>>>>>>>>>>>>

RON: RESPONSE 5

Marvin,

What follows is an in depth consideration of the arguments contained in your last response concerning the Scriptural prohibition against blood use. I do sincerely apologize for the delay. I will send it in 3 parts.

>[You wrote]: There are several misunderstandings in your replies of my views...In no particular order, here they are: 1. I do not assert that Jehovah gave Noah permission to use blood in any way. I only assert what I said before, that had Noah used blood for mundane uses he would not have been in violation of any STATED prohibition since the only STATED prohibition had to do with eating blood. Also, whether you like this or not, logic dictates that I maintain this view until the question is settled of whether the stated prohibition on eating blood was de facto prohibition on using blood in other ways.<

You have habitually distracted from the scriptural basis for recognizing that any use of blood was prohibited to mankind. Logic and correct spiritual thinking requires that we first, recognize the scriptural fact that there does not need to be a STATED prohibition before a trespass against God occurs. Second, we must acknowledge the fact that if there was no permission given then faithful humans had no right to use blood at all; the de facto prohibition is clearly discerned due to the sanctity of blood, it's being only God's and never being placed within mankind's dominion/prerogative. Third, you distract from the fact that everything in Scripture confirms this understanding: There is no record of Noah or any faithful human using blood for mundane purposes and no one ever used blood without express approval from God. Further laws all speak of a total abstinence from blood use for those who want to please God. All of these *scriptural* facts logically prove that using blood in other ways was prohibited. Only by failing to acknowledge, or distracting from, these facts can you persist in your position. Additionally, you have not shown here how I have presented any "misunderstanding of your views" in this.

>[MS]: 2. I do not presume that Noah used blood for anything prior to the Noachian Law of Genesis 9. I have only asserted that God's STATED requirements in the Noachian Law do not make uses other than eating blood an act of disobedience. Again, I know you dispute this latter statement so I will address it later in my reply.<

God's STATED law to Adam was not to "eat" fruit from the tree. Would touching or other uses of the fruit have been an act of disobedience? Eve's words to Satan show that Adam and Eve evidently concluded that this "made other uses an act of disobedience" (Gen.3:3). The similarity between the law to not eat the forbidden fruit and not eating blood has not been lost on Bible scholars. In both instances God placed authority into man's hands while limiting the permission to eat, retaining a specific portion for Himself. I think that in both cases logic and reason would demand the conclusion that there was a de facto prohibition against *any* use of what was retained by God.

>[MS]:4. Aspects of our discussion that seemed to me as irrelevant or that could be subjective and likely to add confusion I have not replied to details you offered precisely for that reason. An example has to do with blood transfusions between some unborn twins. I explained why I was leaving off an examination of such a perspective for the time being, but you seem to make an issue of this as though I am behaving illogically or dishonestly, or avoiding your views altogether. I do not understand this on your part.<

You presented DMT twins as evidence supporting your view. I presented objective facts as evidence showing that this could not be used to support your position since the cases were not parallel. It is only logical for me to point out that you failed to respond with any facts supporting your claims, thereby showing that you have no real evidence.

>[MS]: I simply feel it is best to come to a clearer picture of the Biblical view first, and thereafter look to creation for what we can learn on the subject, if anything. ... We should determine the objective and then look at the subjective to see what that teaches us about the objective. That is, the subjective might help us to extend our understanding of the objective, but the subjective cannot establish the objective.<

I have no disagreement with this view nor have my arguments given any reason to believe otherwise. My arguments are based on clear, objective Scripture statements. Any subjective reasoning was supported by objective facts and can be adjusted if further facts present themselves.

>[MS]: Your belief that medical transfusion of blood is ungodly is that you feel this is using blood in a way God did not give express permission for and we need express permission for specific uses of blood. Furthermore you contend an explicit prohibition on eating ANY blood and that medical transfusion is eating blood and therefore in direct contradiction of God's specific prohibition against eating blood. This means that for two reasons you feel blood transfusions are ungodly: 1) we do not have express permission to do it and 2) it falls under an express prohibition not to eat blood.<

As you go on to note in part, the reason I believe that medical transfusion of blood is prohibited is:

1) Because Jehovah explicitly commanded Christians to "abstain from" and "keep away from blood."

2) Because the stated reason for the prohibition was that God retained blood as sacred, belonging to Him, withholding it from human use. Since He placed it in such a sacred position, it would take His express permission to be used.

3) The specific use addressed with Noah was the willful eating of blood to sustain life. I have seen no logical way to avoid the conclusion that transfusions are in fact "eating" and thus fall under every explicit scriptural statement prohibiting its use.

4) Every Scriptural law and statement concerning the substance of blood confirms this understanding that blood itself was sacred, belonging only to God and this could be used only with his express approval.

>[MS]: Your conclusion that blood is sacred is built on the following premises:

1. Blood belongs to God.

2. Blood is life

3. The right to use blood is withheld from man.

I personally would add the word "only" to the first point and add the Scriptural fact that the *only* approved use of blood was in atonement sacrifice as a fourth evidence. But, I think that your points are a fair summation of what the whole of Scripture teaches regarding blood. The explicit prohibitions then soundly confirm the sacredness of blood.

>[MS]: The first premise (blood belongs to God) is irrelevant to our discussion because everything belongs to God yet He does not require that we have His express approval for specific uses of each of His specific creations. "To Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it, The productive land and those dwelling in it."-- Psalm 24:1<

It's not my premise that is irrelevant but your argument. You're speciously mixing a general statement of supreme ownership over things which God has explicitly placed within mankind's authority alongside a statement of prohibition and exclusive ownership by God. This tactic can only be described as frivolous. As usual with misinterpretations your view causes God's word to contradict itself.

Ge 1:29: "And God went on to say: "Here I have given to YOU all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth and every tree." (Cf. Gen.1:26; 2:16)

Ps.8:6-8 You make him dominate over the works of your hands; Everything you have put under his feet.

Psalm 115:16 "As regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong, But the earth he has given to the sons of men."

As with Satan's use of Scripture, your use here is simply a misuse of Scripture because it requires an ignorance of the substance of Scripture teaching and it wickedly distracts from God's words which deny your interpretation.

Scripture makes it undeniably clear that while Jehovah did place many things within man's relative jurisdiction, God did not relinquish His ownership of blood and that He viewed it as life, explicitly showing that it ONLY belonged to Him. This principle will continue to conclusively argue against your position until you can come up with even the slightest Scriptural indication that God ever placed blood within mankind's authority as he did other things.

>[MS]: The second premise (blood is life) would support a conclusion that blood is sacred insofar as it is representative of life. But this sanctity does not Scripturally establish that we need God express permission for uses beyond specifically stated prohibitions. On the question of whether one stated prohibition is de facto prohibition of other uses not specified, it is best to see if this agrees with other Biblical models. Two that come to mind are life and the Tree of Knowledge. Both are/were sacred and both have/had prohibitions on their use. Life is sacred, and each of us has life...Regardless of the sanctity of life, beyond specific prohibitions both of us are free to do things with life that we do not have God's express permission for...In the case of blood transfusion I do not contend we have God's approval for it but simply question whether we can prove it has God's disapproval, which means we could Scripturally shun Christians for accepting such.<

Your primary failure has always been in ignoring and distracting from the fact that *principles* are the controlling factor, not the "stated prohibitions." Prohibitions are only specific applications of principle. I have previously demonstrated the Scriptural fact that we do not need a "specific prohibition" before we understand that something is a sin against God. Therefore, your whole argument here is an irrelevant distraction. First because no one has claimed that "one prohibition causes other de facto prohibitions." And second, because blood transfusions are, in fact, a direct breaking of the prohibition against eating blood.

