#exjw #pimo #jehovahswitnesses Chicken Scratch Apologetics. Jehovah's Witnesses, are told they must refuse a blood transfusion. They claim it's what God wants. Is that true, or another lie from the leaders?
My 2month old needed blood after surgery. My family and my husbands family werent happy but im glad my husband and I made the decision to save our baby. He is thriving and healthy ❤
I think part of the reasoning is they want to control you. The more I learn about this cult, the more I see an organization trying to control the masses.
Some think the symbol of life is more important than the very life it represents. They cheer if you allow your self to bleed to death, (sister Smith was so faithful!) But disavow you if you get medical care to live. So loving.
And horribly short-sighted. They'd rather have a father die for lack of medical treatment than take a transfusion, survive, and be there to provide for and lead his family? How does that even make sense? Jesus said that true religion was taking care of widows and orphans, not MAKING widows and orphans.
I remember a guy giving a no blood talk and he used AIDS as an example as to why we should also not take blood. That seemed very intense when I was listening to this as a child, and now realize how tasteless and kind of sickening that reasoning is. I'm thankful I never needed a blood transfusion and hope I won't need one. But I'll be ready for it if necessary.
Thank you for this video! I was really looking forward to this! Even the Jews will have a blood transfusion. Life always trumped the law is what Jesus was pointing out!
@Scott Jackson you stated Jesus didn't eat fish. Evan Windom has shown Jesus did in Luke 24. It looks like "you need study more" Luke is in the bible, and it's located after the book of Mark. (New Testament). I'm always happy to help a person like you who is unfamiliar with the bible.
1Samuel 14:31-35 an account of how the Israelites violated to blood law because of extreme hunger and they needed the meat for strength needed in the battle they would face. Jehovah did nothing. Why? Jesus proved that saving a life doesn't violate God's law.
The way I heard it was that Nathan Knorr was bragging to Freddy Franz that he could get JW's to do anything he wanted of them. Franz bet Knorr ten dollars that he couldn't get JW's to refuse blood transfusions. Knorr won the bet.
@@ScottJackson. I don't know if the bet between Knorr and Freddy Franz is true or false, it's what was told to me so there is no evidence (as far as I know of) either way.
Excellent straight forward explanation. JW mother tried to 'allow' my death over blood, once aged 11 and again when I was 34 with three children. When I confronted her about how she could have left my children without a mother she replied "well at least if I raised them they would make it through Armageddon" I have to make statements now before any procedure that I declare who my next of kin is and that I am not a JW and will accept all blood products if needed and sign it. (I am not married and do not have a partner so they automatically assume my birth mother is my next of kin)
@@scottgrey2877 And yet you have no verse to support that. Just ripping your own interpretation out of scripture. Do you enjoy when people bleed to death? See this is the issue, if you were bleeding to death, I would give of myself to help you, but you wouldn’t do the same. Not very Christian eh?
Good point well made. The no blood transfusion rule is an example of how dangerous the practice of twisting certain verses of the Holy Bible can be, and why the Watchtower Society ought to rescind, or do away with, that policy.
@@scottgrey2877 from eating blood ! Because it was a well known practise from the pagans. Read in context! With love from a servant of the lord and savior. That in the name of JESUS CHRIST every nee will bow! In heven in earth and under earth.
@@scottgrey2877 scripture pleas Cant take any thing else. If its not the word of GOD with full context then it is not the will of the father. And his will is for all to belive in CHRIST that is the word that was with him in the begining and the word was GOD.
