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

[Many Miles]

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In the past, even on this forum, I have argued the necessity of the Noahide Laws (the Acts 15 version at least partially motivated by them) for Jehovah's acceptance of Gentiles. Not that it was counted as righteousness, but "acceptableness" at least.  But we don't know that Cornelius actually feared God through a knowledge of those Noahide Laws, specifically, the law about blood, strangulation, or even the law about not eating a portion of his nutrition derived from a living animal.

We do know that it was not uncommon for humans to eat animal carcasses dead of natural cause. Jews had to be told NOT to do this. Yet those same Jews were told they could sell that very food to gentiles who would eat it. Hence, I have no reason to think Cornelius didn't make use of such food and every reason to think he probably did. That said, of course the biblical account of Cornelius does not bore down to the detail of what he knew specifically about Noah. But God knew what He looked for in worship He accepted, and He accepted Cornelius' worship. Even though not a Jew. God accepted his worship. Even though not a Christian. God accepted his worship. Of course, when Christianity was revealed to Cornelius he accepted it. But from God's reaction we can have a decent idea that Cornelius was doing right by what God expected of folks.

13 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But Cornelius may have been considered a God-fearer for other reasons, unrelated to any knowledge of or practice of Noahide-style requirements.

I agree, there is natural law to consider. There is also ignorance to consider. What is a good hearted person to do who's acting on the best they know, despite their ignorance. One of my very favorite biblical texts is a psalm that exclaims God will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. Could be that Cornelius landed on this ground.

 

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

JWI, unless women evolved since Eve, then they've always had mammary glands that produced breast milk to nurture newborn humans. Please rethink your thought train on this.

Not necessary to rethink it. We don't have any reason to think that Eve or Adam drank from Eve's breasts. Only that her children would have, and that was outside the Garden, as I stated previously. So we still have no reason to think that milk was an important part of the diet of Adam and Eve at the time of dietary decree in the garden. Not important enough to mention. They may have drunk milk too, maybe inside the garden, and maybe when they were outside. It should have been common knowledge that humans and other mammals drank milk and water, and they may have inadvertently breathed in a bug or two while sleeping. But the part the Bible included as if the most important points about their diet was about how the fruit of [almost] every tree would serve as food for them. When they were outside the garden we have additional vegetation mentioned as food, e.g. grains/bread. And then the only outstanding difference in the dietary decree to Noah is that it was the first mention of a diet containing meat.  We can make of that whatever we will, and I agree that no position on this is definitive.

 

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Noah had permission to gather animal flesh dead of natural cause as food for himself and the animals. Whether Noah opted to eat that particular food was up to him. But he had God's permission to do so.

Not exactly. Having permission to gather the food the animals ate is not necessarily the same as permission for Noah himself to eat those same foods. The Bible's silence on what is forbidden or permitted only means silence on the matter: not necessarily permitted, and not necessarily forbidden.

If you were implying that Cornelius must have been following Noahide requirements only known to readers of the Jewish Bible, then surely Noah might have understood the ideal human diet in a (at least currently) common way of understanding the dietary decree from Adam's time. And, per the Bible's timeline, Noah's had several living relatives who may have spoken to Adam personally, including Noah's own father. 

[Pudgy]

…

[JW Insider]

59 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

If Cornelius was a worshipper of Jehovah God, and his worship was acceptable to God, as stated specifically that it was …and he was a Roman Soldier …. what does that say about “… render unto Caesar …”.?

I don't know if C.T.Russell made use of the principle in this particular scripture . . . 

(1 Corinthians 7:20-24) . . .In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. ²¹ Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. . .  ²⁴ In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

But he didn't think a Christian had to necessarily break his military conscription "contract" on becoming a follower. But he did think that if called to active front-line duty as a soldier the Christian should just "shoot over the heads" of those in the opposing trench. Perhaps he didn't have a very realistic view of what war could be like, but other religions and religious leaders made the same suggestion (I'm told). 

[Many Miles]

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Not necessary to rethink it. We don't have any reason to think that Eve or Adam drank from Eve's breasts. Only that her children would have, and that was outside the Garden, as I stated previously. So we still have no reason to think that milk was an important part of the diet of Adam and Eve at the time of dietary decree in the garden. Not important enough to mention. They may have drunk milk too, maybe inside the garden, and maybe when they were outside. It should have been common knowledge that humans and other mammals drank milk and water, and they may have inadvertently breathed in a bug or two while sleeping. But the part the Bible included as if the most important points about their diet was about how every the fruit of every tree would serve as food for them. When they were outside the garden we have additional vegetation mentioned as food, e.g. grains/bread. And then the only outstanding difference in the dietary decree to Noah is that it was the first mention of a diet containing meat.  We can make of that whatever we will, and I agree that no position on this is definitive.

JWI, what you write here is disappointing.

The question I wrote and you responded to was:

- Do you believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to milk?