As with your above response, when God has placed sacred things within man's prerogative we do not need specifically expressed permission for each and every use as long as we remain within the God given principles governing their use. While The Life Principle (ZOE)is only in Jehovah's hands, He has placed in our control the relative use of our life (BIOS) to the extent allowed within His principles. (Ec.2:24; 3:10; 5:18-19). THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH BLOOD which Scripturally was never placed within man's prerogative. Quite the opposite, blood was specifically withheld. Scripture everywhere demonstrates that we do indeed need God's express permission to use blood for any purpose.

The two things you mention here are good examples to show that your argument is comparing unrelated things in order to support your view. God has given us the right to decide how to use our life, within the bounds of his principles. But, did God ever give Adam any control over the use of the Tree of Knowledge? As you yourself note below, Adam and Eve correctly understood the principle behind God's command because her interpretation was that she could not even "touch" the tree of knowledge (Gen.3:3). Similarly, we have been given relative control over our life yet we were given absolutely no control regarding blood. Both the tree of knowledge and blood was completely withheld from mankind's prerogative, thus it could not be used at all without express approval by God.

>[MS]: Life is sacred, and each of us has life...Regardless of the sanctity of life, beyond specific prohibitions both of us are free to do things with life that we do not have God's express permission for. For example, neither of us can fornicate without breaking God's will because fornication is specifically prohibited.<

The Scriptural evidence is that God has, to various extent, placed sacred things (earth, plants, animals & our lives) into the relative control of mankind. Principles govern to what extent we can use these. Our personal life was placed in our control since we were given free will. But blood is different: Scripture shows that He has never handed over even relative control of blood. On the other hand, you have absolutely no Scriptural support for your personal reasonings.

True to your pattern, you are ignoring the vital matter of Scriptural principles and as a result draw incorrect conclusions. You are absolutely wrong when you claim that "beyond specific prohibitions we are free to do things with life that we do not have God's express permission for." Was there a specific prohibition against fornication before the Mosaic Law? No. Yet, Joseph conclusively knew fornication was a sin against God because faithful humans "perceived" this law by knowing God's feelings demonstrated by His actions. Repeatedly Scripture demonstrates that God's peiple did not need a "specific prohibition" to discern infractions against God's will.

>[MS]: In the case of blood transfusion I do not contend we have God's approval for it but simply question whether we can prove it has God's disapproval, which means we could Scripturally shun Christians for accepting such.<

As demonstrated by this paragraph, your whole argument is one based on an "appeal of ignorance." This is the standard appeal for those who do not want to change their belief while at the same time they ignore clear scriptural evidence which *should* be enough proof.

The Scriptural commands: "do not eat blood" and "abstain from blood" are not hard to understand. The doctrine forbidding blood transfusions is strictly Scriptural and any trespass of this doctrine shows extreme disrespect for Christ's atoning blood as the only Scriptural use of blood by Christians. Being listed in the Apostolic decree alongside fornication and idolatry shows that a faithful Christian would shun any who break this law. Any view contrary to this is an act of apostasy from the true faith.

>[MS]: We also know that God himself taught His human creation to make use of animal parts when he constructed clothing out of animal skins for Adam and Eve. This was de facto permission to use animal parts and blood is an animal part.<

Your assertion of a de facto permission to use blood by pre-flood humans is purely speculative and flies in the face of all Scriptural evidence. Nor would it be relevant to God's people today since from the time of Noah we have God's clear prohibition explicitly enunciated as Law.

You have absolutely no Scriptural evidence that faithful pre-flood humans put blood to any use. Quite the opposite, from Adam's time they recognized the importance of blood as representing Life (Gen.4:10,11; 37:21-28; 42:21,22). There is no Scriptural record of any faithful human ever using blood for mundane purposes and no one ever used blood without express approval from God. Further laws all speak of a total abstinence from blood use for God's people. All of these scriptural facts logically prove that using blood in other ways was prohibited. Only by failing to acknowledge, or distracting from, these facts can you persist in your position.

>[MS]: The Tree of Knowledge was sacred in that Jehovah restricted Adam from eating (or touching) its fruit. Did that mean Adam needed God's express permission to sit under this tree and enjoy its shade? Could Adam have enjoyed this tree's fall color by looking upon it without God's express approval? Could Adam enjoy this tree's aroma without God's express approval? Had Adam done any of these would he have committed some sacrilegious act? The answer is, maybe yes and maybe no. Since none of us can read God's mind then insisting that any of these is sacrilegious would be judging a matter that rightfully belongs to God. These matters would be for each individual to decide and reap consequences at God's hands rather than any man's.<

Again, you ignore the fact that recognizing principles does allow us to know God's thinking to a necessary degree. We must keep in mind that, even without a specific prohibition, Adams' understanding that the specific command meant that they should not even "touch" the tree destroys your foundation argument that we would need a specific statement to extend the prohibition to other uses!! Controlling principles reveal God's views concerning other uses, as it did Adam here. Common sense and Godly fear would decide whether we should even sit under/near it at all. Similar to this are the measures we take to avoid even the temptation to commit fornication, theft & etc. IMO, I would need some strong indication that God wanted me to sit in its shade before I'd even approach it (like Him placing a chair under it!). Remember, Eve's trouble began when she simply admired its beauty (Gen.3:6).

Your argument here is good for showing the reason that we cannot demand a doctrinal prohibition concerning blood fractions, but it's completely irrelevant to the use of blood itself (or of making use of the Tree) since we have a specific command and principles prohibiting its actual use. The tree was beautiful and if God allowed the Tree to put off a beautiful smell that wafted through the garden, some could reasonably conclude that we had God's express approval to enjoy it. In that case no one could make a doctrine either for or against smelling or looking at it. It is similar with fractions since God has allowed blood fractions to pass between systems. But, there is *nothing* even hinting at God's approval when it comes to blood use itself!

>[MS]: So, assuming blood is sacred in that it 'is life,' this does not mean God expects us to understand prohibitions on its use beyond what He has specified Himself. That is, as long as our use of blood is not in violation of his requirements then we have not treated blood or, more importantly, God's will with impunity or sacrilegiously.<

Your view here is totally contrary to Scripture and is simply your personal, self-serving, deceptive, speculation. The many scriptural examples where humans were judged by their obedience to principles without stated laws resoundingly and conclusively disproves your view here. Scripture shows that God does expect us to use principles to understand unstated laws!!

Did Adam think he could even touch the tree since he had no "specific statement" prohibiting touching? Did Joseph think in this self-serving manner when he refused to commit fornication? Would he have earned God's approval if he insisted on a specific prohibition? Even without a specific prohibition, the wicked angels should have know that it was wrong to take on human form and marry humans based on their "natural state" (Jude 6). Without a "specific prohibition" the Israelites should have known better than to associate with the Midianites.

You distract from the fact that transfusions definitely are in violation of His stated requirements! In spite of your claim below, you do demand an explicit "thou shall not" before admitting any prohibition. Yet this idea is soundly refuted by the nature of principles and Scripture examples. Clear Scriptural principles and statements revealing God's views are enough to create a prohibition without it being spelled out in written detail. God expects humans to use their God given intelligence to perceive what God's standards are.

