| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 47:00:59 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,789 |
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is
more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is
the Scripture:
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood.
Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/03/2025)
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is
more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is
the Scripture:
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood.
Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Sincerely James
the Noahide Covenant
The Bible does indeed show that blood is sacred, but it does not support
the conclusion that medical transfusions are forbidden. LetAs look
carefully at what God has said:
1. *Blood represents life.*
God told Noah, oyou shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
bloodo (Genesis 9:4, ESV). The same truth was reinforced under the Law:
oyou shall eat neither fat nor bloodo (Leviticus 3:17, ESV). The purpose
was clearublood belonged to God as the symbol of life, and it was
reserved for the altar to make atonement (Leviticus 17:11). Eating blood
for food was the issue.
2. *The Law ended in Christ.*
You are right that oChrist is the end of the law for righteousness to >everyone who believeso (Romans 10:4, ESV). The food restrictions of the >Mosaic covenant do not bind Christians. Jesus Himself declared all foods >clean (Mark 7:18u19).
3. *Acts 15 clarified Gentile practice.*
The Jerusalem council in Acts 15 addressed a controversy: whether
Gentile believers must be circumcised and keep the Law. The apostles >concluded they were not under the Law, but they gave four prohibitions: >oabstain from things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and
from what has been strangled, and from bloodo (Acts 15:20, ESV). This
was not a reimposition of the Mosaic dietary code for salvation, but a >practical command for fellowship and testimony in a world where
idolatrous feasts and pagan rituals were tied to these practices.
4. *Abstaining from blood refers to eating blood as food, not
transfusion.*
LukeAs wording does not broaden it to medical transfusions. The Greek
word ????????? (apechomai) means to refrain from partaking, and the
context is clearly dietary consumption. Every other use of obloodo in
this sense refers to food or sacrifice, not medicine. A blood
transfusion is not eatinguit is the medical restoration of what sustains >life. In fact, it honors the principle of Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus
17:11, because it preserves the life which the blood represents.
5. *The ultimate meaning of blood is fulfilled in Christ.*
The most important reason blood is sacred is that it pointed to ChristAs >sacrifice: oThis is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sinso (Matthew 26:28, ESV). His blood was
given, not forbidden, so that those who believe might live forever.
Therefore, Scripture consistently forbids eating blood as food, but it >nowhere forbids restoring life through transfusion. To use Acts 15 to
ban life-saving medical treatment stretches the text beyond what Luke or
the apostles intended.
James wrote:
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is
more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is
the Scripture:
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood.
Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/03/2025)
Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save
your life?
Would you refuse a blood transfusion for your child if it were the only
way to save his life?
We believe in following God's word over anything else.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 17:27:40 -0500, Christ Rose
<usenet@christrose.news> wrote:
The Bible does indeed show that blood is sacred, but it does not support the conclusion that medical transfusions are forbidden. LetrCOs look carefully at what God has said:
1. *Blood represents life.*
God told Noah, rCLyou shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its bloodrCY (Genesis 9:4, ESV). The same truth was reinforced under the Law: rCLyou shall eat neither fat nor bloodrCY (Leviticus 3:17, ESV). The purpose
was clearrCoblood belonged to God as the symbol of life, and it was reserved for the altar to make atonement (Leviticus 17:11). Eating blood for food was the issue.
Yes, the Noah command clearly said not to EAT blood.
2. *The Law ended in Christ.*
You are right that rCLChrist is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believesrCY (Romans 10:4, ESV). The food restrictions of the Mosaic covenant do not bind Christians. Jesus Himself declared all foods clean (Mark 7:18rCo19).
But not the eating of blood. Jesus and his apostles were still under
the Mosaic Laws of the time. Jesus kept them perfectly, whereas the
Scribes and Pharisees did not. At that time this law was still
obligated to obey:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
Again, it clearly says not to EAT blood.
3. *Acts 15 clarified Gentile practice.*
The Jerusalem council in Acts 15 addressed a controversy: whether
Gentile believers must be circumcised and keep the Law. The apostles concluded they were not under the Law, but they gave four prohibitions: rCLabstain from things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from bloodrCY (Acts 15:20, ESV). This
was not a reimposition of the Mosaic dietary code for salvation, but a practical command for fellowship and testimony in a world where
idolatrous feasts and pagan rituals were tied to these practices.
Yes, Jesus' death ended the Mosaic Laws.
4. *Abstaining from blood refers to eating blood as food, not
transfusion.*
The physician Luke was well acquainted with the laws forbidding the
EATING (or drinking) of blood. YET HE DIDN'T PHRASE IT THAT WAY.
Instead of using the Greek word "esthio" (to eat), he used "apechomai" (refrain, abstain) Notice Strong's:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
KJV--abstain."
No reference to the EATING of blood at all.
Instead of coming from the mouth, an intravenous food intake is
considered eating. It would be the same for blood.
Regardless what you want to believe, JW's take the Bible seriously,
and follow what are the laws at the time.
Even though we are under Christ's law of love, many OT laws have been reworded and reinstated into the NT, like stealing, and fornication,
and murder, etc.
LukerCOs wording does not broaden it to medical transfusions. The Greek word ????????? (apechomai) means to refrain from partaking, and the
context is clearly dietary consumption. Every other use of rCLbloodrCY in this sense refers to food or sacrifice, not medicine. A blood
transfusion is not eatingrCoit is the medical restoration of what sustains life. In fact, it honors the principle of Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus
17:11, because it preserves the life which the blood represents.
God apparently does not want a person to infuse within his body life
from another person.
5. *The ultimate meaning of blood is fulfilled in Christ.*
The most important reason blood is sacred is that it pointed to ChristrCOs sacrifice: rCLThis is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sinsrCY (Matthew 26:28, ESV). His blood was given, not forbidden, so that those who believe might live forever.
Also, the context of Acts 15:20 is not all 'eating', but stay away
from those things mentioned. Idols (not the eating of idols), sexual
sins (no eating involved), refrain from strangled animals. (this one
is eating), and abstain from blood. (which would include eating
(drinking) it, and any other use in the body of blood.
For example, some people eat blood sausages. That's a no no on Luke's
list.