Acts 15:29 was dealing with blood sacrifices. Notice how the practice of circumcision of the law was what caused Paul and Silas to have to address this. There were Jews looking to hold the newly converted Gentile Christians to the standards of the law. Thus Paul was saying not to get caught up with blood sacrifices again, as the Jews were taught all through the Old Testament. Now that Christ came, there is now no need for animal blood sacrifices. In fact, if you can understand this, there was never a need for it, now yes the Jews had to do it but what I mean is, God was never pleased with the blood of animals, no bullocks, no goats, no turtle doves, nothing!!! He only allowed it for the time being until Christ came. And that 1 offering did what millions of animal blood sacrifices could NOT do. Glory be to God for the lamb (Jesus) that was slain 🙌🏾
@@scottgrey2877 When it is the last resort you can outway rissk bennefits. I would be great not to die and have more days to proclaim the name of the lord Jesus Crist. LORD & SAVIOR! Plus its not biblical to not transfuse blood. Its biblical not to eat blood. The word of the lord is infalible and cant be subjet to privet interpretations. Either you belive in the word of GOD. Or the i say it's this because i say it's this privet interpretations.
"If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol you would not drink it or inject it into your veins". Yes but we can use it as antiseptic- eg even mouthwash is alcohol based, and hand sanitisers are alcohol based. Not sure about alcohol but it is known that we can absorb chemicals through our skin. Just another example of how their analogies are illogical and don't work.
Also alcohol is not naturslly found in the body and have no bodily function, why would we do that... it would kill us, if we put it directly in the veins... Blood how ever belongs in our veins. Thats the function, to be an organ in our veins and arteries...
@@Mr.DC3.1914 Does Cocaine belong in the body naturally, isnt it a drug..... But as far as I can remember blood has a natural function and belongs in the body right.... Also it belongs in the vein rightttt..... isnt that medicine.... It doesnt belong in the stomach though, it has no function there..... So dont eat it... Thats what the bible saying, dont eat animal blood... or human..... But it belongs in the vein where it functions , so put it back there when you lose it. If you dont want people own use your own......(if you can)....
@@debbie-annmariemorgan8812 is the other person's blood NATURALLY belong to your own body? nope. same with cocaine it does not naturally belong to our body
The word abstain means to VOLUNTARILY refuse to do or eat something. You aren’t abstaining if you are ordered to not do it with the fear of consequences
It's always seemed strange to me that in 1967 they said organ transplants were "cannibalism". By 1980, they were a matter of conscience -- a personal choice. So, cannibalism became acceptable? No, of course not. Apparently, then, the prohibition against transplantation had no biblical basis unless they were quoting from the book of 2 Opinions again. Whatever happened to what C.T. Russell said? “A new view of truth never can contradict an older view. ‘New light’ never extinguishes ‘older’ light, but adds to it.” - Russell, WT, 2/1881, p. 188 Something going from being cannibalistic to being a valid choice is a complete contradiction -- a reversal -- not an addition of new information. That which was evil no longer is? That doesn't meet their founder's own definition of "new light". And what about all the changes to this blood doctrine? It has changed three times since 1945. God's word didn't change during that time, so who changed the rules? (You know the answer.) I can already hear the "well, at least we fix our mistakes" tantrum on its way... And for the "eating and injecting are the same thing" crowd, try this: Throw your favorite bacon cheeseburger in your Vitamix, blend 'er on up, and shoot it into a vein. Then tell us all that eating and injecting are the same thing. That argument is just... well... silly.
@@scottgrey2877 Please describe what you mean by "hanged". What relevance does your statement have in a discussion about the WT's blood doctrine? Can you stay on topic, please?
@@scottgrey2877 You did not answer my question, Scott -- If you want a fair discussion, you can't be the only one who expects answers. *_What do you mean by "hanged"?_* "Old light"? You're applying the WT's approach to masking their own mistakes to scripture? We don't know for certain when Luke or Acts were written, though evidence tends to be more supportive of the position that they were written fairly close together. If you're saying that one of them is "old light", you're implying that it's incorrect -- that it's invalid the way JW doctrines are when "new light" magically appears to make corrections. Dude -- sorry, but I think the cheese has slipped off your cracker on this one.
G'day Evan, whatever you say about cannibalism, the band "Fine Young Cannibals " should have been banned. Their music was awful. That is what cannibalism does to a human, they write bad music.