>[MS]: Your third premise (The right to use blood is withheld from man) would prove your conclusion that medical transfusion is ungodly, if is it true. As far as the Noachian Law is concerned, a person might feel your premise is intimated there yet they could conclude otherwise too. Why? The context of the Noachian prohibition on eating blood does not support your blanket assertion here because the prohibition was on eating and the only eating offered to Noah in the context of the Noachian Law was that of living animals he could kill for food. That is, the context does not discuss eating of animals that had died of themselves and therefore would not require slaughtering. This leaves open the possibility that the Noachian prohibition against eating blood was only applicable to animals killed for food. If we concluded this based on solely on the Noachian Law then we would be reading a conclusion into the text. It can only be concluded from independent confirmation (i.e., another text that addresses it).<

In this whole paragraph you have simply distracted from the actual context. It is obvious that the point of the context is that, just as God previously did plants, He now placed living animals completely "into man's hand," but specifically withheld any such prerogative for blood. Every point you raise is soundly refuted by the context and proved to be personal speculation.

But, we have been over this before. First, while you wish to focus on the specific prohibition you completely ignore the Governing principle in the context-the *reason*-behind the prohibition. Yes, the specified law was not to eat blood but the stated reason was that while living animals were given to humans the blood was withheld, it represented Life and so belonged exclusively to God. This principle applies to all blood, not just to blood of killed animals. You must distract from this point or your position falls. This is the context and it does in fact support a blanket prohibition on using blood without Jehovah's express approval.

Secondly, your claim that "the context of the Noachian prohibition was only on eating blood of animals men could kill" is incorrect and misleading. There is no such limitation in the context. I previously pointed out that throughout history many interpreters understood these words to mean eating an animal while alive! The prohibition obviously applied to blood from killed animals, but as worded the command itself would also apply to eating blood from living animals. This is the conclusion demanded by the governing principle. The context also included human blood. The very same principle applied to human blood showing that it also was sacred i.e., withheld from man's prerogative. The blood was the soul in both man and animals while LIVING. Therefore, the context shows that *all* blood belonged to God only and could not be used without express approval!!

The soul-the blood was only God's and the power to determine its use was retained as His only. Therefore, contextually, any use of blood by humans outside of God's expressed approval was unacceptable, whether it came from an animal killed for food or removed from a living one.

You properly point out that we need to confirm our interpretation from additional Scriptural evidence. The complete witness of Scripture conclusively proves our position to be correct. There is absolutely no record that Noah's descendants ever felt they could unilaterally use blood in other ways. The Mosaic Code only continued the Noachian ban and explicitly confirmed the extent of the ban as meaning total non-use of *any* blood without God's express approval. Then the Apostolic Decree not only reflects, but seemingly "intensifies" both the previous mandates for those outside the Mosaic Law. Rather than an explicit association with "food," it stresses the sacredness by requiring a complete unqualified "abstaining." Therefore, *every* Scriptural statement indicates that all blood was sacred and not given to man to use as he saw fit. No faithful human ever used blood without an express approval from God. This is the testimony of Scripture. You must continue to improperly parse the Scriptures in order to avoid their united testimony against the use of blood without God's express permission.

Any conclusion which says that transfusions are permitted would certainly have to ignore the overwhelming testimony of Scripture context. Everything in Scripture testifies to the fact that your conclusion is unscriptural, based only on *your* speculation. Without evidence of the express approval of God for a particular use you are clearly acting on your own opinion.

>[MS]: Also, the only "withholding" spoken of has to do with eating...a prohibition on EATING is not a blanket prohibition on USING. The only explicit withholding had to do with eating. It is an assumption to read more into the Noachian Law.<

Again, you are distracting from the point and improperly focusing attention on the specific prohibition only. I never claimed that the "prohibition against eating" caused a blanket ban on using. What causes the prohibition on using blood is the governing principle and the fact that blood was not placed into man's hand as contrasted with the giving of all *living* animals into man's control.

It is clear that while LIVING, all animals were placed "in man's hand"--to be used as he wished. Yet blood was expressly removed from this prerogative, it was retained as sacred, belonging ONLY to God. There is no way we can logically omit any blood from this exclusive sanctity whether from living, dead or killed souls.

To help us see whether the "withholding" principle was a "blanket prohibition" we can look at the contiguous principle--what was covered in God "giving" animals into man's hand? Reason and scripture usage tells us that this principle went beyond the explicit permission to "eat." Humans now had the total right or prerogative to and use animals at their discretion. Humans no longer needed express permission for any particular use of animals (fertilizer, dog food, bait & etc.). It would be foolish to say that this "giving" ONLY covered "eating" flesh and that humans could not do anything but eat animal flesh once they killed it. It is just as unreasonable to claim that the "withholding" of blood only covered "eating." It was a blanket "giving" of animals into man's hand and it is similarly a blanket "withholding" of the blood from man's hands. Blood could not be used for any reason not expressly approved by God since it remained His exclusively.

>[MS]: This raises the question of whether anything else in the Bible indicates God's prohibition to Noah was limited to eating blood taking from killing animals for food. Several times you too request for Biblical evidence that God anywhere approved of using blood for non-sacrificial purposes. The text is Deuteronomy 14:21 "...."

I think that we must keep in focus that the issue is whether man was given the *right* or prerogative to use blood in any way he chose without God's express approval. It is NOT just finding an example of where blood was used with God's permission, especially an example involving mitigating circumstances.

You also must be forgetting that this Scripture destroys your argument since it proves that the prohibition was not limited to animals killed for food! This Scripture explicitly states that faithful followers of Jehovah could NOT eat flesh from unbled animals which had died on their own: "You shall not eat anything that dies of itself." This applied to all humans who wished to worship Jehovah as confirmed by the Apostolic decree! This is evidence that the Noachian prohibition included blood from animals which had died on their own.

On the other hand, your example has no relevancy in determining the extent of the Noachian mandate since it is clearly an *exception* due to extenuating circumstances. This exception can only be applied to the situation under the Mosaic system where God was dealing with people associated with only one nation!

>[MS]: Since our discussion is about God's will and WHAT HE holds as sacred versus sacrilegious regarding blood, the text of Deuteronomy 14:21 is significant because it prohibits Israelites and proselytes from eating unbled flesh of animals that died of themselves yet it provides this same unbled flesh EXPRESSLY for food to those outside requirements of the Mosaic Law. These animals had not been killed and they held their full measure of blood. Since 1) God has never ended the Noachian Law and 2) since the Noachian Law is God's standard and 3) since that law is applicable to all mankind then these whom God provided unbled animal carcasses to were those who were, in His eyes, still under the Noachian Law though they were not under the Mosaic Law. Unless we can successfully argue that God was intentionally aiding and abetting WHAT HE considered a sacrilegious act (eating an unbled animal carcass that died of itself) then we must accept that, in God's eyes, eating this flesh was 1) not a sacrilegious act TO HIM nor 2) was it a sacrilegious act for those He only held accountable to the Noachian Law....it stands as confirmation that the Noachian Law was not intended to prohibit the use (or eating) of blood aside from eating the blood of animals killed for food.<

In your final conclusion you commit a logical fallacy (False Dilemma) because you ignore a different and Scriptural conclusion. Both parts of your conclusion are in error because you ignore explicit teaching of Scripture and fail to view Scripture as harmonious on its blood prohibitions.