Therefore, Scripture consistently forbids eating blood as food, but it nowhere forbids restoring life through transfusion. To use Acts 15 to
ban life-saving medical treatment stretches the text beyond what Luke or the apostles intended.
No, Luke should have repeated how the OT worded it; EAT.
It says at 2 Tim 3:16 that the Bible is inspired of God, so God wanted
it worded this way at Acts 15:20, and not 'eat blood'. Cannot God see
the future?
Sincerely James--
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade<sam@spade.invalid>
wrote:
James wrote:
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is the Scripture:
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood. Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood, such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/03/2025)
Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save
your life?
No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in
following God's word over anything else.
Would you refuse a blood transfusion for your child if it were the only
way to save his life?
No. Just like parents send their children to war for a patriotic
beliefs, or Christians with children in the past refused to worship
the emperor, and were thrown to the lions, there are principles
greater than our lives.
If you are a Christian, would you curse God if it meant saving your--
life? Your child's life?
Sincerely James
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote >(Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to God. >Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Also, you did not note that there was a covenant of God to Noah and all of >his descendants, as well as every creature that came out of the Ark.
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed >after you;
Gen 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the >cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the >ark, to every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh >be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be >a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between >me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual >generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a >covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that >the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and >every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a >flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I >may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature >of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Do you know His Covenant was of himself? A promise of his to all creatures >that is independent of the actions of men?
Did you note the sensitivity of God towards the humankind? Because in His >Image created he man. V6
This is one of the reasons that Satan treats mankind the way he does, because >when he sees Man he sees the image of God.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
Then this means that prime rib is out for you. Also all hamburger since it is >certified and sold with varying percentages of Fat. No bacon. No sausages of >any kind, even fried chicken and all meats that are finger licking good, and >ducks would be out for they are very fatty. Is it means skinless, breast meat >devoid of Fat for you. No liver of any type. Guess you all are caught between >a rock and a hard place.
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
Then why bring it up? Yet the Noahide Covenant still stands.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes.
That excludes everyone that does not believe that Jesus is God.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
There can be no crucifixion without a Cross.
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is
more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is
the Scripture:
What Doctor? I never said that. Luke is not a bible doctor. He is one of the >doctors mentioned in scripture.
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
James the brother of Jesus spoke those words, and Luke recorded them.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood.
Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Where do you get that from.
The spelling is a transliteration. Using the
Roman alphabet with the English.
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
If it were a latin word spelling then it should be pronounced in Latin.
It uses a Roman alphabet. The Latin alphabet has only 23 letters, as opposed >to the English alphabet which has 26. The letters omissingo in the Latin >alphabet are j, w, and capital U/small v (see below, under Sounds of >Semivowels). English r. s never has the z sound it sometimes has in English.
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
No matter what the voice it is not truly definitive because the Strong >concordance is not a lexicon.
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
oBut flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not >eat.o (Gen 9:4)
If you eat a nice juicy rare steak or hamburger and there is red juice on the >plate, you just proved that you willingly broke the covenant.
And what about
the blood of the turnip, or other veggies?
Or the blood that often collects
in chicken drumsticks of thighs?
Also, you emphasized the word refrain when it comes to eating as if to say it >is ok to eat it.
If so, then a transfusion would also be subject to the same
terms. And what about a transfusion using your own blood that was saved,
and
or the use of a dialysis machine which only uses your blood.
Sincerely James
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Confusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life".
The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
Also, you did not note that there was a covenant of God to Noah and all of his descendants, as well as every creature that came out of the Ark.
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
Gen 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the
cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the
ark, to every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be
a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between
me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that
the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
The whole earth hasn't been flooded again has it? With about 3/4 of
the earth covered in water, it theoretically could happen again. But
God said no! And that's how it stands.
Do you know His Covenant was of himself? A promise of his to all creatures that is independent of the actions of men?
It was concerning the flood waters of the earth.
Did you note the sensitivity of God towards the humankind? Because in His Image created he man. V6
This is one of the reasons that Satan treats mankind the way he does, because
when he sees Man he sees the image of God.
Good point. I never thought of that. And the image that he gave us is
LOVE, JUSTICE, WISDOM, and POWER. Those are infinite attributes of our Heavenly Father.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
Then this means that prime rib is out for you. Also all hamburger since it is
certified and sold with varying percentages of Fat. No bacon. No sausages of
any kind, even fried chicken and all meats that are finger licking good, and
ducks would be out for they are very fatty. Is it means skinless, breast meat
devoid of Fat for you. No liver of any type. Guess you all are caught between
a rock and a hard place.
What's with this fat stuff? That was the Mosaic Law, not the Law of
Christ. The blood Law was carried into Christianity, not the
prohibition of fat.
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
Then why bring it up? Yet the Noahide Covenant still stands.
And God hasn't destroyed the earth by water again. And we can still
eat meat as long as it is drained of blood.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
That excludes everyone that does not believe that Jesus is God.
That is the law of "None", not the Bible. If Jesus is God, what is
your explanation for 1 Cor 11:3?
-- King James
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of
Christ is God.
Jesus was resurrected and in Heaven with God, when that was written.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
There can be no crucifixion without a Cross.
There sure can be. Notice this internet picture:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=picture+of+Jesus+crucified+on+a+s
take+%28stauros%29&fr=yhs-sz-030&type=type80173-1389075833&hspart=sz&hsimp=yhs
-030&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassetsnffrgf-a.akamaihd.net%2Fassets%2Fm%2F110201473
2%2Funiv%2Fart%2F1102014732_univ_lsr_lg.jpg#id=4&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassetsnffr
gf-a.akamaihd.net%2Fassets%2Fm%2F1102014732%2Funiv%2Fart%2F1102014732_univ_lsr
_lg.jpg&action=click
When it talks about Jesus impalement on a "cross", every time the
Greek word is STAUROS, An UPRIGHT STAKE. Look it up.
Notice when the word "cross" was added to the word "stauros":
"AI Summary
To understand when the word "cross" was added to "stauros," consider
the following points:
"Stauros" is a Greek word meaning "stake" or "post."
The term "cross" began to be associated with "stauros" in early
Christian writings.
The exact timeline of this association is debated among scholars.
By the 2nd century AD, "stauros" was commonly translated as
"cross" in Christian texts...."
