XPost: alt.christnet.christnews, alt.religion.christian   
   From: .robert@mu.way   
      
   On Oct 4, 2025, James wrote   
   (Message-ID:<1l43ektv1sasaurtcp0u4np9vi483774v8@4ax.com>):   
      
   > On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 17:27:40 -0500, Christ Rose   
   >   wrote:   
   >   
   > > The Bible does indeed show that blood is sacred, but it does not support   
   > > the conclusion that medical transfusions are forbidden. Let’s look   
   > > carefully at what God has said:   
   > >   
   > > 1. *Blood represents life.*   
   > >   
   > > God told Noah, “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its   
   > > blood” (Genesis 9:4, ESV). The same truth was reinforced under the Law:   
   > > “you shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17, ESV). The   
   purpose   
   > > was clear—blood belonged to God as the symbol of life, and it was   
   > > reserved for the altar to make atonement (Leviticus 17:11). Eating blood   
   > > for food was the issue.   
   >   
   > Yes, the Noah command clearly said not to EAT blood.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > 2. *The Law ended in Christ.*   
   > >   
   > > You are right that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to   
   > > everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4, ESV). The food restrictions of the   
   > > Mosaic covenant do not bind Christians. Jesus Himself declared all foods   
   > > clean (Mark 7:18–19).   
   >   
   > But not the eating of blood. Jesus and his apostles were still under   
   > the Mosaic Laws of the time. Jesus kept them perfectly, whereas the   
   > Scribes and Pharisees did not. At that time this law was still   
   > obligated to obey:   
   >   
   > -- New King James   
   > Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your   
   > generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor   
   > blood.' ''   
   >   
   > Again, it clearly says not to EAT blood.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > 3. *Acts 15 clarified Gentile practice.*   
   > >   
   > > The Jerusalem council in Acts 15 addressed a controversy: whether   
   > > Gentile believers must be circumcised and keep the Law. The apostles   
   > > concluded they were not under the Law, but they gave four prohibitions:   
   > > “abstain from things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and   
   > > from what has been strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20, ESV). This   
   > > was not a reimposition of the Mosaic dietary code for salvation, but a   
   > > practical command for fellowship and testimony in a world where   
   > > idolatrous feasts and pagan rituals were tied to these practices.   
   >   
   > Yes, Jesus' death ended the Mosaic Laws.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > 4. *Abstaining from blood refers to eating blood as food, not   
   > > transfusion.*   
   >   
   > The physician Luke was well acquainted with the laws forbidding the   
   > EATING (or drinking) of blood. YET HE DIDN'T PHRASE IT THAT WAY.   
   > Instead of using the Greek word "esthio" (to eat), he used "apechomai"   
   > (refrain, abstain) Notice Strong's:   
   >   
   > "Strong's Ref. # 567   
   >   
   > Romanized apechomai   
   > Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee   
   >   
   > middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.   
   > refrain:   
   >   
   > KJV--abstain."   
   >   
   > No reference to the EATING of blood at all.   
   >   
   > Instead of coming from the mouth, an intravenous food intake is   
   > considered eating. It would be the same for blood.   
   >   
   > Regardless what you want to believe, JW's take the Bible seriously,   
   > and follow what are the laws at the time.   
   >   
   > Even though we are under Christ's law of love, many OT laws have been   
   > reworded and reinstated into the NT, like stealing, and fornication,   
   > and murder, etc.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Luke’s wording does not broaden it to medical transfusions. The Greek   
   > > word ????????? (apechomai) means to refrain from partaking, and the   
   > > context is clearly dietary consumption. Every other use of “blood” in   
   > > this sense refers to food or sacrifice, not medicine. A blood   
   > > transfusion is not eating—it is the medical restoration of what sustains   
   > > life. In fact, it honors the principle of Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus   
   > > 17:11, because it preserves the life which the blood represents.   
   >   
   > God apparently does not want a person to infuse within his body life   
   > from another person.   
      
   Where is your reasoning for that? After all the food laws never included   
   Humans, not their fat, nor their blood.   
   >   
   >   
   > >   
   > > 5. *The ultimate meaning of blood is fulfilled in Christ.*   
   > >   
   > > The most important reason blood is sacred is that it pointed to Christ’s   
   > > sacrifice: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for   
   > > many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28, ESV). His blood was   
   > > given, not forbidden, so that those who believe might live forever.   
   >   
   > Also, the context of Acts 15:20 is not all 'eating', but stay away   
   > from those things mentioned. Idols (not the eating of idols), sexual   
   > sins (no eating involved), refrain from strangled animals. (this one   
   > is eating), and abstain from blood. (which would include eating   
   > (drinking) it, and any other use in the body of blood.   
      
   Again, where is the blood of humans mentioned here?   
   >   
   >   
   > For example, some people eat blood sausages. That's a no no on Luke's   
   > list.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Therefore, Scripture consistently forbids eating blood as food, but it   
   > > nowhere forbids restoring life through transfusion. To use Acts 15 to   
   > > ban life-saving medical treatment stretches the text beyond what Luke or   
   > > the apostles intended.   
   >   
   > No, Luke should have repeated how the OT worded it; EAT.   
   > It says at 2 Tim 3:16 that the Bible is inspired of God, so God wanted   
   > it worded this way at Acts 15:20, and not 'eat blood'. Cannot God see   
   > the future?   
      
   For your clarity of thought in regards to eating and drinking. Jesus clearly   
   called the partaking of bread as eating and when it came to liquids such as   
   wine he called it drinking, not eating.   
      
   In regards to human blood, and in accordance with your beliefs that Jesus is   
   just another man, why does the NT scriptures focus on a person being washed   
   in the blood of Jesus,, being cleansed by it, Drinking it, ones mind being   
   cleansed by it, cleansing the sins from within us. Considering all these   
   things then we must needs be transfused by His blood. So if the blood of a   
   simple man, according to your terms, can do all this, then why not the blood   
   of any other man be suitable for a transfusion? “Apparently” then blood   
   transfusions and blood baths are an acceptable way of life per the dogmas of   
   the JW who believes ALL of the Bible.   
      
   Can you see where the rationality of the JW leads them, while they deny those   
   very words?   
      
   >   
   >   
   > Sincerely James   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)