What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

 

Same answers as you except for the last one.

I do not think God meant for Noah to eat animals while they were still alive and kicking. He had to kill them first, and then drain the blood out so he would not be eating flesh with blood.

This would be a subset categorization of "God said those words of living animals that Noah had just been told he could use as food". I agree.

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, Anna said:

I do not think God meant for Noah to eat animals while they were still alive and kicking. He had to kill them first, and then drain the blood out so he would not be eating flesh with blood.

When the Noahide Laws were clarified and expanded from what we currently see in the Genesis account, the rabbis specifically forbade eating a limb or part of an animal while it was alive and kicking. In fact, some even interpret the term "strangled" to refer to the twisting off of a limb for eating.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26551218?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

in the Tosefta, a supplementary work to the Mishnah. Its teachings date back
to the time of the Tannaim and provide a glimpse into how the early rab-
bis approached Jewish-gentile relations. In t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8:4, the text states:
“Concerning seven commandments were the sons of Noah admonished:
[establishing] courts of justice, idolatry, cursing the name [of God], illicit inter-
course, bloodshed, thievery and [consuming] a limb from a living beast.”2
These are the commandments generally accepted within rabbinic litera-
ture as the seven Noahide laws pertaining to gentiles. Sifre Deuteronomy, an
early Tannaitic midrash (late 3rd c. CE), provides additional information . . .

That was from:

The Sons of Noah and the Sons of Abraham: The Origins of Noahide Law

Matthew P. Van Zile

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2017), pp. 386-417 (32 pages)

[Many Miles]

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

When the Noahide Laws were clarified and expanded from what we currently see in the Genesis account, the rabbis specifically forbade eating a limb or part of an animal while it was alive and kicking. In fact, some even interpret the term "strangled" to refer to the twisting off of a limb for eating.

That's true, and, to me, it's captured within the translation "you shall not eat flesh with its life". If the animal was alive (soulical) it's flesh should not be used as food. I'e., to use the flesh of a living animal as food you had to kill it first.

But rabbis said a lot of things, including that the account of Abel was of him making a peace (communion) offering to God, which, if true, means Abel shared in what he offered to God by eating some of the slaughtered animal himself. There is a scriptural argument offering some support to this notion.

[JW Insider]

When I first learned about the rabbinic versions of the Noahide Laws --there are several variations, but usually quite similar-- I always wondered why theft and murder were not part of the Genesis vis-a-vis Acts list. They seem pretty important, too, even though 'no bloodshed' could be read into the idea: "abstain from blood."

I think it was because of a compromise that the Jewish Christians would still want to see it as a following of at least the "Gentile-referenced" part of the Mosaic Law. The Greek Scriptures (in Acts, Hebrews) uses the term "the holy spirit says" when referring to accepted Hebrew Scripture, and I think this is why James could say "the holy spirit and we ourselves." Here's why:

It happens that these four terms in particular that the apostles and elders came up with for Gentiles were listed in the exact same order, and already expanded upon, in Leviticus. I found this idea already summarized on another site: https://bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/the-four-prohibitions-of-acts-15/

Le.17:1 “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying….”  This was God speaking to Moses, not just Moses’ own words.  Le.17:6-9 “They shall no longer offer their sacrifices to idols, with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute….The man shall be cut off from his people.”  JFB Commentary Le.17:9 “This was a form of idolatry practiced by the Egyptians.”  Prohibition #1 God forbids sacrifices to idols.  (also see “Sacrifices To Idols and Romans 14”.)

Le.17:10-12 “Any man from the house of Israel or aliens sojourning among them who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off. For the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood.”  Prohibition #2 God forbids the consumption of blood.  The heathen thought that drinking another’s blood would gain them the life or power of that other person/animal.

Continuing in Le.17:13-16. “When any native Israelite or alien among you goes hunting and kills an animal or bird which may be eaten [NLT is approved for eating], he must drain its blood. When any person eats an animal which dies of natural causes or was torn by beasts, whether he is native or alien, he must wash his clothes and bathe, and remain unclean until evening. But if he doesn’t wash or bathe, he will bear his iniquity.”  Prohibition #3 God forbids eating things strangled/unbled.  No roadkill.