Notice NOT IN THE 1ST CENTURY, BUT THE 2ND.
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is the Scripture:
What Doctor? I never said that. Luke is not a bible doctor. He is one of the
doctors mentioned in scripture.
I never accused you of such.
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
James the brother of Jesus spoke those words, and Luke recorded them.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood. Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Where do you get that from.
"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible".
The spelling is a transliteration. Using the
Roman alphabet with the English.
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
If it were a latin word spelling then it should be pronounced in Latin.
It uses a Roman alphabet. The Latin alphabet has only 23 letters, as opposed
to the English alphabet which has 26. The letters rCLmissingrCY in the Latin
alphabet are j, w, and capital U/small v (see below, under Sounds of Semivowels). English r. s never has the z sound it sometimes has in English.
OK, if you say so.
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
No matter what the voice it is not truly definitive because the Strong concordance is not a lexicon.
Then we need a 1st century lexicon, since the word "cross" was added
to the definition of stauros, in the 2nd century.
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood, such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
rCLBut flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not
eat.rCY (Gen 9:4)
Genesis. Not a Christian writing.
If you eat a nice juicy rare steak or hamburger and there is red juice on the
plate, you just proved that you willingly broke the covenant.
Now you can learn something. That RED fluid on meats is NOT BLOOD. It
is "a protein (myoglobin) and a lot of water." Notice
"How should I deal with blood released while thawing meat in the ...
"To start with, the red, or dark, juice from red meat is not, in fact,
blood, which is a common misconception. Most blood is drained from red
meat when it is butchered. It is, rather, a protein (myoglobin) and a
lot of water." (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8952/how-should-i-deal-with-blood-
released-while-thawing-meat-in-the-refrigerator)
And what about
the blood of the turnip, or other veggies?
That is not real blood. No plant in existence has real blood in it.
God's prohibition was always on animal and human blood.
Or the blood that often collects
in chicken drumsticks of thighs?
More myoglobin. Not blood.
Also, you emphasized the word refrain when it comes to eating as if to say it
is ok to eat it.
Learn something new:
"refrain
1 of 2
verb
re-+?frain ri-'fran
refrained; refraining; refrains
Synonyms of refrain
transitive verb
archaic : curb, restrain
intransitive verb
to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something and especially from following a passing impulserefrained from having dessert".
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
TO KEEP ONESELF FROM INDULGING.
Thus they DON'T do it.
If so, then a transfusion would also be subject to the same
terms. And what about a transfusion using your own blood that was saved,
No, the blood is outside of the body and is still.
and
or the use of a dialysis machine which only uses your blood.
Yes, JW's can use dialysis machines because the blood is in motion and
is considered an extension of the body. That is not the case with
stored blood.
JW's can also transfuse blood substitutes when it becomes necessary.
If more volume is needed, blood substitutes like a saline solution has
been used. And there are many others. I am not on top of the latest of
such.
If you have special technical questions, just write the JW's:
JehovahrCOs Witnesses
1020 Red Mills Road
WALLKILL, NY 12589
1 845 524 3500
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/05/2025)
--Sincerely James
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:
James wrote:
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is
more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is
the Scripture:
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood.
Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/03/2025)
Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save
your life?
No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in
following God's word over anything else.
Would you refuse a blood transfusion for your child if it were the only
way to save his life?
No. Just like parents send their children to war for a patriotic
beliefs, or Christians with children in the past refused to worship
the emperor, and were thrown to the lions, there are principles
greater than our lives.
If you are a Christian, would you curse God if it meant saving your
life? Your child's life?
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/05/2025)
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Confusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life".
The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
Also, you did not note that there was a covenant of God to Noah and all of his descendants, as well as every creature that came out of the Ark.
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
Gen 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of
the ark, to every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual
generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
The whole earth hasn't been flooded again has it? With about 3/4 of
the earth covered in water, it theoretically could happen again. But
God said no! And that's how it stands.
Do you know His Covenant was of himself? A promise of his to all creatures that is independent of the actions of men?
It was concerning the flood waters of the earth.
Did you note the sensitivity of God towards the humankind? Because in His Image created he man. V6
This is one of the reasons that Satan treats mankind the way he does, because when he sees Man he sees the image of God.
Good point. I never thought of that. And the image that he gave us is
LOVE, JUSTICE, WISDOM, and POWER. Those are infinite attributes of our Heavenly Father.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
Then this means that prime rib is out for you. Also all hamburger since it is
certified and sold with varying percentages of Fat. No bacon. No sausages of
any kind, even fried chicken and all meats that are finger licking good, and
ducks would be out for they are very fatty. Is it means skinless, breast meat
devoid of Fat for you. No liver of any type. Guess you all are caught between a rock and a hard place.
What's with this fat stuff? That was the Mosaic Law, not the Law of
Christ. The blood Law was carried into Christianity, not the
prohibition of fat.
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
Then why bring it up? Yet the Noahide Covenant still stands.
And God hasn't destroyed the earth by water again. And we can still
eat meat as long as it is drained of blood.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
That excludes everyone that does not believe that Jesus is God.
That is the law of "None", not the Bible. If Jesus is God, what is
your explanation for 1 Cor 11:3?
-- King James
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of
Christ is God.
Jesus was resurrected and in Heaven with God, when that was written.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
There can be no crucifixion without a Cross.
There sure can be. Notice this internet picture:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=picture+of+Jesus+crucified+on+a+s
take+%28stauros%29&fr=yhs-sz-030&type=type80173-1389075833&hspart=sz&hsimp=yhs
-030&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassetsnffrgf-a.akamaihd.net%2Fassets%2Fm%2F110201473
2%2Funiv%2Fart%2F1102014732_univ_lsr_lg.jpg#id=4&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassetsnffr
gf-a.akamaihd.net%2Fassets%2Fm%2F1102014732%2Funiv%2Fart%2F1102014732_univ_lsr
_lg.jpg&action=click
When it talks about Jesus impalement on a "cross", every time the
Greek word is STAUROS, An UPRIGHT STAKE. Look it up.
Notice when the word "cross" was added to the word "stauros":
"AI Summary
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is the Scripture:
What Doctor? I never said that. Luke is not a bible doctor. He is one of the
doctors mentioned in scripture.
