If the Watchtower believed the Trinity...

[apostoli]

Hello Cal,

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?

My dispute with the WT&TS is lack of free choice. Jesus says, Moses added to God's intentions (divorce) and later the Rabbi added their interpretations to the Law, not allowing free choice and not following the spirit of the law.

Jesus says it is the spirit of the law we are to follow, and ultimately James argued in that vien setting forth the Noahic laws as sufficient for gentiles.

It is the spirit of those laws that we should follow. So, imo, God has made provision for hemophiliacs, and other persons with blood disorders.

Imu: the spirit of the Noahic laws is idolatory, and to avoid all forms thereof. Life is in the blood as the scriptures say, and to abstain from blood is to show respect for life. Imu, respect for life is the issue, not the blood itself.

I understand the WT&TS position on the basis of Romans 14:13-21. If one sets up a stumbling block to others, one has to abide by that obstacle, or else look foolish.

I respect the JW who put in the personal (own life) position of refusing blood, as he/she is a true witness to their trust in God and the resurrection.

Peace

[Cal_Minian]

Hello Cal,

My dispute with the WT&TS is lack of free choice. Jesus says, Moses added to God's intentions (divorce) and later the Rabbi added their interpretations to the Law, not allowing free choice and not following the spirit of the law.

Jesus says it is the spirit of the law we are to follow, and ultimately James argued in that vien setting forth the Noahic laws as sufficient for gentiles.

It is the spirit of those laws that we should follow. So, imo, God has made provision for hemophiliacs, and other persons with blood disorders.

Imu: the spirit of the Noahic laws is idolatory, and to avoid all forms thereof. Life is in the blood as the scriptures say, and to abstain from blood is to show respect for life. Imu, respect for life is the issue, not the blood itself.

I understand the WT&TS position on the basis of Romans 14:13-21. If one sets up a stumbling block to others, one has to abide by that obstacle, or else look foolish.

I respect the JW who put in the personal (own life) position of refusing blood, as he/she is a true witness to their trust in God and the resurrection.

I disrepect any person that makes judgements on whatever someone else does that is not contrary to a respect for life.

Peace

Dear Apolstoli,
You apparently have some incorrect information regarding what JWs consider to be blood.

The brochure "Jehovah’s Witnesses—The Surgical/Ethical Challenge" on page 27 states:

While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witnesses’ religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these. [2. The Watchtower 1978;99 (June 15):29-31]

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

You apparently have some incorrect information regarding what JWs consider to be blood.

The brochure "Jehovah’s Witnesses—The Surgical/Ethical Challenge" on page 27 states:

While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witnesses’ religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these. [2. The Watchtower 1978;99 (June 15):29-31]

I am conversant with the literature.

platelet administration, is a core treatment in ALL (leukemia) and other forms of cancer as it is with some forms of hemophilia and other blood disorders. To my knowledge, there is no alternative.

Peace, and blessings

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

I am conversant with the literature.

platelet administration, is a core treatment in ALL (leukemia) and other forms of cancer as it is with some forms of hemophilia and other blood disorders. To my knowledge, there is no alternative.

Peace, and blessings

You appear to doubt that God would ask his servants to obey him to the point of death over blood, but Tertullian says otherwise:

Tertullian (c. 160-230C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. ... At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.

[OldShepherd]

You appear to doubt that God would ask his servants to obey him to the point of death over blood, but Tertullian says otherwise:

Tertullian (c. 160-230C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. ... At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.

And it is still talking about eating blood as food, as pagans do. My God knows the diffrence between eating blood and a medical procedure.

[sklemetti]

I have often wondered what would happen if this hypothetical situation took place and I'd like to know how some JWs would respond.

Let's suppose that the Watchtower came out with a publication next month that said, "Hey everyone. It turns out we were wrong about the Trinity. It really is a true doctrine."

What would the reaction be?

We would believe it to be fake.

But what if you Catholics said the trinity is fake?

[David_A_Reed]

I have often wondered what would happen if this hypothetical situation took place and I'd like to know how some JWs would respond.

Let's suppose that the Watchtower came out with a publication next month that said, "Hey everyone. It turns out we were wrong about the Trinity. It really is a true doctrine."

What would the reaction be?

Actually, there was a time when The Watchtower did teach the Trinity:

When Adventist Charles Taze Russell quit as assistant editor of the Adventist magazine Herald of the Morning to start his own Watch Tower magazine, he took the Herald's other assistant editor with him -- John H. Paton, whom Russell knew to be a trinitarian.

The topical index to the 7-volume Watch Tower reprints (1879-1919) lists under "Trinity" many negative references such as "theory absurd" but also one solitary reference that says "true"! This article asserting the Trinity is "true" is titled "God Is Love" and begins on page 9 of the Reprints. It is signed "J.H.P." (John H. Paton), and says:

No theologian need attempt an explanation of the Divine Sonship of our Lord. "But it pleased the Father that in Christ should all fullness dwell,"--"All fullness of the Godhead bodily." ... "The Word was with God and the Word was God." ... He of whom it was said, "Let all the angels of God worship him," [that must include Michael,] and "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."