As a former JW Elder, I'm fascinated with the content of your videos. You do a really good job at explaining scriptures in context, something that "God's channel" always struggle to do. Regarding the blood issue, do you have the source of the estimated 30,000 that you mentioned at 7:47 ? I'm asking this because I remember watching an interview of former Hospital Information Department member, who said that in his opinion, the death toll was in the thousands in a period of 3 years... in the US alone (here the video at min 27:00 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-thT3BQKkhYo.html). If that is the case, then the estimate should be much higher. Of course, it's very hard to know for certain, but it would be great if you could share where you got that from. Thanks for all your great work! keep it up!
SINCE NOAH BLOOD WAS ABOUT ANIMAL NOT HUMAN; AS children in the wound of our mother ; how do we get our parents blood in the wound without natural transfusion ?
The reason Paul tells the Gentiles not to eat blood is so that they wouldn't offend the jews, not because it is intrinsicaly evil or bad. In europe it was and still is pretty common to consume stuff like blood sausages.
That’s a reasonable interpretation. I do think it’s more trying to remove them from pagan practices, but God certainly isn’t banning eating blood sausage.
@Light over Dark Ministry G'day D H, here in Australia and England we call it Black Pudding. Magnificent with mashed potatoes and fried onions.. we slice and fry it. With a glass of Shiraz it's one of the best things this side of heaven.
@@LightoverDarkMinistry I had to rub my eyes after reading this, and read it for a second time. After spending about a third of this video explaining how Genesis (Pre-law), Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Acts (Post-law) were merely saying, don't EAT blood, here you are saying 'Blood sausage? Yeah, no worries. Eat up!
@@mattgardiner614 Matt, do you trim the edges of your beard to look like the pagans? Do you wear clothing with two different fabrics or colors, like the pagans do? Do you know any JW nurses that touch discharges? Is it about the general concept of the law, or following the exact letter irregardless of context, who is was written to, culture, or the clear goal God was intending to accomplish?
@@LightoverDarkMinistry Thanks for replying, but not sure why you bring up 'The Law'? As I mentioned, the prohibition on blood pre-dates the law, and it must have still been a big deal if James felt the need to reiterate it in Acts 15. Your Referencing of 1 Samuel 21 (That you sped through) doesn't really help you either. How about highlighting THIS part of the account. The part where the priest says David and his men can have the bread "...provided that the young men have kept away from women.”" Illyrian's belief that it was to avoid offending the Jews is unlikely. Acts 15 begins: "Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: "Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."" (vs.1) There was a certain group of Jewish Christians (Judaizers) who were teaching that Christians still needed to adhere to the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1,5, 24; Galatians 2:3,4, for example). This was likely in part, in order to deflect persecution. (Galatians 6:12) But Paul makes it clear that the truth ought not to be watered down to placate the Judaizers or the Jews. (Galatians 2:5;Titus 1:10,11) While there are verses that remind Christians not to do things that might stumble others, these verses mention "your brother"; as in, your brother in Christ. (Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:13)
While you are probably right about the issue of blood, the washing of hands is clearly a subject in which both the old and the new testament were wrong. Neither treated the issue of washing hands as a health issue. It was treated as a ceremonial tradition before religious practices, not as something that you should do before eating or preparing food. The Bible, in any Testament, could simply say "wash your hands, the food, and all of the tools used to prepare food for consumption" but that is not what is written in the Bible.
The scriptures are full of examples of washing hands, feet, using soap... The Pharisees tried to get on Jesus because His disciples didn't wash their hands BEFORE they ate...
@@mattmurdock2868 Find even one where the Bible even mentions soap. I looked for one and what I found is "Scripture, Observation, Application and Prayer". You are inventing whatever you can to pretend that the Bible even has the notion of health by human practices of any kind. It has the idea of health, but only achieved by miracles.
