New Light on Beards

[Pudgy]

I have never claimed to be a “good” JW, as I am a Barbarian at heart, and that is why the example of David pouring the water on the ground resonates so deeply with me …. I understand that that on a gut level … and the reasoning behind it.

I can see how Jehovah holds that all blood belongs to him and is jealous for it.

It feels perfectly right and proper and like Thinking, I don’t see any loopholes.

The perspective of a righteous (sometimes) man who fought in hand to hand combat carries more weight with me.

Even a non-JW Barbarian can understand the underlying principle that blood is sacred.

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts?

Like when Paul says:

(Romans 3:28) 28 For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law. . .

And James mentions something apparently contradictory:

(James 2:24) . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.

WTJWorg has always maintained that the Bible is consistent with itself, regardless of the various authors and the time period in which the text was written. This example shows something second, third or fifth. I might jokingly or mockingly suggest that the "light of understanding" or the "new light" had not yet dawned on Paul and James, or that none of the "doctrinal guardians" of the time had shown them any "clarification" of existing dogma. Revision.

Perhaps the problem is that they were "inspired by HS" at the time. Therefore they could not be wrong when speaking or writing. Today's "doctrinal guardians" are only one level lower, they are only "guided by HS", so any "accidental error" in speaking or writing an interpretation can easily happen to them without them realising it in time.

I would like to ask a question. Were the writers of the Bible aware that they were "inspired", as the term "inspired" is explained today? Or were they merely "guided"? Because this example points to a discrepancy in an important, fundamental, central, core teaching.

...and maybe it's just a problem in the translation that can easily be solved with a new digital edition where a few letters are changed, so that no one will notice any change in the future. The new people will not know how it was before, and most of the current people will forget that it was different.

lol

[JW Insider]

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:

On 12/19/2023 at 8:46 PM, Thinking said:

On 12/19/2023 at 7:52 PM, JW Insider said:

2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 

2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience 

I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

. . . a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." 

To that, you said: 

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

No..dont twist my words and meanings…yes I said that ….but my conclusions on transfusions come from the way Jehovah viewed blood all the way thru the scriptures…thus  I am not a Jamieson  Christian but a scriptural one….well I’m trying to be..

So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 

If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.

After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 

• (Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹² For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . .
• (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . .
• (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you. 
• (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. ²¹  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. ³⁴  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment
• (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
• (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
   

Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  

If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 

But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 

So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 

But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 

On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:

(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . ⁷ However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.

(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? ¹² How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .¹¹  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”

Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 

I like the way Colossians puts it.

(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I would like to ask a question. Were the writers of the Bible aware that they were "inspired", as the term "inspired" is explained today?

Don't know.

But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

[ComfortMyPeople]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That seems likely that there are two different contexts. But the two contexts of faith and works are very understandable because they are so intrinsically tied and therefore relatable. If you had first heard only James' "motto" you would understand why Paul was transforming it to make a point, and if you had first heard only Paul's "motto" you would understand why James was transforming it to make a point. A relatable "synthesis" is possible.

But in terms of what we can and can't eat we have two extremes that are not relatable. The differences are so extreme that a Jamesian Christian would react much like @Thinking just reacted before. Something like: "Well, if Paul says we can eat meat sacrificed to an idol, then that's like Paul saying fornication is now OK." 

So, right or wrong, I'm just thinking that a different perspective --which has already been posited by several Bible commentators in the past -- is the most likely one that the WT would consider if the blood doctrine were to be given a complete adjustment. And, to be clear, that perspective is the one that says the directive against "blood" and "things strangled" was important for Jewish acceptance of Gentile believers during a specific time when Jewish-Mosaic norms were still extremely strong among MOST of the original Christians. Jewish Christians didn't trust Gentiles to be truly ready for Christianity. Here are some of those more obvious reasons:

• At the time, Gentile pagan rituals included direct forms of polytheistic idolatry.
  • And Gentile Christians had therefore come from cultures where multiple gods were accepted at once, so that a Gentile Christian might think it was OK to accept Jehovah as God and Jesus as Lord, but still think it was OK to continue the rituals for other so-called gods.
• Gentile idolatry and the religious temples themselves were often associated with immorality. Some pagan festivals highlighted drunkenness (Bacchus) and fornication (Emperor cults, etc) and other obscenities related to fertility, phalluses, etc.  
• Greek and Roman pagan feasts and rituals included eating bloody meat, drinking blood, and might even allow someone to bathe in the dripping blood of a freshly sacrificed bull (Mithraic). 
• Greek and Roman mystery cults did not announce their secret rituals which allowed Jews and Christians to become suspicious of even more grotesque practices.

Yes, I see your point, I see your point...

I think that for any 1st century Christian of Gentile origin, when they learn that Jehovah from the beginning (Noah) prohibited the consumption of blood. This was later highlighted in dozens of mentions in the Mosaic Law and, finally, in the apostolic decree (with Paul present) of Acts 15. In short, I am sure that in no way would they want to consume blood.

As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole.

So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink  blood.

[ComfortMyPeople]

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg has always maintained that the Bible is consistent with itself, regardless of the various authors and the time period in which the text was written.

I would like to ask a question. Were the writers of the Bible aware that they were "inspired", 

lol

Srecko:

(2 Samuel 23:2) . . .The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue.

(Mark 12:36) . . .By the holy spirit, David himself said, . . .

(2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God . . .

(1 Corinthians 7:10) . . .To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, . . .

(1 Corinthians 7:40) . . .and I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.

