Are Jehovah's Witnesses Blood Guilty Because They Ban Blood Transfusions?

– posted by meleti

In September of 2016, our doctor sent my wife to the hospital because she was anemic. It turned out that her blood count was dangerously low because she had been bleeding internally.  They suspected a bleeding ulcer at the time, but before they could do anything, they had to stop the blood loss, otherwise, she would slip into a coma and die.  Had she been still a believing Jehovah’s Witness, she would have refused—I know that for certain—and based on the rate of blood loss, she would likely not have survived the week. However, her belief in the No Blood doctrine had changed and so she accepted the transfusion.  This gave the doctors the time they needed to run their tests and determine a prognosis.  As things turned out, she had an incurable form of cancer, but due to her change in belief, she gave me an additional and very precious five extra months with her that otherwise, I would not have had.


I am sure that any of our former Jehovah’s Witnesses’ friends, upon hearing this, will say that she died out of God’s favor because she compromised her faith.  They are so wrong.  I know that when she fell asleep in death, it was as a child of God with the hope of the resurrection of the righteous firm in her mind.  She did the right thing in God’s eyes by taking the blood transfusion and I’m going to show you why I can say that with such confidence.


Let us start with the fact that the process of waking up from lifelong indoctrination under the JW system of things can take years. Often, one of the last doctrines to fall is the stand against blood transfusions. That was so in our case, perhaps because the Bible stipulation against blood seems so clear and unambiguous.  It simply says, “Abstain from blood.” Three words, very concise, very straightforward: “Abstain from blood.”


Back in the 1970s when I conducted dozens of Bible studies in Colombia, South America, I used to teach my Bible students that “abstaining” applied not only to eating blood, but also to taking it intravenously. I used the logic from the book, “The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life”, which reads:


“Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:20, 29) What does this mean? If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, ‘abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into our bodies at all.” (tr chap. 19 pp. 167-168 par. 10 Godly Respect for Life and Blood)


That seems so logical, so self-evident, does it not?  The problem is that that logic is based on a fallacy of false equivalency.  Alcohol is food.  Blood is not.  The body can and will assimilate alcohol that is injected directly into the veins.  It will not assimilate blood.  Transfusing blood is equivalent to an organ transplant, because blood is a bodily organ in liquid form.  The belief that blood is food is based on outdated medical beliefs that are centuries old. To this day, the organization continues to push this discredited medical teaching. In the current brochure, Blood—Vital for Life, they actually quote from a 17th century anatomist for support.


Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: ‘Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.’


At that time, primitive medical science held that transfusing blood amounted to eating it.  That has long since been proven false.  However, even if it were the same—let me repeat, even if a transfusion were the same as eating blood—it would still be permissible under Bible law.  If you give me 15 minutes of your time, I will prove that to you.  If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, then you are dealing with a potential life-and-death scenario here.  It could be sprung on you at any moment, coming right out of left field as it did for me and my late wife, so I don’t think 15 minutes is too much to ask.


We will start with the reasoning from the so-called Truth book.  The chapter title is “Godly Respect for Life and Blood”.  Why are “life” and “blood” linked?  The reason is that the first occurrence of a mandate regarding blood was given to Noah.  I’m going to read from Genesis 9:1-7, and by the way, I’m going to be using the New World Translation throughout this discussion.  Since that is the Bible version Jehovah’s Witnesses respect most, and since the No Blood Transfusions doctrine is, to the best of my knowledge, unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses, it only seems appropriate to use their translation to show the error of the teaching. So here we go. Genesis 9:1-7 reads:


“God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth. A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. Besides that, I will demand an accounting for your lifeblood. I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother. Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image He made man. As for you, be fruitful and become many, and increase abundantly on the earth and multiply.” (Genesis 9:1-7)


Jehovah God had given a similar command to Adam and Eve—to be fruitful and become many—but he hadn’t included anything about blood, shedding blood, or taking human life.  Why? Well, without sin, there would be no need, right?  Even after they sinned, there is no record of God giving them any kind of law code.  It appears that he just stood back and gave them free reign, much like a father would whose rebellious son demands to have his own way.  The father, while still loving his son, lets him go.  Essentially, he is saying, “Go!  Do what you want.  Learn the hard way how good you had it under my roof.” Of course, any good and loving father would entertain the hope that one day his son would come home, having learned his lesson.  Isn’t that the core message in the parable of the Prodigal Son?


So, it appears that humans did things their own way for many hundreds of years, and eventually they went too far.  We read:


“…the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.” (Genesis 6:11-13)


So now, after the flood, with Mankind making a brand new start of things, God is laying down some ground rules.  But only a few.  Men can still do pretty much what they want, but within some boundaries.  The inhabitants of Babel exceeded God’s boundaries and so suffered.  Then there were the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah who also exceeded God’s boundaries and we all know what happened to them.  Likewise, the residents of Canaan went too far and suffered divine retribution.


Jehovah God wasn’t issuing an injunction for the fun of it. He was giving Noah a way to educate his descendants so that throughout the generations they would remember this vital truth. Life belongs to God, and if you take it, God will make you pay. So, when you kill an animal for food, it is only because God has allowed you to do that, because the life of that animal is his, not yours.  You acknowledge that truth every time you slaughter an animal for food by pouring the blood out on the ground.  Since life belongs to God, life is sacred, because all things that are of God are sacred.