1. If it were not a sacrilegious act He wouldn't have commanded His worshipers not to eat it. 2. Explicit Scripture makes it clear that the prohibition against eating any blood applied to all who wanted to please God whether they were under the Noachian or Mosaic Laws.

It is clear that, under the Mosaic Law, Jehovah did approve of his servants providing unbled meat to unbelievers to eat *when it was impossible to carry out sacred law* since the blood could not be removed. He manifestly did not view this selling as a breach of blood's sanctity on the part of His people. But, you must make an unsupported logical assumption to claim that this exception meant eating blood was not a sacrilegious act in God's view or permitted for *worshipers* outside the Mosaic Law. Nor does it show that God *approved* of non-believers profane practices.

First, as already covered, the immediate context clearly shows that God did view the eating of this unbled flesh as sacrilege since He forbade His people from eating it! Every mention, including this one, of eating unbled flesh shows that it makes the individual unclean and unholy in God's sight (Lev.17:15; 22:8; Ezek.4:14). Only those viewed by God and his people as on the level of "dogs" would eat unbled meat (Ex.22:31). You cannot make any claim that God did not view this as as sacrilegious without totally ignoring God's own statements in the immediate context.

When God gave permission to sell unbled flesh for non-believers to eat there was no lessening of blood's sacredness. Similarly, when God gave permission for humans to shed a murderer's blood there was no lessening of blood's sacredness (Gen.9:5). These are just cases where the circumstances dictate an exception to sacred law. Jehovah showed consideration to his servants in allowing unclean meat to be put to use by selling it to those who had no clean standing with Jehovah nor moral compunction regarding blood. This tells us nothing different regarding Jehovah's view of blood as sacred.

In reality, this is no different than God *providing* animal flesh to humans to eat knowing full well that, even when bled, significant amounts of blood remain and is eaten. Would it be reasonable to draw the conclusion that God was either "aiding humans to do WHAT HE considered a sacrilegious act" or that purposely eating coagulated blood was "not a sacrilegious act?" No, because Jehovah has given explicit commands stating otherwise. Being concerned with non-believers eating blood would be improperly viewing the prohibition as a dietary one rather than a moral one required of anyone desiring communion with God.

As for your second conclusion, Scripture denies your claim that the prohibition against eating unkilled carcasses did not apply to those under the Noachian Law. You ignore the Scriptural fact that the Apostolic Decree expressly referred to the Mosaic Law in extending the prohibition on blood as applicable to all faithful mankind (Ac.15:21). In turn, the Mosaic Law had simply continued the same command found in the Noachian and based on the same exact principle! This shows that when it came to abstaining from blood God did not require more from those under the Mosaic Law than He did in the Noachian code. Rather, it proves that He did consider it sacrilegious for worshipers outside the Mosaic Law to even eat meat from animals which died on their own. It would remove them from communion with God.

Additionally, before any foreigner could be acceptable to God they had to avoid eating any blood at all including unbled meat from an animal which had died on its own (Lev.17:8ff). This shows that Jehovah did not accept as worshipers any who did not avoid blood and that this unclean meat was being sold to non-believers, not to believers who were only under the Noachian code.

The Scriptural conclusion would actually look like this: 1.) As confirmed especially by the Apostolic Decree, eating any unbled flesh would be sacrilege for anyone, whether under the Mosaic Law or the Noachian. 3.) When an animal died on its own, and it was impossible to remove the blood, Jehovah did not view it as a sacrilegious act for believers to dispose of the carcass by selling the unbled flesh to non-believers to eat. 3.) He did not concern Himself with the profane practices of those already excluded from His communion.

Ultimately, God's providing unbled meat to unbelievers has absolutely no relevancy to whether faithful individuals could accept a blood transfusion. No faithful worshiper of Jehovah was ever allowed to purposely eat any blood whatsoever whether they were under the Mosaic Law or not.

>[MS]: Your previous comments on the relevance of Deuteronomy 14:21 do not address the fact that this is an unsolicited act on God's part and that He is the one providing expressly for SOMEONE (people) to eat unbled flesh...a unilateral and intentional provision from Jehovah to persons outside what he required under the Mosaic Law...this ACT OF GOD refutes the idea that GOD prohibited the use (or EATING!) of blood when it came from an animal that had not been slaughtered.<

Your argument fails on many points because you misrepresent the context as well as the congruent teaching of Scripture. You first commit a logical fallacy here in jumping from the situation where, through accident, blood could not be removed from an approved substance to the situation of purposely eating blood itself. This is the same as drawing the illogical conclusion that we could purposely eat coagulated blood just because God made the provision that we could eat meat with unremovable blood in it.

Similarly, you take a speculative and unscriptural jump when you assert that this means that the Noachian law excluded the eating of unbled animals which had not been killed. There is no discernible connection between this allowance and the extent of the Noachian prohibition. As previously enunciated, EVERY mention of blood in Scripture shows that it was only used with express permission from God and thus argues against your view!

Even this Scripture further argues against your contention: If it had been previously understood by Noah's faithful descendants that eating unbled flesh was OK then there would have been no need for God to express this exception to those now under the Moasaic Law. The very presence of this exception demonstrates that faithful individuals knew there was no previous precedent for selling any unbled meat to anyone!

The Scriptures I previously provided showing that God "unilaterally and intentionally" "permits" unbelievers to go their own *wicked* way without His interruption did explain, in part, why God would let his people provide animals which had died on their own to non-believers to eat. (Ac.14:16; 17:30; Rom.3:25; 9:22; Eph.4:18) The simple reason is that God "overlooked" and "permitted" these non-believers to continue in their profane course. This in no way implies that God "approved" of their course!

Similarly, God's "provision" in Deut. 14 is not an approval by God to eat blood. God commands Christians to pay their taxes knowing full well that it will be use for disgusting purposes like warfare. This is a "unilateral and intentional provision from Jehovah." Does this mean Jehovah approves of warfare today? Like your argument, that would be an unreasonable conclusion that could only be maintained by ignoring clear statements of Scripture.

Jehovah, "unilaterally and intentionally" provided flesh to humans to eat, which always contained some unremovable blood. Did this mean that God did not consider blood to be sacred? Or that it wasn't sacrilege to intentionally eat blood? We could, IF we ignored God's own explicit words on the matter.

Jesus "expressly" commanded Peter to pay the head tax which was designed to promote Roman cults and pagan temples. Was Jesus "aiding and abetting" idolatry? Was he telling us that idolatry was not a sacrilegious act? Or does it just mean that he recognized that Jehovah was unconcerned with non-believers' actions since they were alienated from Him anyway?

Jesus continued to "unilaterally and intentionally" give Judas the contribution even though he knew Judas was using the money wrongly. Does this mean that Jesus was lessening the importance of the money? Or just that he felt it was not time to act? (Jn.6:64).

God continues to willingly provide the sunshine and food for wicked humanity knowing full well they will use them to profane His standards. While this is not a direct parallel to a specific provision, the same reasoning is present. Could we conclude that this means God doesn't really think there is anything wrong with what they are doing with his provisions? Ridiculous argument! God overlooks the actions of those acting outside His laws but will still hold them accountable for how they used His provisions.

