XPost: alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic   
      
   >>Robotically friend james ricites a jw vatican invented doctrine; it was   
   >>made possible because of an almost total lack of info about 1st century   
   >>palistine culture.  Ignorance leaves a hole that can be made to hold   
   >>anything:   
   >   
   Knee jerk response:   
      
   >OPINIONS noted.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>Of course, most would say. That is a ridiculous question. If it will   
   >>>save a life, by all means, do it. But what if the Bible says no. Do   
   >>>you obey God or men?   
   >>>   
   >>>Believe it or not, the Egyptians did their form of blood transfusions.   
   >>>Thus the Jews (as slaves in Egypt)  knew about such things. Yet they   
   >>>allowed the wording to cover ANY kind dealing with blood.   
   >>   
   >>A perfect example of jw vatican deception by words. Just to state the above   
   >>*does not* mean it has anyting to do with the below.  To "fix" the meaning   
   >>of scripture the demand the above is relevant.   
   >   
   >Opinions are not proof of facts.   
      
   Indeed, as friend james demonstrates once again.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>Here is what   
   >>>the Bible says:   
   >>>   
   >>>Acts 15:29  that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from   
   >>>blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep   
   >>>yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."   
   >>>   
   >>>To shorten it, it says:" ...abstain.. from blood..."   
   >>   
   >>But what these jews had in mind is the set of pagan temple practices it   
   >>meant to them.  Some temples strangled animal sacrifices and also consumed   
   >>its blood.  It was entirely abhorrent to jews.   
   >   
   >And so it was.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>The entire section of Acts is about whaat and which practices gentile   
   >>converts must follow.  Most of the section is about not requireing   
   >>circumcision. The above were last minute add ons not to upset jewish   
   >>potential and existing convrts.   
   >   
   >Yet it is not worded as 'drinking blood', but to ABSTAIN from blood.   
   >The latter covers more ground than the former. Since God was involved   
   >in the Bible writings (2 Tim 3:16) He chose to use ABSTAIN and not   
   >'drink' blood.   
   >   
   Smile, did someone say "opinion"?  No, just demonstrated jw vatican   
   ignorance of 1st century history into which to pour anything they   
   choose/invent.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)