 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2131
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
FFT,
| FFT wrote: | | Not to mention that in context, 15:20 isn't about salvation, it is simply an entreatment that people not cause too much friction with Jews. |
That is not the context. If they were worried about friction with Jews then they would have perscribed circumcision, as this issue was causing friction.. These were the NECESSARY THINGS for Christians realizing that the Jewish things have ended.
| FFT wrote: | And yet you would have us believe that we are not only not allowed to drink blood, but not get transfusions either?
|
Correct. What is your point? I have explained my position thourghly. What is your question here?
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
| TBax wrote: | | abstain from blood. |
Dietary restriction, just like Genesis 9:4.
Because they are mentioned collectively, the word "abstain" is used.
|
So to you, ok to use blood in any way as long as you don't eat it? You think the early Christians used animal blood in secular ways that didn't involve eating it?
| Quote: |
Not to mention that in context, 15:20 isn't about salvation, it is simply an entreatment that people not cause too much friction with Jews.
15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.
15:21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
What part of that says that one should abstain from blood, at the cost of your salvation?
|
The whole point of this is shown in Acts 15:1 where it was being said that you have to be circumcised in order to be saved. The Jerusalem counsil was formed, thought about it, and then said that what is required for salvation is abstaining from these four things leaving out circumcision as a requirement for salvation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | If they were worried about friction with Jews then they would have perscribed circumcision, as this issue was causing friction.. |
Refraining from those four restrictions is a much easier yoke to bear than circumcision.
| TBax wrote: | | These were the NECESSARY THINGS for Christians realizing that the Jewish things have ended. |
This isn't even coherent. The Jewish things have ended, so keep doing some of the Jewish things?
| Ryck wrote: | | So to you, ok to use blood in any way as long as you don't eat it? |
As TBax said, the Jewish things had ended for the Christians. We differ in our understandings of 15:20. Today, if one has little contact with Jews, it's perfectly okay for a Christian to eat something with blood in it, or, heaven forbid, get a blood transfusion.
| Ryck wrote: | | You think the early Christians used animal blood in secular ways that didn't involve eating it? |
I have little doubt that some of them took the blood and flesh of Christ idea quite seriously.
| Ryck wrote: | | The whole point of this is shown in Acts 15:1 where it was being said that you have to be circumcised in order to be saved. The Jerusalem counsil was formed, thought about it, and then said that what is required for salvation is abstaining from these four things leaving out circumcision as a requirement for salvation. |
Where does it mention salvation?
15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.
James was giving a compromise. The Gentiles would not be required to be circumcised, but they should certainly hold to the other relatively easy restrictions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | So to you, ok to use blood in any way as long as you don't eat it? |
As TBax said, the Jewish things had ended for the Christians. We differ in our understandings of 15:20. Today, if one has little contact with Jews, it's perfectly okay for a Christian to eat something with blood in it, or, heaven forbid, get a blood transfusion.
|
You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask anything having to do with eating blood.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | You think the early Christians used animal blood in secular ways that didn't involve eating it? |
I have little doubt that some of them took the blood and flesh of Christ idea quite seriously.
|
Yes, we differ in our understanding of 15:20. I don't see anything in any of their deliberations leading up to this verse where that Christian counsil took animal blood and flesh to mean the blood and flesh of Christ.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | | The whole point of this is shown in Acts 15:1 where it was being said that you have to be circumcised in order to be saved. The Jerusalem counsil was formed, thought about it, and then said that what is required for salvation is abstaining from these four things leaving out circumcision as a requirement for salvation. |
Where does it mention salvation?
15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.
James was giving a compromise. The Gentiles would not be required to be circumcised, but they should certainly hold to the other relatively easy restrictions. |
You mean you don't see in verse 1 that the Jews insisted that circumcision was a requirement for salvation?
Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
And then their answer to the question that circumcision was a requirement for salvation is at 15:19,20; which you have just shown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's because the Jews at that time were still following the carnal writing of the letter.
You notice that they did not give anyone any commands to do, but to refrain only.
The thou shalt nots vs. the thou shalts.
Because the carnal works of the law could not save them. It is the circumcission of the heart that God looks at, not the circumcission in the flesh.
