicitley in my answer above. I said that only if you are a legalistic by the letter weenie would you interpret the sabbath law to be saying you can't heal on the sabbath. That was my argument.

If you read the law by what it says and are very strict in following exactly what it says, then you have to agree it forbids any work, right?

obviously God didn't mean that to stop someone from being helped or healed on the sabbath. That is common sense and what Jesus was saying when he said it was legal to heal on the sabbath. There was no law that said you could heal on the sabbath, Jesus was just using common sense.


I am saying that exact same reasoning applies to the blood laws!

If you go by the legalistic letter of the law you can say "well abstain included blood transfusions even though it never mentions them specifically," but if you use common sense, you would know that God never meant the blood law to prevent someone from being healed using blood. He was speaking about misusing blood in idol worship and sacrificial situations.

But you keep arguing for common sense regarding the sabbath law, but arguing legalism regarding the blood law. Contradictory stances.

Blood symbolizes life, right? It is that reason why it is sacred. Well you are putting the symbol itself to be more important than what it represents. You are saying the symbolism of blood representing life is more important than life itself! That is idolatry. You are worshipping blood.

To use blood to save lives is to use blood for the purpose it was made for. It carries life and is sacred. Giving the gift of life fulfills the purpose of blood, not cheapens it as Cal said earlier.

Now if you still disagree go back and answer my questions.

Dear Sparko,
Your theology allows you to fornicate to save a life, to practice idolatry to save a life , to eat blood in a strangled animal to save a life and to take blood in other ways to save a life. All four things are mentioned in the same context as moral commands by the holy spirit.

You challenged me to provide a verse where it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. I provided the words of Jesus.

I also quoted Jesus where he says that those who seek to save their lives instead of obeying God will actually be losing it in the long run.

It is not my job to convince you of this. I am merely giving convincing evidence that you are jeorparding your eternal life.

I am convinced that any who carefully read through our exchange will see that my Scriptural evidence trumps your emotive reponse.

It is very telling that in the final analysis you resort to attempting to prove that I should not be having this discussion with you!

You conclude in your most recent post (I combine my responses) with:

Cal even said he was no longer going to interact with me but he must have been unable to resist the temptation to defy the watchtower and sin. I sure hope that isn't a moral code and sinning against the Holy Spirit since that would mean he can't be forgiven.

Thanks for thus admitting the weakness in your postition. I'll take the high road and let you have the last word.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Shazard]

Dear Sparko,
Your theology allows you to fornicate to save a life, to practice idolatry to save a life , to eat blood in a strangled animal to save a life and to take blood in other ways to save a life. All four things are mentioned in the same context as moral commands by the holy spirit.

As I (afaik I noticed) am agree with Sparko, I could speak too.

Yes... our theology even tells that God himself became a man and died TO SAVE LIVES of everyone who believes in Jesus Christ!

So blood transfusion to save life is nothing compared to this! Can you give your blood to save ones you love? God did it... can you?

[Sparko]

I get the last word!

Cal, you are a manipulative, maniacal, scripture twisting loon who couldn't argue logically to save your life. In other words: you are a prefect Jehovah's Witness and the watchtower would be proud of you.

You dodge anything that you know disproves your position. Such as you arguing that it is OK for Peter to deny Christ and get forgiveness later, but that if somehow someone else were to they would be condemned to hell. Not to mention putting following the blood laws ABOVE the value of your Lord Jesus and making the symbol of blood more important than what it represents: LIFE.

You actually argue that just because Jesus SAYS it is legal to heal on the sabbath, that makes it so despite the wording of the OT where it says "do no work" without making healing an exception, or even saying "you can do good on the sabbath" - those were strictly Jesus words (which I do agree with btw) --- Do you even realize what you are saying????? You are saying that Jesus' words can actually modify a law that Jehovah gave to the Jews. That Jesus words are God's LAW. You have just implicitly admitted that Jesus is GOD. For only God could modify his law as you seem to think he did.

Nontrin on the other hand argues that Jehovah IMPLIED that healing was OK on the sabbath even though Jehovah never said those words and could easily have done so. That means he is arguing that common sense tells him that healing is more important than being a legalistic sabbath follower. He is arguing that one should read between the lines of the law and see what is implied by the law of love.

What HE fails to do is take that same reasoning (which again, I agree with) and apply it to the blood law. Which is more important? to follow the law to the letter like the pharisees did with the sabbath? or to read between the lines and see that it is legal to do good by giving life through blood transfusions?

Well, thanks for the last word. I hope you don't get disfellowshipped for talking to me, and that you don't end up annihilated for your willful and continuous sin of talking to me, an apostate.

[Sparko]

As I (afaik I noticed) am agree with Sparko, I could speak too.

Yes... our theology even tells that God himself became a man and died TO SAVE LIVES of everyone who believes in Jesus Christ!