I never accused you of such. Christians can eat anything. Read what Paul spoke about the eating of meat, which was sacrificed to idols in the meat market.
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
James the brother of Jesus spoke those words, and Luke recorded them.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood. Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Where do you get that from.
"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible".
The spelling is a transliteration. Using the
Roman alphabet with the English.
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
If it were a latin word spelling then it should be pronounced in Latin.
It uses a Roman alphabet. The Latin alphabet has only 23 letters, as opposed
to the English alphabet which has 26. The letters rCLmissingrCY in the Latin
alphabet are j, w, and capital U/small v (see below, under Sounds of Semivowels). English r. s never has the z sound it sometimes has in English.
OK, if you say so.
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
No matter what the voice it is not truly definitive because the Strong concordance is not a lexicon.
Then we need a 1st century lexicon, since the word "cross" was added
to the definition of stauros, in the 2nd century.
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood, such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
rCLBut flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not
eat.rCY (Gen 9:4)
Genesis. Not a Christian writing.
If you eat a nice juicy rare steak or hamburger and there is red juice on the plate, you just proved that you willingly broke the covenant.
Now you can learn something. That RED fluid on meats is NOT BLOOD. It
is "a protein (myoglobin) and a lot of water." Notice
"How should I deal with blood released while thawing meat in the ...
"To start with, the red, or dark, juice from red meat is not, in fact,
blood, which is a common misconception. Most blood is drained from red
meat when it is butchered. It is, rather, a protein (myoglobin) and a
lot of water."
(http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8952/how-should-i-deal-with-blood-
released-while-thawing-meat-in-the-refrigerator)
And what about
the blood of the turnip, or other veggies?
That is not real blood. No plant in existence has real blood in it.
God's prohibition was always on animal and human blood.
Or the blood that often collects
in chicken drumsticks of thighs?
More myoglobin. Not blood.
Also, you emphasized the word refrain when it comes to eating as if to say it is ok to eat it.
Learn something new:
"refrain
curb, restrain
If so, then a transfusion would also be subject to the same
terms. And what about a transfusion using your own blood that was saved,
No, the blood is outside of the body and is still.
and or the use of a dialysis machine which only uses your blood.
Yes, JW's can use dialysis machines because the blood is in motion and
is considered an extension of the body. That is not the case with
stored blood.
JW's can also transfuse blood substitutes when it becomes necessary.
If more volume is needed, blood substitutes like a saline solution has
been used. And there are many others. I am not on top of the latest of
such.
If you have special technical questions, just write the JW's:
Sincerely James--
On Oct 5, 2025, James wrote >(Message-ID:<1ef5ek58oj5k4eef13f07q8n3gt3fgjk5l@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote
(Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Confusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life".
The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
That answer does not address the question regarding that oblood is lifeo
as you stated. So does that now mean that Blood, Soul, and Spirt o can mean >life? Does
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Also, you did not note that there was a covenant of God to Noah and all of >> > his descendants, as well as every creature that came out of the Ark.
Gen 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed
after you;
Gen 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of >> > the
cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of >> > the
ark, to every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh
be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more >> > be
a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make
between
me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual
generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a
covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, >> > that
the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and >> > every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a >> > flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I
may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature
of all flesh that is upon the earth.
The whole earth hasn't been flooded again has it? With about 3/4 of
the earth covered in water, it theoretically could happen again. But
God said no! And that's how it stands.
Do you know His Covenant was of himself? A promise of his to all creatures >> > that is independent of the actions of men?
It was concerning the flood waters of the earth.
Did you note the sensitivity of God towards the humankind? Because in His >> > Image created he man. V6
This is one of the reasons that Satan treats mankind the way he does,
because
when he sees Man he sees the image of God.
Good point. I never thought of that. And the image that he gave us is
LOVE, JUSTICE, WISDOM, and POWER. Those are infinite attributes of our
Heavenly Father.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
Then this means that prime rib is out for you. Also all hamburger since it >> > is
certified and sold with varying percentages of Fat. No bacon. No sausages of
any kind, even fried chicken and all meats that are finger licking good, and
ducks would be out for they are very fatty. Is it means skinless, breast >> > meat
devoid of Fat for you. No liver of any type. Guess you all are caught
between
a rock and a hard place.
What's with this fat stuff? That was the Mosaic Law, not the Law of
Christ. The blood Law was carried into Christianity, not the
prohibition of fat.
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
Then why bring it up? Yet the Noahide Covenant still stands.
And God hasn't destroyed the earth by water again. And we can still
eat meat as long as it is drained of blood.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes.
That excludes everyone that does not believe that Jesus is God.
That is the law of "None", not the Bible. If Jesus is God, what is
your explanation for 1 Cor 11:3?
-- King James
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of
Christ is God.
Jesus was resurrected and in Heaven with God, when that was written.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
There can be no crucifixion without a Cross.
There sure can be. Notice this internet picture:
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=picture+of+Jesus+crucified+on+a+s
take+%28stauros%29&fr=yhs-sz-030&type=type80173-1389075833&hspart=sz&hsimp=yhs
-030&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassetsnffrgf-a.akamaihd.net%2Fassets%2Fm%2F110201473
2%2Funiv%2Fart%2F1102014732_univ_lsr_lg.jpg#id=4&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassetsnffr
gf-a.akamaihd.net%2Fassets%2Fm%2F1102014732%2Funiv%2Fart%2F1102014732_univ_lsr
_lg.jpg&action=click
When it talks about Jesus impalement on a "cross", every time the
Greek word is STAUROS, An UPRIGHT STAKE. Look it up.
Notice when the word "cross" was added to the word "stauros":
"AI Summary
To understand when the word "cross" was added to "stauros," consider
the following points:
"Stauros" is a Greek word meaning "stake" or "post."
The term "cross" began to be associated with "stauros" in early
Christian writings.
The exact timeline of this association is debated among scholars.
By the 2nd century AD, "stauros" was commonly translated as
"cross" in Christian texts...."
Notice NOT IN THE 1ST CENTURY, BUT THE 2ND.
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is >> > > it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is
more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is >> > > the Scripture:
What Doctor? I never said that. Luke is not a bible doctor. He is one of the
doctors mentioned in scripture.