Eve may have been outside the garden when she had her first child, but she was built to have babies and FEED THEM MILK while she was inside the garden and perfect. God equipped her to feed her children milk, while she was perfect. That is, unless I'm mistaken. Eve was inside the garden when God issued His will that, beginning with Adam and herself, the earth should be filled. And, that's when food was written about. Right? Hence, my question was not just about Adam and Eve and you know that perfectly well. FOOD for Eve's children was already determined. Milk was on the menu! Yet it wasn't mentioned as a food item.

So, let me narrow my question to reduce opportunity for quibble:

- Do you believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for ALL THE CHILDREN TO COME FROM Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to milk?

Please! Do we have reason to think MILK was an important part of filling the earth with humans? I mean, if they don't survive infancy what's going to fill the earth?

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Not exactly. Having permission to gather the food the animals ate is not necessarily the same types of food he might have felt he had permission to eat. The Bible's silence on what is forbidden or permitted only means silence on the matter: not necessarily permitted, and not necessarily forbidden.

You just trotted out a red herring.

I've NOT asserted as premise what Noah "might have felt he had permission to eat".

Rather, I've asserted as premise what God gave Noah permission to eat. Whether Noah understood what was said to him does not change what was said to him, and the only record we have is the written one. The written one tells us what God gave Noah permission to gather and eat. Noah had permission to gather animal flesh dead of natural cause as food for himself and the animals. Whether Noah opted to eat that particular food was up to him. But he had God's permission to do so.  On this point, the text is not silent. The text says Noah could gather every food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals.

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If you were implying that Cornelius must have been following Noahide requirements only known to readers of the Jewish Bible, then surely Noah might have understood the ideal human diet in a common way of understanding the dietary decree from Adam's time. And, per the Bible's timeline, Adam was a person that several of Noah's own living relatives may have spoken to personally, including Noah's own father.   

I've not asserted that. I've asserted what Cornelius free to do as a gentile worshiper of God. But, as you have said and I agree, there are other reasons God could have accepted Cornelius' worship. Regarding meat and blood, we only know what he was free to do in respect to what the biblical text we have says. 

[Pudgy]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know if C.T.Russell made use of the principle in this particular scripture . . . 

(1 Corinthians 7:20-24) . . .In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. ²¹ Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. . .  ²⁴ In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

But he didn't think a Christian had to necessarily break his military conscription "contract" on becoming a follower. But he did think that if called to active front-line duty as a soldier the Christian should just "shoot over the heads" of those in the opposing trench. Perhaps he didn't have a very realistic view of what war could be like, but other religions and religious leaders made the same suggestion (I'm told). 

 

[Many Miles]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, it would probably be considered so commonplace for children of all humans and mammals, that mother's milk need not be mentioned for the diet of Cain, Abel, Seth, daughter(s), etc.

This is an interesting comment. It suggests commonness as a premise to establish an understood though unstated permission.

From prehistoric time there is abundant evidence that animals dead of natural cause has been an extremely common food item, in fact an essential food item for earth's ecosystem.

The biblical text says of Adam, "...God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name. So the man was calling the names of all the domestic animals and of the flying creatures of the heavens and of every wild beast of the field, but for man there was found no helper as a complement of him."

If Adam had sufficient observation of earth's animals to realize there was no compliment of him it means he had a lot of observation of earth's animals. Animals eating carcasses dead of natural cause is so common it's unavoidable that Adam would have observed this. It was common. It was extremely common. It was common because, for animals, it was an unavoidable eventuality. (2 Pet 2:12)

If, as expressed above, a food item is so commonplace that it "need not be mentioned", then permission would be so understood it needed no mention.

However, as Adam would have commonly observed animals eating carcasses dead of natural cause, he would have equally observed animals eating vegetation. Yet, in particular for animals, vegetation was mentioned as a permissible food whereas carcasses dead of natural cause was not mentioned though we know both these food items were on the menu. Hence the veracity of this premise is questionable.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know if C.T.Russell made use of the principle in this particular scripture . . . 

(1 Corinthians 7:20-24) . . .In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. ²¹ Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. . .  ²⁴ In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

But he didn't think a Christian had to necessarily break his military conscription "contract" on becoming a follower. But he did think that if called to active front-line duty as a soldier the Christian should just "shoot over the heads" of those in the opposing trench. Perhaps he didn't have a very realistic view of what war could be like, but other religions and religious leaders made the same suggestion (I'm told). 

I think that would only be possible if the soldiers in the trenches were about a hundred meters apart. But if the enemy soldier was with a bayonet over his head, the idea would suddenly change.

[Thinking]

On 11/18/2023 at 2:56 PM, Pudgy said:

Two can play THIS WORD SALAD, Annie.

In the perplexing realm of circular discourse, where words pirouette without purpose and sentences meander aimlessly, we find ourselves trapped in a linguistic labyrinth of unparalleled absurdity. Picture a discourse so circuitous that it makes a dizzying carousel seem like a straight line. As we embark on this linguistic rollercoaster, we must prepare to navigate the convoluted contours of verbosity.