@@andresvillarreal9271 "If I wash myself with snow water, And cleansed my hands with soap, Yet You will plunge me into the pit,..." Job.9:30 NKJ "For though you wash yourself with lye, and use much soap, Yet your iniquity is marked before Me..." Jer.2:22 NKJ
@@mattmurdock2868 You found the perfect examples for what I am saying. Job was not cleaning his hands to improve his health, he was trying to do the ceremonial ritual to get better treatment from God. And failed. And in Jeremiah 2:22, "Although you wash yourself with soap and use an abundance of cleansing powder, the stain of your guilt is still before me,” declares the Sovereign LORD." Soap was not used to improve whoever is mentioned here's health, it is used to clean your guilt. Quite unsuccessfully, I might add...
@@gaetanodetorrice5555 would she be open to you showing her Bible verses that contradict their blood teaching ? I will happily share a bunch with you to show her. Also I have some watchtower’s I can point you to that will be beneficial as well . I will happily list the stuff to help you save her life in the future from refusing a transfusion. My dad refused a transfusion a few years ago and almost died so I heavily researched to help him.
“You can’t have a blood transfusion- but you can have blood fragments” - watchtower “You can’t have a hamburger but you can have a bun and a burger patty and some lettuce tomato and onion if it’s served on the side” - more logic than watchtower
G'day Aaron, all this talk of food,you have forced me to light my bbq. I only need a gentle prodding to have "some shrimps on the barbie" Definitely not Kosher.
@@elly1964 BURGER is MAN MADE while BLOOD is NOT. Water is PART of Blood, why do you consider Water as BLOOD? Also, one of the major components of Blood is red blood cells, do you consider it as BLOOD?
@@elly1964 even if it is coming from donated blood, the point is, IF you separate the fractions, do you consider each element as BLOOD? Salt, proteins, and water are all fractions found in blood, so I'm asking you do you consider SALT, AND WATER found in blood as BLOOD? YES OR NO
So you think Yeshua the Messiah came to do away with the law?? REALLY?--- So here are the issues that you need to address to verify this according to scripture- When did Yeshua Ever Say or teach that he came to make the Law Void, invalid, obsolete or no longer to be kept; What, if any scripture says that the Eternal Law was only temporary or that it has an expiration date or was to be “Abolished” when Yeshua the Messiah came?? Can you tell me which commandment is too difficult to keep and why and how?? If you try to cite the 613 Mitzvot/Commandments, then show where it says that every person is required to keep all 613 of them?? What scripture foretold that Yahweh would send his son Yeshua to do away with the law or otherwise make it void, invalid or obsolete?? (Yahweh Does Nothing without first informing his servants the Prophets) What scripture says VERBATIM and only VERBATIM that the Yeshua said he came to do away with the law; or to make it void, or invalid, etc, and that his followers did not have to keep it any longer and all they had to do was show up in a service once a week on Sunday in order to be saved and have everlasting life?? If Yeshua did away with the law then why did he say he didn’t?? (Matthew 5:17-18) Has Heaven/Shamayim and earth/Ha’aretz been done away with ?? Why is the law going to be taught in the millennium when Yeshua returns if it is only temporary or “Abolished”?? The Law is Prophesied to be written on our hearts so that we may remember TO DO IT. Is Isaiah a false prophet if word of Yahweh does not stand forever?? Peter preached the same thing Why are we to establish the law?? Why does Paul say it is Holy, righteous, good and even spiritual Why does James declare The Law perfect, the law of Liberty?? Why does ALL the law and the prophets hang on the 2 most important commandments, Loving Yahweh and Loving others?? And where does that verse say that the REST OF The commandments are No longer valid, Or does it??? Why did Paul delight in the law?? IF Those who break the Law Sin, and the biblical definition of sin is Transgression of the Law -How can we know what sin is if there is no law ?? Why does 1 john 2 say that those who love God OBEY his commandments?? 1 John 2 :1-4 If Yehsua Did away with law then he would have Been breaking the law and could not have been the True Messiah ALL scripture is instruction in righteousness so does ALL mean All or just some scripture?? What, if any Biblical authority replaced the commandments in the Torah if they were “Abolished”?? Be warned, if you say that it was YHWH who replaced or abolished them, then you blaspheme God by calling Him a Liar which is against Deuteronomy 12:32. If you say that it was Yeshua that replaced or Abolished them, you also blaspheme Him by saying that He sinned against the same verse. If you say that it was Paul that replaced them, you slander him by calling him a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13:1-4 and you give a Man more authority than the Most High God, Yahweh who created all things. Thus, no matter how you answer, there is no Biblical authority for replacing the commandments in the Torah by saying that they are no longer valid, etc…. If there is no Biblical authority for Abolishing or replacing the commandments in the Torah, then who replaced them or said they were abolished and where is the Scripture that says that they were?? Our Savior Yeshua tells us so plainly, that you have to be fooled into thinking that keeping His commandments (the Torah) isn’t something that is taught in Scripture. Shalom Sherri D.