Your argument here also continues to depend on your personal opinion that *acceptable worshipers* could be found outside of the Mosaic code who would be eating this unbled flesh with God's approval. I have already shown this view to be unscriptural (2Ki.5:15; Zec.8:23; De.4:7,8; Isa.45:14; 56:6,7). Therefore your use of this scripture has absolutely no bearing on the propriety of Christians accepting transfusions.

>[MS]: I would assert that outside explicit and very clear evidence to the contrary we should always assume that God ALWAYS treats sacred things as he would have us treat them. That is, regardless of how other people may act or what they may believe, we should always assume God has acted as he would have us act. This is what makes the text of Deuteronomy 14:21 important.<

I would entirely agree with you here. God's actions constitute express will. God's actions here, first show that those who wanted to be true worshipers would not eat blood even when, through no fault, it was impossible to remove properly. The only parallel between this verse the Noachian mandate is that true worshipers would not eat blood at all.

Secondly, in the circumstance where blood could not be removed from an approved substance He has made an exception. His worshipers could sell the tainted substance to those outside of his communion to eat without his intervention.

However, I see very little parallel between this case and blood transfusions nor do I see any relevancy in the principle behind this allowance. How does this exception apply to any purposeful eating of blood itself by a righteous individual? One is the direct eating (or use) of blood itself and the other is eating of an approved food which inadvertently includes the blood. One is where the donor died and blood could not be removed, and the other is the intentional use of blood itself. One has to do with righteous individuals' willing use and the other explicitly applies to use by "foreigners," those outside of communion with god.

The principle behind this exception can certainly find some application in various situations today such as bone morrow transplants and serums. However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find any excuse or allowance for a faithful individual accepting a blood transfusion in this Scripture. This case is irrelevant to the question of accepting blood transfusions, unless we accept your unscriptural personal speculations regarding who are acceptable worshipers. Or your unsupported assertion that this allowance under the Mosaic Law is to be used to explain the extent of the Noachian mandate.

>[MS]: Finally, in your answers to me you have not defended what we teach on the subject of blood; you have defended your personal views, which I am not too concerned about.<

Ridiculous! You're really grasping at straws with these next arguments and wasting my time. My "personal views" are in complete agreement with Witness teachings and everything I have presented clearly supports Witness teachings.

>[MS]: For example, 1. Your assertion that we must have God's express permission for uses of blood aside from sacrificial condemns what we teach as false because our policy on blood allows us to accept certain uses of blood without God's express approval. When our blood is removed for medical testing this is a use of blood that God has not given express promotion for.<

Nonsense! My argument condemns no teaching of the WTS. You confuse the idea of "allowing" with the idea of "approving." Perhaps you do this intentionally since you obviously cannot find any *Scriptural* evidence which speaks against our *doctrine*. The WTS takes no doctrinal stand, pro or con, on the appropriateness of allowing blood to be tested. They leave it entirely up to personal conscience since there is nothing in the Scriptures which definitely precludes the examining of blood properties before discarding. (w10/15/00; 30,31, w2/1/97; 29, w6/15/78; 30).

Most Witnesses personally do not view examining or studying blood and then discarding it as a violation of God's law. This may depend on how strict a definition of "use" we apply, but, there is no material using up or consumption of the substance itself. In fact, the natural process set up by Jehovah in the passing of fractions from mother to fetus must involve some biological analysis and manipulation. Is it a violation of blood's sanctity to examine an animal's blood for disease before eating the flesh? Is the study of the wonderful properties of blood a "use" of blood which shows a lack of respect for the sanctity of blood? Is there a clear violation of principles regarding the sanctity of blood here? I'm not in the position to be so hyper-critical, so I'm happy to let that decision be between you and Jehovah. And the WTS feels the same way. Either way you decide, it has no bearing on the appropriateness of eating blood by injecting it into another person which is directly prohibited by Scriptural principle and Law.

>[MS]: The act of taking blood, fractionating it into red cells, plasma, etc and then fractionating it again into lesser components like hemoglobin is all using blood. Our use of byproducts of all this manipulation of blood is supporting a use of blood that does not have God's express approval.<

We have been over this before. The fact that in creation Jehovah naturally allows blood to be manipulated, fractionated and passed to another individual's blood stream gives some individuals all the express approval needed to accept fractions derived from this use of blood. While most Witnesses have followed God's actions such as at De.14:21 and "overlooked" non-believers use of blood to make fractions, most have refused to intentionally allow their own blood to be used to this extent. Though again, the WTS leaves this completely up to the individual.

>[MS]: 2. When you object that I am "assuming the Mosaic Law contained "higher requirements" regarding blood" you are not objecting to me; you are objecting to our publication that says, "People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3,4, but those under the [Mosaic] Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (it-1 345 Blood; bracketed word added for clarification)<

Your tactic of trying to invent some dichotomy between what I have proven and the teaching of Witnesses is simply a distraction from the facts. As you do with the Scriptures, you here ignore the context of the Insight book and instead force your view into the text. First, as can be seen even from your partial quote, it was not speaking of a different standard between *true worshipers* under the Mosaic Law and *true worshipers* under the Noachian mandate. The "higher standard" spoken of was explicitly for "true worshipers" as opposed to that for those who were "NOT worshipers of Jehovah."

Second, the "higher standard" was not the difference between requirements of the Mosaic Law and requirements of the Noachian mandate concerning blood but, rather, a difference in the "standard of adhering" to the SAME requirement. All humans are bound by the same requirement of "abstaining from blood." All true worshipers are held to the same high standard of adhering to that requirement. The point in the Insight book was that God did not directly enforce His requirements on the unbelieving nations like he now did with believers under the Mosaic Law. The context was speaking of God enforcing the *death sentence* for those under the Mosaic Law while He ignored the violations of those outside His communion. It had nothing to do with a "higher" requirement regarding blood's sanctity.

Contrary to your contrived dichotomy, this is exactly what I have shown the Scriptures to teach: Jehovah has permitted non-believers to continue in their profane course without His intervention, while true worshipers are held to a "higher standard" of obedience. Jehovah always held true worshipers immediately accountable, but in the case of the Mosaic Law they were subject to death. At the same time He did not hold non-believers immediately accountable, "overlooking" their profane use of blood. Your distractions and twisting of research material displays an increasing desperation as you see your arguments proven invalid or irrelevant.

>[MS]: This sentence makes it a legitimate question to ask: Does God require Christians to abstain from blood to the extent he expected of Noah and the nations of people that descended from him or does He require Christians to abstain from blood to the EXTENT that He required under a Law that His son's death abolished?<

Because you have misunderstood the sentence and the Scriptures your question is nonsensical in this context.

This is like asking: "Does God expect Christians to abstain from fornication to the extent he required of Joseph (or Noah) or to the extent required under the Mosaic Law?"

But, again, God himself gave us the answer. You just choose to ignore the clear Scriptural answer. God's Law for Christians is the unequivocal: "Abstain from blood!" And "Keep from blood!" To make sure that Christians understood the EXTENT required, the Apostolic Decree explicitly referred to the Mosaic code as explaining its application (Ac.15:20,21). In turn, the Mosaic Law was based on the same exact principle found in the Noachian mandate.