When an animal was snared or was suffocated/strangled and died of itself, its blood coagulated in the meat.  It wasn’t properly bled.  Life and disease are both in the blood.  The slaughter procedure causes the effusion of blood.  Remaining blood may be extracted by washing & salting the meat.  The incidence of diseases from bacteria or parasites is thereby reduced.  Of note, this prohibition applies to clean creatures “which may be eaten”.  Many forbidden unclean creatures/scavengers naturally carry disease-causing micro-organisms and worms.  (for more on this aspect, see “Unclean versus Clean Food”.)

Le.18 identifies sexual acts which are immorality/porneia.  That’s Prohibition #4.  In the Bible, porneia includes: incest (v.6-18); menstrual sex when blood is present, putting her at risk for vaginal infection & cervical cancer & tubal pregnancy (v.19); adultery (v.20); religious harlotry (v.21, ref Le.17:7, 20:5); homosexuality & lesbianism (Le.18:22, ref Ro.1:26); beastiality (Le.18:23).

All these are forms of illicit sex/porneia/‘fornication’, prohibited to both Jews and gentiles.  Of note: Le.17:8, 10, 15, 18:26 say the four restrictions apply to both Israelites and aliens (ger) with them!

Getting sex any way you want it is prohibited by God in both Testaments.  Jesus said porneia is even just cause for divorce!  Mt.19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [porneia g4202], and marries another wife commits adultery [g3429].”

Although extremely serious, adultery was only one form of sexual immorality.  According to Jesus, all porneia is just cause for divorce.  This includes beastiality, lesbianism, homosexuality, etc.  Some translations render porneia or illicit sex as “fornication”. 

--------------------

So although the basis was undoubtedly the fact that Noahide Laws were already a "thing" to cover the communion between Jews and "law-abiding" Gentiles, James and others were able to make use of a version of them that was in a portion of Scripture (holy spirit) that already included references and laws for the Gentiles (alien residents). For me, it's the best explanation for why murder isn't explicitly on the list. Also, it means that James and others were making use of a form of Bible commentary, a unique form of "pesher" which shows up elsewhere in scripture, especially obvious in Matthew. (In Matthew we sometimes wonder why the book uses verses that appear to be completely out of context to make application to Jesus, as if they were Messianic prohecies. But the special patterns of "pesher" commentary will explain this very well. Although that's another topic for later. The patterns of "pesher" commentary were not well known until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, btw.

[JW Insider]

(Hebrews 3:7) Therefore, just as the holy spirit says, "Today, if you listen to his voice . . . "

I was using this point about equating the term "the holy spirit says" with the direct use of Heberw Scriptures because it appears that although they used the "holy spirit" quotation as a basis for interpretation, Paul seemed to think they had interpreted it incorrectly. Paul directly opposed the idea that gentiles could be put under any kind of law, except the "law of undeserved kindness" i.e., grace and love. Paul even went so far as to say he learned nothing from this so-called "governing body" in which he included Peter, James, and John. He didn't care who they were, even if they had been angels from heaven. In fact, Paul directly opposes some of the exact wording that came from that meeting in Jerusalem when he uses an exact Greek term from that list in 1 Cor 8 and referred to the topic again in chapter 10:

1

Play

(1 Cor 8:1) Now concerning food offered to idols: We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

 

1 Cor 10:23-27

All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous.e All things are lawful, but not all things build up.f ²⁴  Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.g²⁵  Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, ²⁶  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.”h ²⁷  If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.

 

[Many Miles]

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For me, it's the best explanation for why murder isn't explicitly on the list.

To me the biblical record of decision found in Acts 15 embodies essential things that predated Mosaic Law and were understood as part of fearing God and working righteousness. Hence, 'abstain from blood' would mean abstain from blood like Noah was told to abstain from blood, which included abstaining from unjustified homicide (blood "guilt").

Often I've mused aloud to students and peers that Adam, though given some instruction (including one definite no-no), was otherwise living under natural law, that is what felt natural for him as he was created. So, for instance, though there was no statutory law against murder, Adam knew he didn't want to die, or at least I think it's safe to assume that. Hence, if Adam didn't want to die then why would he kill another human? He would have seen animals live and die. He would have even observed carcasses of dead animals being eaten as part of earth's natural ecosystem. But he knew that, as a human, he didn't want to die. Hence there was a natural law standing between Adam and murder. Of course, natural law can be a subjective and mercurial thing.