He came to fulfill it. Question, why fid the Apostles only put on those four restrictions, and why did Paul criticize the Judiazers, who tried to push gentile Christians into following the law of Moses?
Fornication is a sin. When jws fornicate they have a chance to repent and be forgiven. If you accept a blood transfusion and you live you have a chance to "repent" and "be forgiven". But if you refuse the blood transfusion and you die, well you die "loyal" to Jehovah. And the time you could've spent with your love ones is cut short.
At 3:35. The bible is not mute on condemning deliberately bleeding ourselves, for the dead or for God (1 Kings 18:28; Deut 14:1). Bleeding yourself is idolatry. "You are disobeying the LORD's commands and worshiping the idols of Baal" (1 Kings 18:18,28 Good News). The bible does not say it is ok to bleed yourself as long as it is done for someone who may die, in a modern hospital with surgical instruments and then say you are honouring Christ by calling it pikuach nefesh. At 7:10. Medical advances do not invalidate God's word. 80 years on, we have PBM. Are you against mentioning medical pioneers who contradict your views? Do you support PBM, and if so why? __________ The fruits of blood transfusion: Read: Transfusion of Blood and Blood Products, Evidence-Based Critical Care pp 585-619 by Paul Ellis Marik. Watch: Primum non nocere. Harvesting the Blood of America's Poor: Big Pharma's Blood Plasma Business.
David Agnes, your views on blood transfusions are a form of Euthanasia. To stop or inhibit a live saving procedure is euthanasia. This is murder. Is murder permitted in the bible?? Also please show in the bible the use of the word "INGEST". You used it, so it must be in the bible. If "INGEST" is not in the bible, why are you using it? BTW, I have done the search, it's not in the bible, Please show a verse in Scripture where it says specifically "you must not have a blood transfusion" Using the JW argument "as the word Trinity is not in the bible, therefore there isn't a Trinity." Show me specifically "No Blood Transfusion" is allowed Also have you found time in your busy schedule to condemn Pedo's in your organisation yet???? **************************** David, you are quick to condemn Blood Transfusions, but I'm yet to hear a condemnation of the widespread practice of Child Sexual Abuse in your organisation. **************************** 4 questions require 4 answers . That's 4 questions David, not 1 question, so I expect 4 answers.
David Agnews comments copied here as he likes to delete his comments "Ingest means to take into the body, as by swallowing, inhaling or absorbing. Absorb can mean the drug is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream. So ingesting and injecting can have the same result, that something ingested ends up in the bloodstream through a process called peristalsis. At 3:35. The bible is not mute on condemning deliberately bleeding ourselves, for the dead or for God (1 Kings 18:28; Deut 14:1). Bleeding yourself is idolatry. "You are disobeying the LORD's commands and worshiping the idols of Baal" (1 Kings 18:18,28 Good News). The bible does not say it is ok to bleed yourself as long as it is done for someone who may die, in a modern hospital with surgical instruments and then say you are honouring Christ by calling it pikuach nefesh. At 7:10. Medical advances do not invalidate God's word. 80 years on, we have PBM. Are you against mentioning medical pioneers who contradict your views? Do you support PBM, and if so why? ________ The fruits of blood transfusion: Read: Transfusion of Blood and Blood Products, Evidence-Based Critical Care pp 585-619 by Paul Ellis Marik. Watch: Primum non nocere. Harvesting the Blood of America's Poor: Big Pharma's Blood Plasma Business."