I never accused you of such.
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
James the brother of Jesus spoke those words, and Luke recorded them.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood.
Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Where do you get that from.
"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible".
The spelling is a transliteration. Using the
Roman alphabet with the English.
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
If it were a latin word spelling then it should be pronounced in Latin.
It uses a Roman alphabet. The Latin alphabet has only 23 letters, as opposed
to the English alphabet which has 26. The letters omissingo in the Latin >> > alphabet are j, w, and capital U/small v (see below, under Sounds of
Semivowels). English r. s never has the z sound it sometimes has in English.
OK, if you say so.
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
No matter what the voice it is not truly definitive because the Strong
concordance is not a lexicon.
Then we need a 1st century lexicon, since the word "cross" was added
to the definition of stauros, in the 2nd century.
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
oBut flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not >> > eat.o (Gen 9:4)
Genesis. Not a Christian writing.
If you eat a nice juicy rare steak or hamburger and there is red juice on >> > the
plate, you just proved that you willingly broke the covenant.
Now you can learn something. That RED fluid on meats is NOT BLOOD. It
is "a protein (myoglobin) and a lot of water." Notice
"How should I deal with blood released while thawing meat in the ...
"To start with, the red, or dark, juice from red meat is not, in fact,
blood, which is a common misconception. Most blood is drained from red
meat when it is butchered. It is, rather, a protein (myoglobin) and a
lot of water."
(http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8952/how-should-i-deal-with-blood-
released-while-thawing-meat-in-the-refrigerator)
And what about
the blood of the turnip, or other veggies?
That is not real blood. No plant in existence has real blood in it.
God's prohibition was always on animal and human blood.
Or the blood that often collects
in chicken drumsticks of thighs?
More myoglobin. Not blood.
Also, you emphasized the word refrain when it comes to eating as if to say >> > it
is ok to eat it.
Learn something new:
"refrain
1 of 2
verb
re+?frain ri-'fran
refrained; refraining; refrains
Synonyms of refrain
transitive verb
archaic : curb, restrain
intransitive verb
to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something andrefrained from having dessert".
especially from following a passing impulse
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
TO KEEP ONESELF FROM INDULGING.
Thus they DON'T do it.
If so, then a transfusion would also be subject to the sameNo, the blood is outside of the body and is still.
terms. And what about a transfusion using your own blood that was saved, >>
and
or the use of a dialysis machine which only uses your blood.
Yes, JW's can use dialysis machines because the blood is in motion and
is considered an extension of the body. That is not the case with
stored blood.
JW's can also transfuse blood substitutes when it becomes necessary.
If more volume is needed, blood substitutes like a saline solution has
been used. And there are many others. I am not on top of the latest of
such.
If you have special technical questions, just write the JW's:
JehovahAs Witnesses
1020 Red Mills Road
WALLKILL, NY 12589
1 845 524 3500
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/05/2025)
Sincerely James
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 15:01:30 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<1ef5ek58oj5k4eef13f07q8n3gt3fgjk5l@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Confusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life".
The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
That answer does not address the question regarding that rCLblood is liferCYThe Bible does not use the word "blood" to represent life, LIKE "SOUL"
as you stated. So does that now mean that Blood, Soul, and Spirt rCL can mean
life? Does
AND "SPIRIT" DOES. For instance, there is a Scripture that says 'her
soul was leaving her body'. That meant she was dying, and her "life"
was exiting her body.
Sincerely James
was leaving her body.
As for blood, it always means blood, except when God considers blood
as "liferCY.
James wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote: >>
James wrote:
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
Next notice the Mosaic Laws:
-- New King James
Leviticus 3:17 `This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor
blood.' ''
So the eating of blood was reinserted into the Law Covenant.
But Christians are not under the Law Covenant. They were done away
with by Jesus' death.
-- New King James
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
everyone who believes.
-- New King James
Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that
was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of
the way, having nailed it to the cross.(stauros- an upright stake)
So now we are past those Mosaic Laws and now are into Christianity. Is
it there also? YES. Christians can't drink blood either. But there is
more. The way Luke, the doctor, worded it, engulfs a lot more. Here is
the Scripture:
-- New King James
Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted
by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from
blood.
Notice here he didn't say 'eat' blood, but to "ABSTAIN" from blood.
Strong's Concordace defines what "abstain" found in translations as:
"Strong's Ref. # 567
Romanized apechomai
Pronounced ap-ekh'-om-ahee
middle voice (reflexively) of GSN0568; to hold oneself off, i.e.
refrain:
KJV--abstain."
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/03/2025)
Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save
your life?
No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in
following God's word over anything else.
Sounds like you meant Yes, you would refuse the transfusion.
I admire your adherence to principle. Sometimes that gets taken too
far. The Acts passage does not (IMO only) forbid transfusions. You
have your own reading.
Would you refuse a blood transfusion for your child if it were the only
way to save his life?
No. Just like parents send their children to war for a patriotic
beliefs, or Christians with children in the past refused to worship
the emperor, and were thrown to the lions, there are principles
greater than our lives.
Again, you apparently mean Yes.
This is where most people would draw a moral line in the snow. Do you
have a right to condemn a child to death who may not even understand the >situation? Clearly it's not a legal right, and doctors often seek court >injunctions to administer transfusions to JW children over parents' >objections.
If you are a Christian, would you curse God if it meant saving your
life? Your child's life?
I'm an atheist, and there's no reason to curse someone who probably
doesn't exist.
The most common legal doctrine is that, eg, if someone is pointing a gun
to your head and ordering you to sign over your fortune, anything signed >under that kind of duress is void. I'd expect the putative gods of most >religions would take that view, but some that some gods would take the
curse at face value and expect you to die instead. Looks like your God
is in the latter group, right?
To answer your hypothetical question, though, yes and yes.I'm sure you would, based on your beliefs now.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Sincerely James
"LEARN FROM JESUS
Violence Is Not the Answer
Learn More". See jw.org (10/05/2025)
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 20:33:39 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote: >James wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:
James wrote:
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood, >> >> such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save
your life?
No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in
following God's word over anything else.
Sounds like you meant Yes, you would refuse the transfusion.