Even though there are no explicitly stated pre-Mosaic laws against fornication and idolatry, is there really any doubt as to the extent of the commands against fornication and idolatry? No, because we can examine how the original principle was applied under the Mosaic Law. As Paul said, the Law made it clear what was a violation of God's standards. Likewise, the Mosaic Law makes it clear to all true worshipers that accepting a blood transfusion is a direct violation of not only the explicit law not to eat blood but also the underlying principles.

>[MS]: The absurdity of your claims about whether, for instance, hemoglobin is food versus a red cell was to the extent that I did not and do not see an need to address it with any detail. The fact of the matter is that our digestive tract does not see hemoglobin or red cells; it sees protein, which is made up primarily of amino acids. The digestive system breaks proteins down into their individual amino acids. These are absorbed into the blood and carried to the cells of your body where they are reassembled into whatever protein is needed. Since the digestive tract does not discriminate between red cells and hemoglobin. Both are dealt with as protein, which means both are digested as protein.<

Yes, after re-examining my information and gathering more detailed facts I must concede that you are correct here. While there are studies which show that ingested blood proteins and even some whole plant and animal proteins can be absorbed whole, blood proteins lose their protection from being digested if found outside the blood stream. Some, if not the majority, would be catabolized in the GI track. It would be nice to find some proven scientific definition which helps us to understand why God excluded fractions from the blood prohibition. But, it is definitely impossible at this point to find a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes "food" which aligns with God's demarcation.

My argument concerning "food" was not offered as the basis for our excluding fractions from our doctrine. As I originally stated, this argument is unneeded as a support for our doctrine, nor does it affect our position on fractions. We can only rely on what Jehovah has stated in Scripture and note His creative use to discern what might be excluded from the prohibition not to "eat" or what must be "abstained" from. While it is clear that God prohibited the use of blood, it is also undeniable that God has allowed fractions to pass from one blood system to another. Therefore, this knowledge demands that we adjust our doctrine, leaving the use of fractions up to personal conscience. Yet, there is no similar excuse for any use of the primary components of blood.

On the other hand, anyone who recognizes that blood fractions are food cannot reasonably argue against our doctrine which holds that transfusions of blood are a violation of God's law against eating blood. Recognizing fractions as "food" and accepting *only* what Scripture states could only mean that we would have to abstain from fractions also. As I pointed out at the beginning of our conversation, any argument against our allowance of fractions only further destroys your position advocating transfusions.

>[MS]: Frankly, this entire aspect of our discussion is absurd for the reason that your logic, for example, that red cells is food but hemoglobin is not would mean that it is okay for us to buy and eat pudding made from blood that had first been fractionated into parts other than red cells, white cells, plasma and platelets but then stirred back together as a goulash of hemoglobin, protein membranes etc! The idea is too absurd on the face to merit serious discussion. Had Eve remained obedient to God and later one of her offspring had rebelled by cutting a limb off the Tree of Knowledge and took to separating it into minute fractions, had he offered these fractionated forms to Eve and she ate them in their fractionated state, would she have been faithful to God? Would she have been eating something FROM the Tree of Knowledge?<

What is absurd is your Strawman argument here. First, neither my argument nor my logic ever came close to sanctioning the separation and then recombining of blood fractions. Your concept would obviously be a sidestepping of God's command. This type of circumvention would better apply to your own logic which demands the view that since God didn't explicitly deny it, it must be OK. If you want to argue with God that His logic in allowing multiple blood fractions to pass to another human meant we could circumvent His Law by separating and recombining blood parts, go ahead. But, that's not my argument.

Second, your argument is a Strawman because it does not present the real reason that we allow the use of fractions. You must continue to distract from the fact that our view is based on what God Himself has expressed in His creation. You must distract from the fact that excluding fractions from the prohibition is not *our* own arbitrary idea. It is God's demarcation (my definition of food was only a possible explanation for this). Therefore, you can offer no valid argument against our view on fractions.

Your example of Eve and fractionated parts of the Tree is therefore invalid and absurd. God never allowed anyone to eat of any part of the Tree as He did with fractions. If He had then we would have had to accept that as an expression of approval by God. But, if this were the case, and we consequently excluded such fractions of that tree from our doctrinal prohibition, it certainly would be unreasonable to claim that our resultant view promoted the separating then reassembling and eating the fruit itself.

>[MS]: As for who God accepts, I know God accepted the worship Noah offered. Noah offered to God what is described at Acts 10:34 and 35 where Peter is recorded saying, "For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." Noah feared God and acted in accordance to what God required of him. He was righteous, which means he was acceptable to God. God has not changed. For this reason persons whom God held to the same standards He required of Noah were likewise acceptable as long as they acted as Noah did.<

Certainly. Noah, all other patriarchs and their offspring who truly "feared God" and "worked righteousness" by obeying Jehovah's commands and living in accord with His righteous principles were acceptable worshipers. However, in this account, "for the first time" since the inception of Israel, Jehovah "took notice" of these descendants of Noah and invited them to learn His righteous requirements and become acceptable worshipers without having to first come under the Mosaic arrangement (Ac.15:7,14 NEB, NWT, RSV; Ac.11:1,18; Rom.1:5-6; 5:11, Cf. Ac.13:46-48; Eph.2:11-12,19). However, these Gentiles would still only be acceptable as worshipers through association with God's people; now the Christian arrangement. The requirement to avoid blood use never changed. If you admit that the requirement for these Gentile believers was the same as given to Noah then you can only concede that the mandate to Noah meant a total "abstention from blood" as averred in Moses' writings! (Ac.15:20,21). The only thing regarding blood use that was abolished by Christ's death was the literal sacrifices being replaced eternally by Christ's blood.

>[MS]: Some of these descendants of Noah may never have had any knowledge of Moses or Israel so they never had an opportunity to choose to put themselves under its higher requirements, the ones Jesus' death later abolished. They could have been living in what we call today North America. I have no reason to believe that these descendants of Noah we[re] unacceptable to God if they acted as Noah did. Do you?<

You have a bad habit of ignoring the context of Scripture and twisting it to fit your view. Acts 10:34ff actually disproves the viewpoint you are attempting to use it to support. This Scripture does not say that during the time of the Mosaic arrangement, descendants of Noah could be acceptable as true worshipers without association with Israel. To the contrary, it is pointing out that "for the *first* time" God "turned his attention to" the gentiles. For the *first time* gentiles could be accepted as true worshipers without having to be part of the Mosaic covenant. It does not support any idea that people could be accepted as true worshipers without associating with God's people. This account shows that they had to be taught by and be associated with the Christian arrangement which now replaced the Mosaic. For those outside of contact with the Christian arrangement God continued to permit them to go their own way without His interference or judgement, until the good news reached them or the resurrection (Ac.17:30). God's provision for those without contact with his covenant people is the resurrection (Ac.24:15; Lk.23:43).

But, you ignore the Scriptural requirements for anyone to become a true worshiper as made clear in Scripture and this account. God gave His universal requirements to Noah as His channel of communication, and all his posterity would be acceptable as long as they were obedient to that mandate. But, according to Scripture, anyone who by design or ignorance departed from true worship was "permitted" to go their own way (Acts 14:16; 17:30; Rom.3:25; 9:22; 2Cor.5:19; Eph.4:18; Josh.24:2). The facts show that no one outside of God's covenant people held to the same standards as Noah did. So your "if" clause is pure speculation.