@Elly G'day Elly, a great response. David Agnes is pretending to be a Doctor. Like other Jws they also pretend to be Greek and Hebrew Scholars . David Agnes is very quick to condemn Blood Transfusions, but cannot condemn CSA within the JWs. David will condemn smoking because it might kill you, but won't condemn the WT ban of blood Transfusions which might save you. What a strange and cruel world David Agnes lives in .
@@elly1964 Geat point, but you don't understand, Elly. When you're a JW apologist, you get to decide that inject and absorb are the same. You get to say that giving blood is bleeding yourself, though no one else would define it that way. That's why being a JW is so cool --- you get to make stuff up all the time. Anything to support the narrative, right?
@Evan Windom G'day Evan, these jws have never given blood at a blood bank. If I am bleeding myself, what are the nurses do there? They are taking blood from me. I am not taking blood from myself. The only thing I do is drink a glass of orange juice. These JWs speak on issues that they have never been involved with. Your points are extremely valid. David Agnew talks like the blind man telling everyone what a sunset looks like. Totally obnoxious behaviour.
This may be a shock to many, but churches, for the most part, do not teach all of The Bible. Surely there are a few exceptions, but they would be an anomaly in the midst of a church culture that does not and really cannot adhere to a whole Bible theology and remain "in business". Former U.S. Senate Chaplain Richard Halverson is quoted as saying: "In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America, where it became an enterprise." Churches are a business packaged to look like a place of worship. While many who attend them are genuine in their faith and motives, behind the scenes there is a system at work to ensure these churches don't "go out of business. And that system has caused the masses who are sincere in their faith to become sincerely deceived. Parishioners are, in reality, customers. The pastor serves as the "store manager" in denominational churches and as a CEO in many independent churches. Like with any business, in order to keep customers coming through the door you have to offer people what they want. And so the church operates in an ear-tickling manner, never quite offering the whole truth of The Bible. Have you ever thought about how those great sermons that keep your attention and have you wanting more are developed? When future pastors and ministers go to school for ministry, one of the first things they are taught about sermon preparation is to "take a text", put together a few talking points, and write an introduction, body, and conclusion. This is just standard writing. But when it comes to sermons what is actually being done is a single statement of Scripture is selected, context is ignored, intent of the biblical author is ignored, and the minister uses their selected text to support what they intend to talk about. Most of the time the topic of the message is something related to modern culture or to provide some sort of inspiration, other times it may be some "profound new revelation" the preacher thought up that under scrutiny is not really biblical and often is heretical. So, basically, a Bible verse is taken out of context and used to preach or teach something that's not even remotely biblical. But all of this goes unnoticed because the average church-goer does not know any of this and the messages are made to sound biblical. Another point of concern is that modern Christianity teaches people to apply Scripture to their lives. This sounds good, but it's the exact opposite of what is biblical. We are supposed to apply our lives to following The Bible. But Christians are taught to scan through The Bible and find things that sound good and then claim them over their lives and apply them to their lives. This is why people say they are "fearfully and wonderfully made", "can do all things through Christ", "are the head and not the tail" and so many other things while ignoring the parts about obeying God's Laws. Christians have come to believe that they are following The Bible when they seek out these positive statements and "boldly declare them". But then you see that they do not follow God with things like their diets (Lev. 11, Deut. 14), keeping The Sabbath Day, which holidays they celebrate (the biblical Feasts or the Roman Catholic pagan holidays), and a whole variety of other things. If they applied their lives to The Bible, then they would be obeying The Bible-including the things that Christian religion claims are obsolete. Have you ever stopped and thought about the fact that in The Bible there is a lawless one and a righteous one? The lawless one is the one who tells people they don't have to follow God's Laws, and the righteous one is He who does teach to follow God's Laws. The lawless one is Satan who makes his entry in Scripture in Eden convincing the people God created in His own image to eat something God said not to eat. Who