(Brackets and emphasis in original)

That contradicts, of course, the later JW teaching that Jesus is Michael.

Articles signed "J.H.P" continued to appear in the Watch Tower and Paton's name (sometimes spelled Patton) appeared at the top of the list of "Regular Contributors" on the masthead of the Watch Tower from its first issue in 1879 through that of July/August 1881.

David

[Weboh2]

The problem with Jehovah's Witnesses is not their unitarian doctrine, but their disrespect of other's parents and their lack of desire to improve themselves with a college education and their lack of research into church history. Like Federic Bastiat said of such people, reform thyself first.

[IncRus]

Dear Sparko,
The laws on blood in the OT were not dietary. Even touching blood made one unclean. It was to either be poured out onto the ground or used in sacrifice that prefigured Christ's blood being poured out for our sins.


Still, Christians are no longer under the Mosaic law. So we do not abstain from blood because of dietary laws. We abstain from blood because Christians are commanded to do so in the NT in Acts 15.

There are only two questions you need to answer. What does abstain mean and what is blood. Take it from there. Your salvation depends upon being obedient to what the holy spirit told Christians in Acts 15.

NRS Acts 15:20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

Why does Christendom ignore this today? Even if you take this to mean eating blood why is blood sausage, etc sold and eaten in every so-called Christian nation of the world by those who say they are Christian?

Regards,
Cal Minian

The authority on what defiles man in the eyes of God is Jesus. Jesus says, "NOT what goes inyo the mouth that DEFILES a man; but what comes out of the mouth, that DEFILES a man" (Matt. 15:11). "Do you not understand that WHATEVER enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they DEFILE a man" (Matt. 15:17-18).

This is one of the teachings of Jesus that OFFENDED the Pharisees (Matt. 15:12).

The decision of apostle James to write the Gentile converts to abstain from blood was only to appease the Jewish converts who wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcised like them. If you will note in the letter, violation of this instruction not to eat blood, or things offered to idols or things strangled, does not carry with it a penalty.

[Cal_Minian]

The authority on what defiles man in the eyes of God is Jesus. Jesus says, "NOT what goes inyo the mouth that DEFILES a man; but what comes out of the mouth, that DEFILES a man" (Matt. 15:11). "Do you not understand that WHATEVER enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they DEFILE a man" (Matt. 15:17-18).

This is one of the teachings of Jesus that OFFENDED the Pharisees (Matt. 15:12).

The decision of apostle James to write the Gentile converts to abstain from blood was only to appease the Jewish converts who wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcised like them. If you will note in the letter, violation of this instruction not to eat blood, or things offered to idols or things strangled, does not carry with it a penalty.

Are you saying that every command given in Scripture must have a penalty associated with it in that very passage or it is just a suggestion and not a command? That is certainly not the case. In addition lets look at the entire prohibition:

NRS Acts 15:20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

Does this mean fornication is ok for Christians because there is no penalty involved? Or perhaps is the command to abstain from blood just as important as to abstaining from fornication? I suggest the latter makes more sense contextually.

[IncRus]

The authority on what defiles man in the eyes of God is Jesus. Jesus says, "NOT what goes inyo the mouth that DEFILES a man; but what comes out of the mouth, that DEFILES a man" (Matt. 15:11). "Do you not understand that WHATEVER enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they DEFILE a man" (Matt. 15:17-18).

This is one of the teachings of Jesus that OFFENDED the Pharisees (Matt. 15:12).

The decision of apostle James to write the Gentile converts to abstain from blood was only to appease the Jewish converts who wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcised like them. If you will note in the letter, violation of this instruction not to eat blood, or things offered to idols or things strangled, does not carry with it a penalty.

Are you saying that every command given in Scripture must have a penalty associated with it in that very passage or it is just a suggestion and not a command? That is certainly not the case. In addition lets look at the entire prohibition:

NRS Acts 15:20but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

Does this mean fornication is ok for Christians because there is no penalty involved? Or perhaps is the command to abstain from blood just as important as to abstaining from fornication? I suggest the latter makes more sense contextually.

What I am saying is, Jesus has authority over his apostles. Therefore, the apostles cannot impose penalty on something where Jesus did not impose any.

Jesus said, "nothing that enters a man defiles him in the eyes of God."

Food of any kind, including blood, enters a man by the mouth, goes into his stomach and is eliminated." Therefore, food does not defile a man and the apostles cannot impose any penalty for eating blood where Jesus did not impose any. And that's why there is no penalty imposed in Acts 15:29.

On the other hand, fornication is not about eating and is not covered by what Jesus stated in Matthew 15:11; 17-18. Hence, apostle Paul dealt separately with this subject in his other epistles.

[Cal_Minian]

What I am saying is, Jesus has authority over his apostles. Therefore, the apostles cannot impose penalty on something where Jesus did not impose any.

Jesus said, "nothing that enters a man defiles him in the eyes of God."