And Paul understood this, but they were still having a hard time seperating spiritual works which are done on the inside, verses dead works which are done in the flesh.
circumcission of the flesh is done after the doctrine of men.
circumcission of the heart is done after the doctrine of God.
They were still stuck in the traditions.
Is circumcission in the flesh necessary?
not for salvation, but for a good conscience before God maybe.
Same with baptism.
Baptism of the body will not save you, but it will give you a clear conscience if you feel guilty for not doing it.
It's the washing of the Spirit on the inside that God looks at, not the washing of the flesh.
If circumcission of the flesh would cause one to stumble at faith in God, then by all means that person should not be circumcised in the flesh. But the heart must be. That is removing the hardness that covers the heart.
just my two cents
peace
lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | The term "unclean" with a menstrating woman, is part of the mosic law, which was done away with, when Jesus died.
Unless you are drinking the bloody discharge, or injecting it into your viens, you are off topic. |
I thought that abstain meant abstain... What does drinking or injection have to do with that? On one hand you go way overboard when you interpret 'abstain', and then you object when someone else does it...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2131
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
P,
Your point is lost. The fact is they constantly dealt with blood, as slaughtered animals needed to be bled. The point is what did they do with the blood. Did they give it back to God, or did they find another use for it?
Abstain from blood, means finding no other use for it, especially regarding your own body.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | Your point is lost. The fact is they constantly dealt with blood, as slaughtered animals needed to be bled. The point is what did they do with the blood. Did they give it back to God, or did they find another use for it?
Abstain from blood, means finding no other use for it, especially regarding your own body. |
In that case, maybe you'd have a point if blood transfusions meant slaughtering the person giving the transfusion.
Blood donors are not slaughtered. They also aren't animals. So how can you possibly throw all of these things in the same bucket?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2131
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big supprise! you didn't get the point.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | Big supprise! you didn't get the point. |
What I don't understand is how you think it's ok to interpret the Bible in such an extreme way that allows for people to die even if they could be saved.
You don't *know* that 'abstain from blood' includes blood transfusions. You only think it does. It requires interpretation. One could just as easily interpret that it does NOT include blood transfusions. You're taking the more extreme interpretation, and thereby coming to conclusions that are not in line with the rest of the teachings in the NT.
Just look at the verse from the Bible:
| Quote: | | That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, ... |
The first and third points are about food. The second point is clearly also about food. These are ALL dietary restrictions. They have NOTHING to do with blood transfusions.
If you think that point # 2 applies to blood transfusions, then point # 3 must also be taken generally. It says to abstain from things strangled.
So if someone you know gets strangled by some crazy murderer, does that mean that you aren't allowed to bury him? Would you try to stop the police from investigating the murder in the same way that you woud try to stop a doctor from giving a blood transfusion to a JW?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2131
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
P,
| P123... wrote: | | What I don't understand is how you think it's ok to interpret the Bible in such an extreme way that allows for people to die even if they could be saved. |
P, I totally understand why you say this. From your viewpoint it is totally reasonable. But from a spiritual viewpoint it is ignorant.
| P123... wrote: | | You don't *know* that 'abstain from blood' includes blood transfusions. |
Yes, I do.
| P123... wrote: | That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, ...
The first and third points are about food. The second point is clearly also about food. These are ALL dietary restrictions.
|
Sir, we have been through these before. Such necessary things have spiritual importance. While it can include diet, it is not limited to diet. You also left out fornication from that list, which shows it is not just talking about diets.
| P123... wrote: | If you think that point # 2 applies to blood transfusions, then point # 3 must also be taken generally. It says to abstain from things strangled.
So if someone you know gets strangled by some crazy murderer, does that mean that you aren't allowed to bury him? |
Please, your questions show you just don't get the point. Buring someone is not taking them in in some way. Because I abstain from fornication does not mean I cannot have dealings with people who are fornicators in the world. Talking to a fornicator would not make me a fornicator unless I actually commit fornication.
In all these instances there needs to be an act, or a taking in of something, regardless of how it is done. Just because you come up with a new method of taking something in, does not make it proper.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
