Eat it!!!!!!!

The Council at Jerusalem
In order to understand how the Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at their conclusion regarding the acceptance or refusal of blood transfusions it is important understand the core biblical texts first. Those particular texts are Acts 15:20 and 29. "ut that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (v. 20). "[T]hat 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" (v. 29) [NASB].

The whole context encompassing verses 20 and 29 involves a challenge which began in Antioch, just after Paul and Barnabas had finished their first missionary tour of duty. Upon arriving at Antioch, which was the base of operations for Paul and Barnabas, they are confronted by some representatives of the heresy of the Pharisees.5 The heretic's contention is found in both verses 1 and 5, and which state that "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (v. 1) and "It is necessary to circumcise them [Gentiles], and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses" (v. 5). In other words, some legalistic Jews who had become a part of the church ("the sect of the Pharisees who had believed") were insisting that all Gentile converts be circumcised according to the Law, otherwise those converts could not be genuinely saved. This raised the ire of both Paul and Barnabas (v. 2), which resulted in the gathering at Jerusalem of "the church and the apostles and the elders" (v. 4) to settle the issue.

There is no record of how long the proceedings took, nor of all those who contributed to the debate. What we do know is that there were many questions (pollh/j de. zhth,sewj genome,nhj), which probably took a fair amount of time to work through, coupled with testimony from Paul, Barnabas, and Simeon (vv. 12, 14), and then at least two declarations on the matter from Peter and James, the latter of which was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. Peter's argument was that God had redeemed the Gentiles on the same basis of faith as that of the Jews. Therefore, he asks the heretical Pharisees, "Now therefore, why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" James concludes the council by issuing the final edict: "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from thing contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (vv. 19-20). The church agreed with James' proclamation and then sat down to write a letter to the Gentiles in Antioch expressing the sentiments of what was determined. The concluding statement found in verse 29 repeats what has since been taken out of context by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society to mean that a blood transfusion should be rejected. Yet, all the conclusion entailed was that all people, if they are to be saved, are saved by grace, through faith, and that all legalisms contribute nothing to a person's salvation. That for either conscience, moral, or sanitary sakes, the Gentiles should refrain from participating in those things that would preclude them from "doing well" in terms of walking the Christian life.6


[link to capro.info]

[link to www.jwfacts.com]


[link to www.apologeticspress.org]


...but you will accept blood fractions? So if god tells you NOT to eat cake, it is acceptable to bypass the law and eat eggs, sugar, flour, etc. seperately? Yea...



JW tard...