do you think is behind convincing the overwhelming majority of Christians that it's OK to eat pork, shellfish, and other unclean things? Who do you think has Christians believing that "Jesus is their Sabbath" so they don't have to keep the actual Sabbath? Who do you think has convinced Christians that the Feast Days that even Yeshua kept are "Jewish" and the popular worldly holidays associated with many other religions like Christmas, Easter, and Halloween are "Christian"? It seems almost certain from the narrative that when Satan started all of this in Eden it was a Sabbath Day. This is, of course, the one day of the week that The Bible indicates God retreated from Eden. So it's quite likely that the two most rejected commandments in all of Scripture to this day in the Christian religion were involved with "the fall of man" event. Adam and Eve ate something God said not to eat, and they probably did it on a Sabbath Day. Who do you suppose is behind Christian theology that says the food laws and The Sabbath are no longer applicable? It would seem to be the kind of thing we would be told by the lawless one. But if you tried to tell such truth in a church you would probably be walked right out the door and told not to come back. Why? Because those things are "bad for business". If you tell people that they are being lied to, then you become the enemy of the church, despite being a co-laborer with biblical truth. The churches want to embrace their blend of Scripture manipulation, selectively "taking a text" that tickles the ears and keeps customers coming in the door, and mixing popular church culture with worldly trends to make the masses feel good. I hope there will come a day when people will want to be biblical. Sadly, that day may not come until Messiah Himself comes. Thankfully, there is a remnant in the earth, people scattered throughout the nations, who have not conformed and who seek to follow the whole counsel of Scripture despite what everyone else does. Luke 4:16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was,** According to the Commandment***** He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. Luke 23:56 Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. Hebrews 4:9-11 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. Acts 17:2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks. 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. (Remembering the Sabbath is a commandment, which was neither replaced nor abolished. ) Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (We are taking away from it if we say we don't have to remember the Sabbath anymore or we add to it when we say Sabbath has been changed to the first day or is now any other day.) Ezekiel 20:12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them. Ezekiel 20:24 because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutes, profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers' idols. Exodus 31:13 "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: "Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. (We are children of Israel as well.) 1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. (Remembering the Sabbath is a command, therefore a "law". So if we do away with this law even though it is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture that we can, we are sinning.) 1 John 2:4-6 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ Yeshua.
Wonderful post. But allow me to CORRECT you. When the law code was abolished, so was the rules on blood. So in no way was blood restricted for Christians, EXCEPT if it harmed the weak conscience of your brother. So the command to abstain from blood was when you were in the congregation only out of respect for those with a weak conscience. But if you were with unbelievers you were free to eat anything without even asking! 1 Corinthians 10:25 says, "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of your conscience; for to the Lord belong the earth and that which fills it. If anyone of the unbelievers invites you and you wish to go, proceed to EAT EVERYTHING that is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience." So if you are with a nonbeliever, there is no blood rule. That means the blood rule was abolished. Christians are free to eat blood. This corrects your statement that eating blood was still not recommended for Christians as a general health rule. So Christians are under zero food restrictions, including blood. The only reason for abstaining from blood is when it affects the weak conscience of a Jewish Christian. Christians are not under any dietary restriction including blood. 1 Timothy 4:3 is a specific reference to Jehovah's Witnesses when it says, "forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods...". Jehovah's Witnesses forbid polygamy and eating blood. The Governing Body was disfellowshipped from Jehovah's heavenly organization on November 10, 1992. They are now the man of lawlessness and the false prophet and soon to be destroyed. Thank you for posting this information.