According to Scriptural teaching, the requirements enunciated to Noah for true worshipers were passed ONLY to Israel, they were the ONLY ones entrusted with God's communications and worship (Rom.3:2; 9:4; Ps.147:20; De.4:7,8; 29:29; 2Ki 5:15; Ac.10:45). Only through attachment with God's covenant people could others become acceptable worshipers "like Noah" (2Chron.6:32,33; Jn.4:22; Ru:1:15,16; Gen:22:18; Ex:19:6; Zec:8.23; Isa.45:14; 55:3,6,7; Ac.8.27). During the Mosaic arrangement Gentiles were left in "darkness," "ignorance" and "alienated" from true worship (Isa.42:7; 49:6; Lk.2:32; Ac.26:18; Rom.2:19; 11:30; Eph.2:11-12,19; 4:17-18; 1Pet.2:9,10).

Likewise, from 36 C.E. on, the ONLY way for "nations" to be blessed as acceptable to Jehovah would be through association with spiritual Israel--true Christians (1Cor.4:1; 2Co 5:18,19; Mat.28:19,20; Eph 2:19; 3:10; 1Pet.2:9; Ac.11:13-14; 13:46-48; 15:7; 26:18; Rom.1:5-6).

There is absolutely no record that God accepted anyone as worshipers outside of the Mosaic (or Christian) arrangement. This is a purely unscriptural, self-serving speculation on your part!

>[MS]: My consideration of our subject of blood and what God requires centers on whether there is sound Scriptural evidence to impose our view on pain of shunning. Since we teach a prohibition then I am looking for proof of a prohibition such as the one we teach.<

The requirement for all true Christian worshipers is to "abstain" and "keep themselves" from blood (Ac.15:20; 21:25). This alone is enough Scriptural evidence to show that any Christian who accepts a blood transfusion has removed himself from obedience to God and communion with true worshipers. He is not acceptable as a Christian worshiper. But we have more scriptural evidence. This Apostolic Decree was explicitly stated to be based on and explained by the Mosaic writings (Ac.15:21). These Scriptures clearly show that "abstaining from blood" meant that "no sort of blood" was to be eaten by faithful worshipers, but could only be poured out as sacred to Jehovah (Gen.4:8 Lev.17:10; De.12:23). This unity of Scripture is absolute Scriptural proof that taking blood into one's body is a violation of God's law for Christians.

On the other hand, you have presented no valid Scriptural evidence whatsoever which mitigates our Scriptural doctrine. Instead, you have consistently twisted, ignored, distracted from and misrepresented Scripture context in order to support your personal speculations and opinions.

>[MS]: Addressing and offering potential extensions of God's STATED requirements as though they may provide some guiding principle that each one should consider would also be appropriate. On the other hand, imposing UNSTATED prohibitions with the same force as we would impose STATED prohibitions is going beyond what is WRITTEN.<

Concerning the use of blood, I have presented ONLY one unstated "guiding principle." That is the use of fractions from the testimony of God's creative works. Responding to this "extension," we have done just as you state here: we do not impose a doctrinal stand on the propriety of using or obtaining fractions. Nor do we impose doctrine on modern scientific methods like testing of blood where there is no definite violation of blood's sanctity or consumption thereof.

On the other hand, the Scriptural principles governing the prohibition against blood use are clearly and explicitly STATED, RESTATED and WRITTEN. I have proven that these principles in the scriptures made God's requirements clear even when specific laws were not explicitly stated. According to God's Word, these UNSTATED prohibitions based on STATED principles were binding on God's servants. The penalty, stated by God Himself, for breaking the UNSTATED prohibitions demanded by these STATED principles was death. (Ge 4:8,9,14; 39:9; Ge 13:13; 18:20; 20:2-7; 38:24; 39:9; Rom.1:26,27; Jude 14,15; Mt.19:3-9; 1Jn.3:11,12) Our doctrine is strictly based on what is WRITTEN in Scripture. But, you must completely ignore these Scriptural facts and principles in order to maintain your position (1Cor.2:14-16).

"Not being guided by divine principles, he cannot judge matters correctly, cannot see the issues clearly, or evaluate the factors involved and arrive at right decisions. Pro.28:5" --it,2; 1139

>[MS]: And, please, don't do on with complaints about me requiring specific "thou shall not" for every possible sin! You know perfectly well that is neither my position nor my inclination!<

To the contrary, it is obvious that this would be the ultimate result of your reasoning. We already have a total prohibition made clear by stated principles in the Noachian, Mosaic and Apostolic laws! You must try in every way to circumvent these clear mandates. Your deceptive logic demands that we must have an explicit and specific prohibition mentioning transfusions before you would admit it. You must ignore all sound logic, reason, scientific fact and medical descriptions in your assertion that IV transfusion is not really a violation of the explicit law against "eating."

>[MS]: Regarding your summary points: You assert a failure to counter the following the numbered items. My comments follow each one:<

>>[RR]: 1.) That blood is equated with life and thus incontestably sacred. Life is in the blood *while in living animals.* It doesn't become sacred due to the animal being killed.<<

>[MS]: Life to is sacred, but that does not mean we must have EXPRESS permission to use it from day to day as we see fit. We must only make sure to abide by what God prohibits us from using our life for and also make sure we use our life in ways he mandates. Otherwise we do not need his EXPRESS permission to use life for specific things from day to day as though otherwise we are somehow rebelling against some unwritten principle based on the sanctity of life.<

You have not answered to the point. You distract from *blood* to the dissimilar matter of just living our life which God has clearly given us relative authority over. You distract from the fact that God never gave any such prerogative regarding blood. You ignore the clearly STATED and WRITTEN principle in Scripture that blood is sacred as life and belongs ONLY to God. You ignore scriptures clearly showing that we cannot use blood without God's express permission. You fail to see that your very argument here would deny blood transfusion. God has "prohibited us from" eating blood. Whether you place a nutrient in your mouth or directly into your vein, it is still eating and thus a violation of God's law.

>>[RR]: 2.) While God gave animals into man's hand as food, He retained blood of living creatures as His alone. Again, indisputably sacred.<<

>[MS]: Though animals are living and though God has always held life sacred, there is no indication that God felt it ungodly that humans kill animals or use the body parts of animals. Abel killed animals without God's express permission, and God himself gave de facto permission to use animal parts by providing animal skin clothing to Adam and Eve. As for blood, a prohibition against eating blood cannot be extended to ANY use of blood anymore than either of us could logically assert that Adam and Eve would have acted sacrilegiously had they enjoyed shade provided from a Tree they were prohibited from EATING from.<

Again, you have not answered to the point. You distract from *blood* which was explicitly withheld from mankind to other body parts which God clearly gave mankind relative authority over. You distract with a Strawman: my argument was that blood was withheld from mans prerogative, NOT that the "prohibition against eating extends the prohibition" against other uses. You ignore *Scriptural* reasoning clearly showing that God's servants knew that the principle behind not "eating" from the tree meant you could not "touch" either. Instead, you again assert your own reasoning as fact.

Your failure to address these basic and clear teachings in the Noachian Mandate demonstrates that your whole argument is based on an ignoring of, and distraction from, Scriptural teachings and a reliance on your own personal supposition.