In the grand tapestry of talking in circles, the artistry lies in crafting sentences that orbit meaning without ever daring to land. Words, like mischievous acrobats, perform feats of linguistic gymnastics, contorting themselves into shapes unfamiliar to logic. It's a parade of paradoxes, where coherence is the elusive unicorn and clarity the rarest of gems.

As we delve into the heart of this linguistic carnival, one may be tempted to believe that profundity resides in the obscurity of expression. Alas, it's a masquerade where the emperor wears robes woven from the threads of ambiguity, and the courtiers nod sagely, pretending to decipher the indecipherable. Verbose vortices suck meaning into their whirlpools, leaving behind a vacuum of understanding.

Each sentence, a maze with no exit, beckons the listener to wander in perpetual confusion. It's a dance of diction where the music is composed of vague allusions and the choreography an intricate ballet of equivocation. Attempting to grasp the central theme is akin to chasing shadows, for just when you think you've caught hold of meaning, it slips through your fingers like ethereal mist.

In this topsy-turvy world of circular dialogue, the destination remains elusive, and the journey becomes an endless loop of linguistic acrobatics. It's as if words have donned roller skates, careening wildly through the terrain of syntax, leaving punctuation in disarray and grammar in a state of disrepair. A sentence may start with the promise of lucidity, only to spiral into the abyss of convolution.

To converse in circles is to revel in the absurdity of language, to embrace a carnival of confusion where coherence is sacrilege and simplicity a heretical notion. So, let us celebrate the linguistic mayhem, where words frolic in a field of lexical anarchy, and meaning is but a distant echo in the cacophony of circumlocution.

Wah de do DAH!

Well done……now I have a migraine 

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I think a much BIGGER question needs to be asked.

If Cornelius was a worshipper of Jehovah God, and his worship was acceptable to God, as stated specifically that it was …and he was a Roman Soldier …. what does that say about “… render unto Caesar …”.?

To me, the conclusion is inescapable and profound, and logical … but even so, I am afraid to even utter the words.

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.

 I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not necessary to rethink it. We don't have any reason to think that Eve or Adam drank from Eve's breasts. Only that her children would have, and that was outside the Garden, as I stated previously. So we still have no reason to think that milk was an important part of the diet of Adam and Eve at the time of dietary decree in the garden. Not important enough to mention. They may have drunk milk too, maybe inside the garden, and maybe when they were outside. It should have been common knowledge that humans and other mammals drank milk and water, and they may have inadvertently breathed in a bug or two while sleeping. But the part the Bible included as if the most important points about their diet was about how the fruit of [almost] every tree would serve as food for them. When they were outside the garden we have additional vegetation mentioned as food, e.g. grains/bread. And then the only outstanding difference in the dietary decree to Noah is that it was the first mention of a diet containing meat.  We can make of that whatever we will, and I agree that no position on this is definitive.

 

Not exactly. Having permission to gather the food the animals ate is not necessarily the same as permission for Noah himself to eat those same foods. The Bible's silence on what is forbidden or permitted only means silence on the matter: not necessarily permitted, and not necessarily forbidden.

If you were implying that Cornelius must have been following Noahide requirements only known to readers of the Jewish Bible, then surely Noah might have understood the ideal human diet in a (at least currently) common way of understanding the dietary decree from Adam's time. And, per the Bible's timeline, Noah's had several living relatives who may have spoken to Adam personally, including Noah's own father.   

Well I’m preety sure Eve had mammary glands as she had a womb…but I like the rest of your post.

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

JWI, what you write here is disappointing.

The question I wrote and you responded to was:

- Do you believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to milk?

Yes. I still believe that the implied food diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Obviously, what they drank would include water and milk, but the important part of the dietary food decree is what they were allowed to eat, with no concern for what they would drink. 

Your question was not about whether Eve had mammary glands (or a womb) as this would be too obvious to mention, although I had already mentioned it anyway. Whether she had a belly-button is not so obvious. Your question was whether I believe the account was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Since the account was about a dietary food command to the pair placed in the garden of Eden, I answered the question with that in mind. And since we don't absolutely know whether Adam and Eve had milk while within the garden (or out, for that matter) I answered the question with that in mind.

Personally, I am inclined more to believe that the first humans did not live by fruit or bread alone. I believe the first humans had millions of microbes in their intestines. I believe they likely needed protein sources from more than just beans and nuts and milk, but that's just me. I believe the reference to Abel killing livestock speaks to the fact that domestic animals were very early considered a meat food source in addition to a milk/cheese source. I believe that the idea of the Garden of Eden in Genesis was to show that Jehovah was ready to provide everything humans wanted and desired and it was easy picking. It was purposefully written to highlight this and left out what they would drink, and would leave us to believe that Jehovah would also provide sustenance for their protein needs without resorting to either killing or finding dead animals.