Food of any kind, including blood, enters a man by the mouth, goes into his stomach and is eliminated." Therefore, food does not defile a man and the apostles cannot impose any penalty for eating blood where Jesus did not impose any. And that's why there is no penalty imposed in Acts 15:29.

On the other hand, fornication is not about eating and is not covered by what Jesus stated in Matthew 15:11; 17-18. Hence, apostle Paul dealt separately with this subject in his other epistles.

Where did Jesus himself say that his apostles could not impose a penalty if he did not state it first? Barring that what apostle teaches this? If you cannot produce such a teaching, then you just made this up.

That being said, in Acts 15 it is said that the holy spirit gave the command:

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:

According to BDAG the word rendered here as "essentials" has the sense of:

pert. to being essential in connection w. someth., of a necessary nature ta. evpa,nagkej the necessary things = the things necessarily (to be imposed) Ac 15:28.—DELG s.v. avna,gkh. M-M.

If you fight against the spirit and teach contrary to what it explicitly says you blaspheme the spirit:

NRS Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

You sure you don't want to re-think your position?

According to Jesus himself sinning against the spirit is more serious than sinning against him!

NRS Matthew 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

[sklemetti]

"It turns out we were wrong about the Trinity. It really is a true doctrine"

Then hell would also be hot, and the devil will be declared as God of Gods,etc

[IncRus]

The authority on what defiles man in the eyes of God is Jesus. Jesus says, "NOT what goes inyo the mouth that DEFILES a man; but what comes out of the mouth, that DEFILES a man" (Matt. 15:11). "Do you not understand that WHATEVER enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they DEFILE a man" (Matt. 15:17-18).

This is one of the teachings of Jesus that OFFENDED the Pharisees (Matt. 15:12).

The decision of apostle James to write the Gentile converts to abstain from blood was only to appease the Jewish converts who wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcised like them. If you will note in the letter, violation of this instruction not to eat blood, or things offered to idols or things strangled, does not carry with it a penalty.

Are you saying that every command given in Scripture must have a penalty associated with it in that very passage or it is just a suggestion and not a command? That is certainly not the case. In addition lets look at the entire prohibition:

NRS Acts 15:20but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

© source where applicable

Does this mean fornication is ok for Christians because there is no penalty involved? Or perhaps is the command to abstain from blood just as important as to abstaining from fornication? I suggest the latter makes more sense contextually.

I am not suggesting anything except the truth that according to Jesus, "NOT what goes inyo the mouth that DEFILES a man; but what comes out of the mouth, that DEFILES a man" and WHATEVER enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they DEFILE a man."

Therefore, according to Jesus, eating blood does NOT defile a man before the eyes of God.

The apostles exhorted the Gentile converts to abstain from eating blood, and they would do well if they do so. However, if the Gentile converts eat blood, the apostles are silent on this because they defer to what Jesus had preached. Therefore, eating blood would not defile them before the eyes of God because Jesus said so.

Concerning sexual immorality and fornication, apostle Paul dealt with this subject separately in 1 Cor. 5:9-13; 6:9-10; 6:12-13, 18; Gal. 5:19-21.

[IncRus]

What I am saying is, Jesus has authority over his apostles. Therefore, the apostles cannot impose penalty on something where Jesus did not impose any.

Jesus said, "nothing that enters a man defiles him in the eyes of God."

Food of any kind, including blood, enters a man by the mouth, goes into his stomach and is eliminated." Therefore, food does not defile a man and the apostles cannot impose any penalty for eating blood where Jesus did not impose any. And that's why there is no penalty imposed in Acts 15:29.

On the other hand, fornication is not about eating and is not covered by what Jesus stated in Matthew 15:11; 17-18. Hence, apostle Paul dealt separately with this subject in his other epistles.

Where did Jesus himself say that his apostles could not impose a penalty if he did not state it first? Barring that what apostle teaches this? If you cannot produce such a teaching, then you just made this up.

Elementary dear Cal! Jesus is the head of the body of which the apostles are members individually. Therefore, the apostles are subject to Christ and submit to his authority. Since Jesus has declared that NOTHING that enters a mouth can DEFILE a man before the eyes of God, the apostles CANNOT contradict Jesus and impose a penalty for eating blood.

That being said, in Acts 15it is said that the holy spirit gave the command:

NRS Acts 15:28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials:

According to BDAG the word rendered here as "essentials" has the sense of:

pert. to being essential in connection w. someth., of a necessary nature ta. evpa,nagkej the necessary things = the things necessarily (to be imposed) Ac 15:28.—DELG s.v. avna,gkh. M-M.
If you fight against the spirit and teach contrary to what it explicitly says you blaspheme the spirit:

NRS Luke 12:10And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
You sure you don't want to re-think your position?

According to Jesus himself sinning against the spirit is more serious than sinning against him!

NRS Matthew 12:32Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

That's why the apostles did not impose any penalty for eating blood. The Holy Spirit would not guide the apostles to write something that CONTRADICTS what Jesus has taught.