# **********Blood Transfusion

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 23, 1999 at 17:47:45 {KNpNN6QGfwhxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: *********Blood Transfusion posted by Cygnus on November 23, 1999 at 17:04:22:

Cygnus

> Nowhere does Acts 15 mention that Christ abolished the Law of Moses. Never did Christ himself say that! In fact, he said the complete opposite. (Matt 5:17)

According to Matthew’s account Jesus came to fulfill the law. What do you consider that to mean? How do you consider fulfilling the law just the opposite of abolishing the law?

> The text of Acts 15 makes it very obvious just where the four necessary abstentions by Gentiles came from. Don't tell me you aren't familiar with this, Friend. James clearly referred to the readings of Moses as the basis for the so-called Decree. (Acts 15:21)

Yes, I am familiar with the text of Acts 15:21. I do not consider that James (or other present) thought aside from the Law of Moses but that he/they recognized what made subjects of their decree necessary to affirm beyond that law as applicable to Christians. James’ expression duly noticed whence subjects of the decree most recently came, the Law of Moses. The question is what made them necessary in their opinion. Your interpretation resolves it as an accommodation for Jewish Christians (if I understand your conclusions). My understanding is of a broader application based upon that said to Noah to which all mankind was/is bound, including Christians.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law of Moses. Tell me, where does the Bible say anything about the Law to Noah being fulfilled?

Do you think that pre-Mosaic Law God had not already manifested that abstention from idolatry and fornication was ultimately necessary.

Friend

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***********Blood Transfusion

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]