Hi Lynn, I agree with you that Christians are free to eat whatever they want (Mark 7:19). The concession in Acts 15 was for the benefit of the gospel among the Jews (Acts 15:21)-there is no reason to cause unnecessary offence. However, JW’s, or their leadership, are not “the man of lawlessness” or “the false prophet.” The GB are lawless (consider the abuse issues) and they are false prophets (consider their history) but the one spoken of in 2Thess is yet to come. They are not _the_ antichrist but they are antichrist (1John 2:18). Finally, JW’s are right to prohibit polygamy (Gen 2; Mark 10; 1Tim 3).
@@scottgrey2877 You're wrong about that, Scott. You tend to be very impetuous with scripture, making snap judgments. That's not a good idea. Jesus absolutely did eat fish. The scripture is clear on that score. "But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, 'Have you any food here?' So they gave Him a piece of a *broiled fish* and some honeycomb. And He *took it and ate* in their presence." -- Luke 24:41-43 NKJV. Even the train wreck of the NWT says the same thing: 41 But while they were still not believing for sheer joy and amazement, he said to them: “Do you have something there to eat?” 42 So they handed him a piece of *broiled fish,* 43 and he *took it and ate it* before their eyes. -- Luke 24:41-43 NWT.
*Disprove JW blood doctrine with 2 verses:* Jesus said the Pharisees did good to save a sheep 🐑 rather than keep 1 of the 10 commandments _(the most important laws of Moses):_ Matthew 12:11-12 ESV He said to them, *"Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out?* [12] *_Of how much more value is a man than a sheep!_* *So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."* Yet JW do not save even a human 👨💼 who has much more value. *Two more verses to show the hypocrisy of JW:* Moses gave two commandments in verses directly next to each other but JW ignore the first one about beards and only follow the second one about tattoos: Leviticus 19:27-28 ESV You shall not round off the hair on your temples *or mar the edges of your beard.* ❌ [28] You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead *or tattoo yourselves:* ✅ I am the LORD.
@@scottgrey2877 First, you did not answer my comment. You ran 🏃💨 and changed the subject. Second, you actually proved *the soul is not the same thing as the blood* because most people that die do not bleed out but only the soul leaves the body. Third, soul is synonymous with "life" or "person" because in a soul can *touch* (Lev 5:2), can *sin* (Lev 5:15), can *eat* (Lev 7:18), and can *thirst for God* (Psalms 42:2). Fourth, the soul is not the same as the body because it departs from the body (Gen 35:18) and returns to the body (1 Kings 17:21,22). Fifth, the soul does not cease to exist but goes to the grave (Sheol/Hades). A soul can be delivered _from_ the grave (Proverbs 23:14) or abandoned _to_ the grave (Psalm 16:10). Sixth, the soul of believers can also go _to heaven_ while the body is dead. Rev 6:9 says _"I saw under the altar _*_the souls of those who had been slain_*_ for the word of God"._ Seventh, *killing the body does not kill the soul.* Matthew 10:28 _"do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul."_ Eight, God is the only one who can destroy the soul and he will do it by throwing the souls which exist in Hades now _into Gehenna (lake of fire)_ at the end of the 1000 years (Rev 20:13, Matt 10:28) _together with the resurrected body (Rev 20:5, Acts 24:15)_ and this is the _second_ death (Rev 20:14).
@@LightoverDarkMinistry so you oppose GOD because you war GOD, o my. GOD said ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, and you OPPOSED GOD and says DO NOT ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD. total opposite. Who OPPOSES GOD? You ask yourself that
@@Mr.DC3.1914 You. For denying the true Christ and spreading a false gospel. You do so openly, this is why I pray for you, and have others pray for you.
@@LightoverDarkMinistry nope, you are the DENIER OF CHRIST. To prove it, here's a question for you, DO YOU ACCEPT THE FATHER as Salvation and by his Name you will be SAVED as well? rev 7:9-10. Now pls answer that. If you DENY the Father, Jehovah/YHWH as Salvation, you are what the Bible calls an ANTICHRIST. now answer that and expose yourself! skipping again I see
Abstain from blood means not eating the blood of animals which is what the scriptures about blood are talking about . The Bible at Acts 15:28,29 does not say no exceptions that's you twisting scripture