So blood transfusion to save life is nothing compared to this! Can you give your blood to save ones you love? God did it... can you?

Very good observation. I had to make that a POTD!

[apostoli]

Hi Guys,

I'm not defending Cal & the JW position on blood, but I do understand it...

A.Peter denied Christ and was forgiven. But Ananias & Sapphira denied the Holy Spirit and died because of it (Acts 5). If one commits to the JW idea, then if one goes against it one sins against the Spirit, just as a Jew does if he disobeys the Torah.

The big question for all of us. Do we believe in the resurrection? Do we trust in God or ourselves? And if one takes the JW position, then one definitely is a witness to a faith in both!

The JW would ask: If you have a blood transfusion and contract Aids or HIV, whose fault is it? Definitely not God!

But I ask: If to suicide is unlawful, being self murder, then is it not suicide to commit oneself to preventable death?

As for the actual JW position, I find their teaching contradictory. Jesus says it is not the Laws that are to be followed but the spirit of the Law. The Pharisees etc added to the Law and imo this is the defect of the WT&TS position in not allowing free conscience.

But in context even the apostles conflicted about things, some disagreeing that all food is clean, and others saying it is what comes out of the mouth that maybe unclean.

Regards

[OldShepherd]

Hi Guys,

I'm not defending Cal & the JW position on blood, but I do understand it...

A.Peter denied Christ and was forgiven. But Ananias & Sapphira denied the Holy Spirit and died because of it (Acts 5). If one commits to the JW idea, then if one goes against it one sins against the Spirit, just as a Jew does if he disobeys the Torah.

The big question for all of us. Do we believe in the resurrection? Do we trust in God or ourselves? And if one takes the JW position, then one definitely is a witness to a faith in both!

The JW would ask: If you have a blood transfusion and contract Aids or HIV, whose fault is it? Definitely not God!

But I ask: If to suicide is unlawful, being self murder, then is it not suicide to commit oneself to preventable death?

As for the actual JW position, I find their teaching contradictory. Jesus says it is not the Laws that are to be followed but the spirit of the Law. The Pharisees etc added to the Law and imo this is the defect of the WT&TS position in not allowing free conscience.

But in context even the apostles conflicted about things, some disagreeing that all food is clean, and others saying it is what comes out of the mouth that maybe unclean.

Regards

Annanias and Sapphira did not deny the HS they lied to him.

How is accepting a transfusion, to heal or prolong one's life, comparable to suicide? Even if the blood is tainted it helps the immediate medical condition, and/or prolongs a life.

I don't think we want to follow the logic out to other conclusions. A person walks to work, school, etc., along a very busy street. An automobile strikes the person and they die. The deceased knew the street was dangerous. Who is responsible? Definitely not God. And so on.

Jesus, not the apostles said what comes out of the mouth makes a person unclean.

[apostoli]

Hello OldShepherd,

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Annanias and Sapphira did not deny the HS they lied to him.

You are correct. But consider Titus 1:16 "in works they deny him". Thus by their actions, they denied the HS.

How is accepting a transfusion, to heal or prolong one's life, comparable to suicide? Even if the blood is tainted it helps the immediate medical condition, and/or prolongs a life.

I don't think we want to follow the logic out to other conclusions. A person walks to work, school, etc., along a very busy street. An automobile strikes the person and they die. The deceased knew the street was dangerous. Who is responsible? Definitely not God. And so on.

Sorry, my wording is imprecise, I meant the opposite. I'll rephrase...

"But I ask: If to suicide is unlawful, being self murder, then is it not suicide to commit oneself to death when it is preventable?

There are several countries where I would refuse a blood transfusion - particularly on the advise of my government. So, the issue for me is not the transfusion of blood, but the safety of the procedure.

From your comment "Even if the blood is tainted it helps the immediate medical condition, and/or prolongs a life" you may not be familiar with the medical complications that can arise from even using blood components. The news regularly has highlighted peoples whose life has been significantly shortened through indisciminate and often unnecessary use of blood. These days, there are better alternatives for some procedures, but they are often more expensive.

Jesus, not the apostles said what comes out of the mouth makes a person unclean.

You are quite correct, Mat 15:11.

At the time I was thinking Acts 15:20 and Rom 12:21 (12:13-21), which gives the WT&TS usual response.

Peace


Peace

[Cal_Minian]

As for the actual JW position, I find their teaching contradictory. Jesus says it is not the Laws that are to be followed but the spirit of the Law. The Pharisees etc added to the Law and imo this is the defect of the WT&TS position in not allowing free conscience.

Dear Apostoli,
The holy spirit, just once in the NT, gives a command directly to Christians. It contains four things. This cannot be compared to adhering to the Mosiac law unless one is a legalist. I would also maintain that subtracting from a direct command from the holy spirit is reprehensible, don't you agree?

Regards,
Cal Minian