Thanks for the correction. Usually it is said the other way.
Yes, I would refuse it, but ask for volume expanders if that would
help, etc.
I admire your adherence to principle. Sometimes that gets taken too
far. The Acts passage does not (IMO only) forbid transfusions. You
have your own reading.
If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, could you then shoot it
in your veins? That would still be 'drinking' the alcohol. The doctor wouldn't be happy with you.
In the Roman arena, Christian families refused to do a small act of
worship to the emperor. (like taking a pinch of a substance, and
throwing it in a fire, before a statue of the emperor) They were then
thrown to the lions and killed.
Did those families worshipping God take it too far? Please answer.
What would you have done?
Would you refuse a blood transfusion for your child if it were the only >> >way to save his life?
No. Just like parents send their children to war for a patriotic
beliefs, or Christians with children in the past refused to worship
the emperor, and were thrown to the lions, there are principles
greater than our lives.
Again, you apparently mean Yes.
Looks like I was asleep again. Thanks for correcting me. Again I am so
used to answering it another way.
This is where most people would draw a moral line in the snow. Do you
have a right to condemn a child to death who may not even understand the >situation? Clearly it's not a legal right, and doctors often seek court >injunctions to administer transfusions to JW children over parents' >objections.
What about wicked parents who have small children?
When God's
judgments come, what happens to the innocent children?
God gave us children to be responsible for. That is a serious
responsibility that can't be ignored, like many do today. Thus the
small children go the way of the parents. Notice God;s judgments in
the past:
" 4. and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst of the city,
through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the
men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within
it.''
5. To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the
city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6. "Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and
women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at
My sanctuary.'' So they began with the elders who were before the
temple."
In verse 6, why slay innocent children? Because God holds the parents responsible for them.
If you are a Christian, would you curse God if it meant saving your
life? Your child's life?
I'm an atheist, and there's no reason to curse someone who probably
doesn't exist.
I see. Thank you for that admission. Were your parents atheists also?
Or did you develop that later on?
Even if I wasn't any religion, I would still not believe in evolution.
Don't get me started on the pseudo-science of evolution.
The most common legal doctrine is that, eg, if someone is pointing a gun
to your head and ordering you to sign over your fortune, anything signed >under that kind of duress is void. I'd expect the putative gods of most >religions would take that view, but some that some gods would take the >curse at face value and expect you to die instead. Looks like your God
is in the latter group, right?
Wrong! What's worth more, your life or your money?
Even today there is a gizmo that reads your credit cards, and steals
To answer your hypothetical question, though, yes and yes.I'm sure you would, based on your beliefs now.
If you have any Bible questions, don't hesitate to ask. And have a
good one.
James wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 20:33:39 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote: >> >James wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:
James wrote:
(snippage clippage)
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood, >> >> >> such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save
your life?
No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in
following God's word over anything else.
Sounds like you meant Yes, you would refuse the transfusion.
Thanks for the correction. Usually it is said the other way.
Yes, I would refuse it, but ask for volume expanders if that would
help, etc.
I've never heard of volume expanders.
I admire your adherence to principle. Sometimes that gets taken too
far. The Acts passage does not (IMO only) forbid transfusions. You
have your own reading.
If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, could you then shoot it
in your veins? That would still be 'drinking' the alcohol. The doctor
wouldn't be happy with you.
Poor analogy. Alcohol is an intoxicant no matter where you stick it. >Transfused blood has a much different effect than drinking it.
A better example would be: it's really bad to drink isopropyl alcohol,
but applied to your skin it can prevent infection and save your life.
Should you "abstain" from isopropyl alcohol?
Does God have some purpose for ordering abstinence from transfusions?
With drinking blood, or eating shellfish or pork, you could see some >potential connection to health risks that people were aware of even in
the bronze age. But what does it accomplish to ban transfusions?
Especially since dying from lack of transfusion is quite unhealthy.
Perhaps it's another of what the RCC calls holy mysteries, that our
finite minds just can't grasp, so stop asking questions. THen again,
maybe there is no reason.
In the Roman arena, Christian families refused to do a small act of
worship to the emperor. (like taking a pinch of a substance, and
throwing it in a fire, before a statue of the emperor) They were then
thrown to the lions and killed.
Did those families worshipping God take it too far? Please answer.
What would you have done?
That's your legend.
Would you refuse a blood transfusion for your child if it were the only >> >> >way to save his life?
No. Just like parents send their children to war for a patriotic
beliefs, or Christians with children in the past refused to worship
the emperor, and were thrown to the lions, there are principles
greater than our lives.
Again, you apparently mean Yes.
Looks like I was asleep again. Thanks for correcting me. Again I am so
used to answering it another way.
This is where most people would draw a moral line in the snow. Do you
have a right to condemn a child to death who may not even understand the
situation? Clearly it's not a legal right, and doctors often seek court
injunctions to administer transfusions to JW children over parents'
objections.
What about wicked parents who have small children?
You mean, wicked parents who let their kids have transfusions? They
usually are overjoyed and relieved with the outcome.
Otherwise, i don't see what that has to do with the subject.
When God's
judgments come, what happens to the innocent children?
That's a good question. In the bible, they get drowned in floods, or
dashed against rocks, or the firstborn slain by angels, or murdered by
Herod. God is no respecter of men, let alone babies.
You should be explaining that, not me.
God gave us children to be responsible for. That is a serious
responsibility that can't be ignored, like many do today. Thus the
small children go the way of the parents. Notice God;s judgments in
the past:
" 4. and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst of the city,
through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the
men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within
it.''
5. To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the
city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6. "Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and
women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at
My sanctuary.'' So they began with the elders who were before the
temple."
In verse 6, why slay innocent children? Because God holds the parents
responsible for them.
That doesn't make any sense. GOd holds parents responsible, so he
punishes them by killing the babies?
If you are a Christian, would you curse God if it meant saving your
life? Your child's life?
I'm an atheist, and there's no reason to curse someone who probably
doesn't exist.
I see. Thank you for that admission. Were your parents atheists also?
Or did you develop that later on?
Thanks for your "admission" to being a JW.
Even if I wasn't any religion, I would still not believe in evolution.
Stay on track. We aren't going down that diversionary rabbit hole. Not >today.