Living a life in fear of God and working righteousness (meaning: obeying natural law) is, I believe, what led to the worship of men like Abel and Cornelius being accepted by God as his worshipers aside from formalized systems of religion.

 

[Many Miles]

On 11/13/2023 at 11:39 AM, George88 said:

...before the flood and during Noah's voyage in the Ark, there was a discussion about consuming carrion (carcasses), and referring to animals that had died naturally without any human involvement. It is unlikely that Noah would have engaged in such behavior, as he possessed a pre-flood understanding of God's intentions, which was much closer to God's timeline compared to those who offered opinions millennia later on the Noahide Code.

What infers that it is "unlikely" that, PRIOR to the flood, Noah would have eaten flesh of animals dead of natural cause so long as it was fit to eat?

When you say, Noah "possessed a pre-flood understanding of God's intentions" what are you talking about specifically? Are you suggesting pre-flood humans were FORBIDDEN from eating of something other than the tree of knowledge?

I don't see any written issuance where God suggested His intentions one way or another regarding eating the flesh of animals dead of natural cause, EXCEPT we do have the WRITTEN testimony of God telling us His creation testifies of His will, and His creation tells us that dead animal carcasses have always been eaten and metabolized by other living creatures as part of earth's natural ecosystem. Noah would unavoidably witnessed carcasses of animals dead of natural cause being eaten. What had God said that would have instructed Noah that he couldn't eat the same thing if it was fit enough to eat?

And, George, if you want me to respond you're going to have to provide concise and solid answers or else I'll just keep ignoring you.

[Many Miles]

On 11/13/2023 at 11:39 AM, George88 said:

Now, did Paul bend the laws in order for the gentiles to accept?

What laws are you talking about? Mosaic Law? post-flood Noahide law? Pre-flood law? What law are you talking about?

[Many Miles]

On 11/13/2023 at 11:39 AM, George88 said:

Noah was granted specific instructions regarding permissible meats, excluding those that defiled nature, such as scavenger birds.

Please cite the biblical text that supports that notion.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

On 11/13/2023 at 9:39 AM, George88 said:

Noah was granted specific instructions regarding permissible meats, excluding those that defiled nature, such as scavenger birds.

Please cite the biblical text that supports that notion.

I just figured this was one of the pitfalls of using Large Language Model /A.I. to try to enhance one's writing style and grammar, etc. G..88's writing has shows signs of this in the past.

I've read that LLM/AI can confuse what someone is trying to say while it attempts to improve it, especially if the original is convoluted. Also LLM/AI can "hallucinate" ideas from its many sources, especially because it often doesn't always know to give more authority to Scripture than to various blogs and commentaries about Scripture. (Might even confuse the Flood account with the Epic of Gilgamesh which also has the different types of birds sent out.) It can probably even get the wrong impression from a joke like the one that goes:

Q: "How many of each clean animal did Moses take onto the ark?"

A: None. Moses didn't take any animals on the ark. Noah did.

Even the idea that there were clean and unclean animals somehow identified before the Mosaic Law could confuse LLM/AI just as it confuses Bible scholars today. 

[Pudgy]

The six-ton Gorilla in the room is not how many clean or unclean animals Noah, or Moses, or Fred Flintstone took on board the Ark … it’s how many unclean animals avoided being converted into Purina Lion Chow during the time the Ark was closed up. 

I mean …. WHY would Jehovah  bring 3-1/2 times more “unclean” animals to the Ark than “clean” animals?

They came TO the Ark by sevens … and went FROM the Ark by twos.

My guess would be a lack of refrigeration, and that no animal was allowed … coff! … Carrion baggage.

 

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I've read that LLM/AI can confuse what someone is trying to say while it attempts to improve it, especially if the original is convoluted.

Well, given the latter, the former would certainly take what is bad and just make it worse. This would explain a few things. 
 

It will be interesting to see if George responds and, if so, how. If it’s not straightforward he’s back on ignore for me.