>>[RR]: 3.) The very same texts show that human blood was viewed by God as even more sacred.<<

>[MS]: More sacred? You should reconsider this before I comment. Certainly God expects obedience regardless of the object of His expressed will. The question is, what is God's will regarding donor blood for transfusion and whether we can prove that Scripturally. I am not trying to say one sacred thing is more of less sacred than any other. Either God prohibits donor blood for medical transfusion or he does not or we cannot prove either.<

Again, you have not answered to the point but simply distract with some convoluted and barely pertinent reasoning. The Scriptural facts concerning human blood are clear to see, and went unanswered by you.

I believe that Scripture shows that some things can be termed as more sacred than others. Some things were so sacred that they could not be used under any circumstances while others could be used in certain situations. This was often based on what they represented. I shouldn't have to do your thinking for you, but, one obvious difference was that animal blood could be shed for mundane purposes while human blood could not, animal blood could be used in sacrifice while such human sacrifice was prohibited. I'm sure that with a little mental effort you can come up with some other obvious differences as well as other Scriptural examples of varying degrees of sanctity.

The point stands: The Scriptures explicitly place human blood as more sacred. And logical reasoning agrees; If we couldn't eat animal blood, we certainly cannot eat human blood. If animal blood was withheld from man's prerogative, human blood definitely couldn't be used without God's express approval.

>>[RR]: 4.) Scripture explicitly prohibits eating blood and contains no limitation to only blood from killed animals.<<

>[MS]: Deuteronomy 14:21 disputes this assertion.<

No, it does not. Deuteronomy 14:21 agrees with the principles in Gen. 9 and explicitly prohibits any worshipers of Jehovah from eating unkilled animals.

Deuteronomy 14:21 plainly shows that worshipers of Jehovah clearly understood that the Noachian prohibition did in fact include blood from animals not killed by humans. Yet, God did not enforce obedience on those who rebelled against His rule. This exception in the Mosaic Law meant nothing more than that God's people could make use of flesh when blood could not be removed. But, ONLY by selling it to *non-believers* already separated from God's communion. If God's people had understood the Noachian Mandate to apply only to butchered animals there would have been no need to provide this instruction.

There is absolutely no support for your position to be found in this Scripture when it comes to *worshipers of Jehovah* eating blood from any source.

>>[RR]: 5.) The law against eating animals which had died on their own demonstrates that it wasn't the killing which caused the prohibition.<<

>[MS]: But God provision of unbled animal carcasses as food does speak to how HE FELT about eating unslaughtered and unbled animals aside from the requirements of the Mosaic Law. This is precisely the question of the Noachian Law! That is, did it prohibit eating of unbled flesh of animals that died of themselves?<

You again distract from the point of fact. God here did make it VERY clear "how HE FELT about eating unslaughtered animals!!" He explicitly forbade his worshipers from eating it. Other Scriptures emphasize how JEHOVAH FELT by showing that eating unbled carcasses made the individual spiritually unclean (Lev.17:15; 22:8; Ezek.4:14; Ex.22:31). Only a dog or a non-believer would do such a thing!

The context was not between worshipers under the Noachian mandate and worshipers under the Mosaic Law. It was between true worshipers and unclean non-worshipers. Therefore, this exception within the Mosaic arrangement tells us nothing different regarding the extent of the Noachian mandate.

You are confusing your own personal interpretation with the Scriptural understanding. You are ignoring explicit statements from Scripture in order to force your own interpretation as to what this exception meant.

>>[RR]: 6.) Scripture shows that due to life being in the blood it could only be poured out.<<

>[MS]: The Noachian Law does not prescribe this whereas the Mosaic Law does. Applying it to the Noachian Law is no less than you interposing the Mosaic Law upon it as is the two are the same. IN effect you are saying, "Look, the two laws say the same thing because I say they do!" God had already given de facto permission to use animal parts. We have no reason to believe that until the Mosaic Law that God required ANYONE to adhere to any other standard.<

We do not have any explicit pre-Noachian prohibitions regarding the use of blood. However, based on pre-Noachian statements made by God and humans showing that blood was equated with "life," we can reasonably conclude that God's view did not change. The explicit statements of the Noachian Mandate then serves to make it abundantly clear to mankind that blood was never given to humans but was reserved as God's only.

Similarly, it is not simply my personal opinion that the Noachian and Mosaic codes enunciated the same view. This is the view made clear in God's word: First, the principles behind both the Noachian and Mosaic prohibitions left no allowance for any use of blood. Second, every mention of blood in Scripture demonstrates that blood could not be put to personal use. And third, the Apostles obviously viewed the Noachian and Mosaic code as saying the same thing and explicitly extended their application as a united whole to Christians (Ac.15:21). You must completely ignore this fact in order to continue misinterpreting the extent of the Apostolic Decree's prohibition.

>>[RR]: 7.) The Apostolic decree continued the prohibition as stated in Moses' writings with the all-encompassing command to "abstain from blood" again with no limitation to only blood from dead animals.<<

>[MS]: The question is what establishes the meaning of the Apostolic Decree. Since this is the question then just asserting what provides the meaning is fallacious. Also, there is nothing all-encompassing about the Apostolic Decree. If we held ourselves to that standard then we would shun brothers who looked at, felt of, smelled of or thought about blood because each one is an antithesis of abstaining from blood.<

Your response here is a complete and utter illogical distraction from the facts. First, I did not assert my own opinion. In the paragraph you partially quote here, what I did "assert" was that THE SCRIPTURES provided and established the meaning of the Apostolic Decree. This is called evidence. You have not responded to the evidence but have simply tried to pass it off as my personal opinion. According to the *explicit statement* of the Apostles, the meaning and extent of the Apostolic prohibition is made clear by the laws and principles outlined in all of the Mosaic writings (Ac.15:21).

You then go beyond all reasoning on facts in your logic. What is it about the statements "abstain from" and "stay away from" blood that you don't think is all encompassing?? A claim that it's not all encompassing must demand a total ignorance of the fact that abstaining from blood was equated with abstaining from fornication and idolatry!

Finally, we do hold to the standards imposed by Scripture. We avoid blood just like we avoid fornication and idolatry. Christ showed that obedience to the *principles* behind God's laws require that true Christians guard their thinking as much as their actions (Mat.5:21ff). While the Scriptures demand that we shun those who make their improper thoughts known by actions, Christ also states that improper thinking is equally a violation against God's laws. This shows that individuals who mentally reject the Scriptural prohibition against blood are committing a sin equal to fornication and idolatry and will be held accountable by God. Even when this disrespect for blood's sacredness is hidden and only in their thinking (Ec.12:14; Mr.7:20-23; Lk.12:2,3; 1Cor.4:5).

>>[RR]: 8.) because the testimony of Scripture shows that humans understood that blood was sacred since they never used blood in any way which was not expressly approved by God.<<

>[MS]: This is your interpretation.<

Nice response. You might as well come back with the common "Oh Yeah?" when you don't have a pertinent response. I didn't give you my interpretation, I gave you the "testimony of Scripture" as evidence. It is an undeniable fact that in Scripture, without exception, every mention of blood use by humans was only that which was expressly approved by God. There is no scriptural record that any faithful human ever decided for himself how to use blood.

I think we have made a thorough examination of your position and the Scriptural view regarding God's view of blood. My opinion is that you have consistently refused to acknowledge the clearly stated principles governing the use of blood. You have ignored the context of scripture. You have ignored clear scriptural facts and revealed that your position relies on personal opinion and speculation.

I doubt that you have any further arguments that would not simply be answered by further repeating what has been presented.

Yours,

Ron Rhoades