Well, not only those who wrote, but the apostles speaking of themselves or with reference to the past positively believed that Jehovah directed their writing, at least in part, of what they were writing.

Concerning the modern "doctrinal guardian", nowhere in Scripture do we find support for believing that they are inspired. A separate issue are reckless or pretentious statements by themselves that they are "guided." I would like more humility on your part (their part I meant to say).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:

I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 

To that, you said: 

So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 

If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.

After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 

• (Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹² For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . .
• (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . .
• (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you. 
• (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. ²¹  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. ³⁴  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment
• (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
• (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
   

Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  

If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 

But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 

So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 

But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 

On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:

(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . ⁷ However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.

(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? ¹² How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .¹¹  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”

Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 

I like the way Colossians puts it.

(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …

besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗

 

[Pudgy]

…

16 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts?

Like when Paul says:

(Romans 3:28) 28 For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law. . .

And James mentions something apparently contradictory:

(James 2:24) . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.

As is, I read two different kinds of faith being considered.

The first is about the philosophical concept of faith, the idea of faith, and

The second is about how to make that idea and concept transition from a capability to a real thing.….

BECAUSE … If that “leap” is not made … faith without works is dead.

Two entirely different ideas, would be my guess.

Jehovah can DECLARE a man rightous who has faith that never heard of the Law of Moses.  The Scripture is talking about how FAITH transitions from concept to reality.

I may see it differently tomorrow if I get more sleep.

 

 

[Anna]

16 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer.

I think the beard issue is a perfect example. I am talking about how unclear instructions can be sometimes. In 2016, as we all know, the beard article was written, and it was so ambiguous and unclear that for 7 years it caused problems until finally the GB were "forced" as it were, to make it black and white. 

Similarly, some Bible passages are unclear "from our point of view" (to out modern way of thinking). Sometimes it's as if we have to guess at the correct answer. And sometimes reading other scriptures on the same subject doesn't help. 

I think to understand some things that were written thousands of years ago correctly, we would have to think like  people did when these things were written. And this is not easy. Not only that, but we would have to know the culture too.

So just as a illustration, we can imagine that someone reading the 2016 WT two thousand years from now might get confused by it and not really understand if beards were ok or not. And imagine that they were setting up a new religion and they had to make a decision on beards. 

Maybe it's not a very good example, perhaps someone can think of a better one.

That's why there is a need for "new light" all the time. It's because some passages in the Bible are not easy to interpret and we got it wrong in the past.

[Anna]

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

That's why there is a need for "new light" all the time. It's because some passages in the Bible are not easy to interpret and we got it wrong in the past.

That is why I think some of JWI's tongue in cheek* predictions are not too far fetched.

*(Or maybe he was being completely serious, not sure this time) 

[xero]

Is this where someone shows me the scriptural distinction between minor blood fractions and blood?

At some points of argumentation it begins to sound a lot like the kinds of arguments abortionists give.

"When does life really begin?" "How many clumps of cells does it take before it's considered a human?"

 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink  blood.

The fact that we as Christians are not under law does not mean that we would break just any law or advocate that anyone else would break just any law. I think we all have a proper aversion to eating or drinking blood and for me this includes avoiding any meat that hasn't been properly drained of its blood. 

Of course, when we say "properly drained" there are probably a variety of methods and I don't care to look into them too closely. Whenever I do, I end up being vegetarian for a few months. But I can look at meat and pretty much tell if it seems reasonably bloodless to me. I can't imagine that any meat eating Christians or Jews had methods that were so much better at squeezing out anything more.

I suspect that Paul thought Christians would use their best judgment (visually) and wasn't concerned that anyone should try to make rules about how best to butcher animals. For the most part, even among gentiles, there was a lot of natural aversion to eating/drinking blood, except for certain pagan rituals which, as Christians, they would already be avoiding. 

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole.

I've always thought this was important testimony, too. For those who haven't seen it, I'll include it here:

CHAP. IX. . . . . But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed. With regard to banquets of blood and such like tragic dishes, you may read whether it is not somewhere stated (it is in Herodotus, I think) that certain tribes had arranged the tasting of blood drawn from the arms of both sides to signify ratification of a treaty. Something of the same kind was tasted also under Catiline. They say that among certain tribesmen of the Scythians also each dead person becomes food for his own relations. But I am wandering too far. On this very day, in this very country, blood from a wounded thigh, caught in a palm of the hand and given to her worshippers to drink, marks the votaries of Bellona. Again, what of those who, by way of healing epilepsy, at the gladiatorial show, drain with eager thirst the blood of slaughtered criminals, while it is still fresh and flowing down from the throat? Or what of those, who dine on bits of wild-beast from the arena, who seek a slice of boar or stag ? That boar in the struggle wiped off the blood from him whom he had first stained with gore; that stag wallowed in a gladiator's blood. The paunches of the very bears are eagerly sought, while they are yet gorged with undigested human flesh; thus flesh that has been fed on man is forthwith vomited by man. You that eat such things, how far removed you are from the feasts of the Christians! . . . Your crimes ought to blush before us Christians, who do not reckon the blood even of animals among articles of food, who abstain even from things strangled and from such as die of themselves, lest we should in any way be polluted even by blood which is buried within the body. Again, among the trials of the Christians you offer them sausages actually filled with blood, being of course perfectly aware that the means you wish to employ to get them to abandon their principles is in their eyes impermissible. Further, how absurd it is for you to believe that they, who you are assured, abhor the blood of beasts, are panting for the blood of man, unless perchance you have found the former more palatable! . . .