(snip)
Don't get me started on the pseudo-science of evolution.
That's not an argument you're ever going to win.
The most common legal doctrine is that, eg, if someone is pointing a gun
to your head and ordering you to sign over your fortune, anything signed
under that kind of duress is void. I'd expect the putative gods of most
religions would take that view, but some that some gods would take the
curse at face value and expect you to die instead. Looks like your God
is in the latter group, right?
Wrong! What's worth more, your life or your money?
Isn't that kind of what I said?
Do you mean Jehovah would let you skate if it were do or die?
Does he overlook the extraordinary mortal duress you were under when you >supposedly made the decision to comply or not?
Even today there is a gizmo that reads your credit cards, and steals
(snip another tangential rabbit hole)
To answer your hypothetical question, though, yes and yes.I'm sure you would, based on your beliefs now.
I'm an atheist. I don't need to have beliefs, thanks for asking.
If you have any Bible questions, don't hesitate to ask. And have a
good one.
Oh, all right.
Can a man see Jehovah and live?
Would welding goggles help?
Has anyone ever died from seeing Jehovah?
Thanks for your reply. You have a good one too, peace out.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 21:28:19 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:
James wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 20:33:39 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:
James wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> wrote:
James wrote:
(snippage clippage)
Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from blood,
such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.
Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save >> >> >your life?
No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in
following God's word over anything else.
Sounds like you meant Yes, you would refuse the transfusion.
Thanks for the correction. Usually it is said the other way.
Yes, I would refuse it, but ask for volume expanders if that would
help, etc.
I've never heard of volume expanders.
If you lost a lot of blood, and you don't want a blood transfusion,
which you can pick up various diseases, and which many people today
want bloodless surgeries because of the above, they can get volume
expanders such as a saline solution.
If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, could you then shoot it
in your veins? That would still be 'drinking' the alcohol. The doctor
wouldn't be happy with you.
Poor analogy. Alcohol is an intoxicant no matter where you stick it. >Transfused blood has a much different effect than drinking it.
Its not the effect that's important, it's 'eating' it intravenously
which bypasses your doctor's statement to abstain from alcohol.
A better example would be: it's really bad to drink isopropyl alcohol,
but applied to your skin it can prevent infection and save your life. >Should you "abstain" from isopropyl alcohol?
Not at all, I don't even abstain from beer and other alcoholic drinks.
It is blood that we abstain from.
Does God have some purpose for ordering abstinence from transfusions?
God considers our blood as life. That's what the Bible says.
With drinking blood, or eating shellfish or pork, you could see some >potential connection to health risks that people were aware of even in
the bronze age. But what does it accomplish to ban transfusions?
To obey your Creator. If you worked, Did you obey your boss at work?
Why? Because you benefit by keeping your job. It's similar with God.
God promises everlasting life on a paradise earth, if we obey our
'boss', God.
Especially since dying from lack of transfusion is quite unhealthy.
There is also dying from a blood transfusion, like with HIV.
Notice some of the things this AI dug up about blood transfusions:
"AI Overview
HIV and Blood Transfusions
Diseases and complications that can arise from blood transfusions
include infectious diseases, such as bacterial infections, viral
infections (like HIV, hepatitis), parasitic diseases (like malaria),
and prion diseases (like vCJD), though these are rare due to rigorous screening and testing. Non-infectious complications include hemolytic transfusion reactions, which are immune responses to the transfused
blood, and circulatory overload (TACO) from receiving too much fluid,
as well as metabolic disturbances from the transfused blood."
That is why many non-JW's won't take blood transfusions. JW's actually
paved the way for bloodless surgeries.
This is where most people would draw a moral line in the snow. Do you
have a right to condemn a child to death who may not even understand the >> >situation? Clearly it's not a legal right, and doctors often seek court >> >injunctions to administer transfusions to JW children over parents'
objections.
What about wicked parents who have small children?
You mean, wicked parents who let their kids have transfusions? They >usually are overjoyed and relieved with the outcome.
Even if the child gets the common hepatitis, or even HIV?
Many times transfusions aren't even necessary. A doctor can get sloppy
with surgeries, knowing there is blood handy. Because of the risks,
many doctors today limit the amount of transfusions. They say it is
safer. Here he (it) is again, AI.
"AI Overview
Doctors practicing transfusion-free medicine and surgery use
strategies to minimize or avoid blood transfusions, treating patients
with religious objections or for medical reasons by employing
techniques like minimizing blood loss, improving red blood cell
production, and using alternative blood salvage and hemodilution
methods. This comprehensive approach, also known as patient blood
management, involves careful planning, advanced surgical tools,
medications to increase blood cell production, and techniques to
monitor patients closely to ensure positive health outcomes without
donor blood."
Don't get me started on the pseudo-science of evolution.
That's not an argument you're ever going to win.
Did you read what you snipped? I think I make a very good mathematical
point to reason on. But I will stop it here if you wish.
Does he overlook the extraordinary mortal duress you were under when you >supposedly made the decision to comply or not?
God sees an individual's actions, if He wants to. Contrary to the
churches' teachings, God doesn't always know everything.
I'm an atheist. I don't need to have beliefs, thanks for asking.
Well, you believe you are an atheist, that's a belief is it not?
If you have any Bible questions, don't hesitate to ask. And have a
good one.
Oh, all right.
Can a man see Jehovah and live?
No, the Creator of all the suns in the universe is too magnificent for
our flesh. Thus He is merciful to us by not appearing as the spirit
being He is.
Would welding goggles help?
What's their melting temp?
Has anyone ever died from seeing Jehovah?
No, because He never appeared to a human before. If you are thinking
of Jesus, he is NOT God.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2Thanks for your reply. You have a good one too, peace out.
Peace always.
Sincerely James
"Can Peacekeeping Efforts Create a Peaceful World?
Get the Answer". See jw.org (10/08/2025)
On Oct 6, 2025, James wrote >(Message-ID:<4l28ektl5rquagn5md2vpf1f032mcf8d4t@4ax.com>):
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 15:01:30 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2025, James wroteThe Bible does not use the word "blood" to represent life, LIKE "SOUL"
(Message-ID:<1ef5ek58oj5k4eef13f07q8n3gt3fgjk5l@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wroteConfusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life".
(Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its >> > > > > blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to >> > > > > eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to
God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives. >> > >
The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
That answer does not address the question regarding that oblood is lifeo >> > as you stated. So does that now mean that Blood, Soul, and Spirt o can
mean
life? Does
AND "SPIRIT" DOES. For instance, there is a Scripture that says 'her
soul was leaving her body'. That meant she was dying, and her "life"
was exiting her body.
To make your point about blood you quoted. "Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not >eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.o
Did that not say point blank that blood is the life of Flesh?
Sincerely James
was leaving her body.
As for blood, it always means blood, except when God considers blood
as "lifeo.
Really? It is but it isnAt?
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 13:15:52 -0700, Robert<.robert@mu.way> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<4l28ektl5rquagn5md2vpf1f032mcf8d4t@4ax.com>):
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 15:01:30 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<1ef5ek58oj5k4eef13f07q8n3gt3fgjk5l@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to
God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Confusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life". The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
That answer does not address the question regarding that rCLblood is liferCYThe Bible does not use the word "blood" to represent life, LIKE "SOUL" AND "SPIRIT" DOES. For instance, there is a Scripture that says 'her
as you stated. So does that now mean that Blood, Soul, and Spirt rCL can
mean life?
soul was leaving her body'. That meant she was dying, and her "life"
was exiting her body.
To make your point about blood you quoted. "Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.rCY
Did that not say point blank that blood is the life of Flesh?
That's what it says.
Sincerely James
was leaving her body.
As for blood, it always means blood, except when God considers blood
as "liferCY.
Really? It is but it isnrCOt?
Yes, God means the blood is life. Yet that Scripture where the woman's
soul was leaving her, the Bible would never say 'her blood was leaving
her'. Do you get it now?
Sincerely James--
"
the Noahide Covenant
Noahic. Noahide refers to those who are seen as bound by a later
rabbinic interpretation of moral laws stemming from that covenant.
On Oct 9, 2025, James wrote >(Message-ID:<0c9fekd0vn1flmpfvbgshnu4oaq2peqp2m@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 13:15:52 -0700, Robert<.robert@mu.way> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2025, James wrote
(Message-ID:<4l28ektl5rquagn5md2vpf1f032mcf8d4t@4ax.com>):
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 15:01:30 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2025, James wroteThe Bible does not use the word "blood" to represent life, LIKE "SOUL" >> > > AND "SPIRIT" DOES. For instance, there is a Scripture that says 'her
(Message-ID:<1ef5ek58oj5k4eef13f07q8n3gt3fgjk5l@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote
(Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned to
God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Confusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life". >> > > > > The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, >> > > > > and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
That answer does not address the question regarding that oblood is lifeo
as you stated. So does that now mean that Blood, Soul, and Spirt o can >> > > > mean life?
soul was leaving her body'. That meant she was dying, and her "life"
was exiting her body.
Life is Life, is it not? Is not that your self defined point?
To make your point about blood you quoted. "Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not >> > eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.o
Did that not say point blank that blood is the life of Flesh?
That's what it says.
The flesh is the Body, is it not?
Sincerely James
was leaving her body.
As for blood, it always means blood, except when God considers blood
as "lifeo.
Really? It is but it isnAt?
Yes, God means the blood is life. Yet that Scripture where the woman's
soul was leaving her, the Bible would never say 'her blood was leaving
her'. Do you get it now?
You ignored oyour" truth. You said that the soul was life, and that the >blood was life and that the life returned to the father.
There is a woman who touched the hem of the garment of Jesus to receive >healing. From what? An issue of blood that was constantly leaving her body >and the physicians could not heal her. Therefore her blood was leaving her >body, was it not? Do you get it now?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Sincerely James
"
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 09:38:01 -0700, Robert<.robert@mu.way> wrote:
On Oct 9, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<0c9fekd0vn1flmpfvbgshnu4oaq2peqp2m@4ax.com>):
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 13:15:52 -0700, Robert<.robert@mu.way> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<4l28ektl5rquagn5md2vpf1f032mcf8d4t@4ax.com>):
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 15:01:30 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<1ef5ek58oj5k4eef13f07q8n3gt3fgjk5l@4ax.com>):
On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 18:56:51 -0700, None<none@none.non> wrote:
On Oct 3, 2025, James wrote (Message-ID:<0j10ekl7s1cu6k0h3hu1rg8ojmgge4ndmb@4ax.com>):
blood: What a Bible doctor wrote.
Notice what was said to Noah:
-- New King James
Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its
blood.
Yes, before the Mosaic Laws came, God forbad Noah and his family to
eat (drink) blood. That is how precious it is to God.
You said that the soul was life. And further stated that it returned
to
God.
Now you claim that blood is life. Does it return to God? What gives.
Confusion for some. Both words "soul" and "spirit" can mean "life".
The Scripture that says it returns to God is "spirit":
-- New King James
Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
That answer does not address the question regarding that rCLblood isThe Bible does not use the word "blood" to represent life, LIKE "SOUL"
liferCY
as you stated. So does that now mean that Blood, Soul, and Spirt rCL can
mean life?
AND "SPIRIT" DOES. For instance, there is a Scripture that says 'her soul was leaving her body'. That meant she was dying, and her "life" was exiting her body.
Life is Life, is it not? Is not that your self defined point?
To make your point about blood you quoted. "Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not
eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.rCY
Did that not say point blank that blood is the life of Flesh?
That's what it says.
The flesh is the Body, is it not?
Yep.
Sincerely James
was leaving her body.
As for blood, it always means blood, except when God considers blood as "liferCY.
Really? It is but it isnrCOt?
Yes, God means the blood is life. Yet that Scripture where the woman's soul was leaving her, the Bible would never say 'her blood was leaving her'. Do you get it now?
You ignored rCLyour" truth. You said that the soul was life, and that the blood was life and that the life returned to the father.
What truth?
There is a woman who touched the hem of the garment of Jesus to receive healing. From what? An issue of blood that was constantly leaving her body and the physicians could not heal her. Therefore her blood was leaving her body, was it not? Do you get it now?
Yes, Jesus healed her of a blood flow problem, I guess it was a
menstruating problem, or even hemophilia.
Sincerely James--