Let’s recap:


Leviticus 17:11 says: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it.”


From this it is clear that:






    • Blood represents life.

    • Life belongs to God.

    • Life is sacred.




It isn’t your blood that is sacred in and of itself. It is your life that is sacred, and so any sacredness or holiness that might be attributed to blood comes from that sacred thing it represents, life.  By eating blood, you are failing to acknowledge that recognition about the nature of life.  The symbolism is that we are taking the life of the animal as if we owned it and had a right to it.  We do not. God owns that life.  By not eating the blood, we acknowledge that fact.


We now have the facts that should allow us to see the fundamental flaw in the logic of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  If you don’t see it, don’t be too hard on yourself. It took me a lifetime to see it myself.


Let me illustrate it this way.  Blood represents life, like a flag represents a country.  Here we have a picture of the flag of the United States, one of the most widely recognized flags in the world. Did you know that the flag is not supposed to touch the ground at any time? Did you know that there are special ways to dispose of a flag that has worn out? You are not supposed to simply throw it in the garbage or burn it.  The flag is considered to be a sacred object. People will die for the flag because of what it represents. It is far more than a simple piece of cloth because of what it represents.


But is the flag more important than the country it represents?  If you had to choose between destroying your flag or destroying your country, which would you choose? Would you choose to save the flag and sacrifice the country?


It’s not hard to see the parallel between blood and life. Jehovah God says that blood is the symbol of life, it represents the life of an animal and the life of a human.  If it comes down to choosing between the reality and the symbol, would you think the symbol is more important than that which it represents?  What kind of logic is that?  Acting like the symbol outweighs the reality is the type of ultra-literal thinking that typified the wicked religious leaders of Jesus’ day.


Jesus told them: “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is under obligation.’ Fools and blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gold or the temple that has sanctified the gold? Moreover, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is under obligation.’ Blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?” (Matthew 23:16-19)


In light of Jesus’ words, how do you think Jesus sees Jehovah’s Witnesses when he looks down on parents willing to sacrifice the life of their child rather than accept a blood transfusion?  Their reasoning amounts to this: “My child cannot take blood because blood represents the sacredness of life. That is, the blood is now more sacred than the life it represents.  Better to sacrifice the child’s life rather than sacrifice the blood.”


To paraphrase Jesus’ words: “Fools and blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the blood, or the life that it represents?”


Remember that that first law on blood included the statement that God would ask back the blood from any man who spilled it. Have Jehovah’s Witnesses become blood guilty? Is the Governing Body blood guilty for teaching this doctrine? Are individual Jehovah’s Witnesses blood guilty for perpetuating that teaching to their Bible students? Are elders blood guilty for intimidating Jehovah’s Witnesses into obeying this law under threat of being disfellowshipped?


If you really believe that God is so inflexible, then ask yourself why he permitted an Israelite to eat meat that had not been properly bled if he came upon it when he was away from home?


Let’s start with the initial injunction from Leviticus:


“‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.’” (Leviticus 7:26, 27)


Notice, “in your dwelling places”.   At home, there would be no reason not to properly de-sanguinate a slaughtered animal.  It would be easy to pour out the blood as part of the slaughtering process, and it would require a conscious rejection of the law not to do so. In Israel, such disobedience would be brazen to say the least, given that failure to do so was punishable by death.  However, when an Israelite was away from home hunting, things were not so clear.  In another part of Leviticus, we read:


“If anyone, whether a native or a foreigner, eats an animal found dead or one torn by a wild animal, he must then wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; then he will be clean.  But if he does not wash them and does not bathe himself, he will answer for his error.’”  (Leviticus 17:15,16 New World Translation)


Why would eating flesh with its blood in this instance, not also be a capital offense?  In this case, the Israelite only had to engage in a ritual cleansing ceremony.  Failure to do so, would again be brazen disobedience and thus punishable by death, but complying with this law allowed the individual to consume blood without punishment.


This passage is problematic for Witnesses, because it provides an exception to the rule.  According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is no situation where a blood transfusion is acceptable.  Yet here, the law of Moses provides just such an exception.  A person who is far from home, out hunting, must still eat to survive.  If he has had no success in hunting prey, but comes across a food source, such as a recently dead animal, perhaps one killed by a predator, he is allowed to eat even though it is no longer possible to properly de-sanguinate the carcass.  Under the law, his life is more important than a ceremonial ritual involving pouring out the blood.  You see, he hasn’t taken the life himself, so the ritual of pouring out the blood is meaningless in this instance.  The animal is already dead, and not by his hand.


There is a principle in Jewish law called “Pikuach Nefesh” (Pee-ku-ach ne-fesh) which says that “the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious consideration. When the life of a specific person is in danger, almost any other command in the Torah can be ignored. (Wikipedia “Pikuach nefesh”)


That principle was understood in Jesus’ day. For instance, Jews were prohibited from doing any work on the Sabbath, and disobedience to that law was a capital offense. You could be put to death for violating the Sabbath.  Yet, Jesus appeals to their knowledge of exceptions to that rule.


Consider this account:


“. . .After departing from that place, he went into their synagogue, and look! there was a man with a withered hand! So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored sound like the other hand. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him to kill him.” (Matthew 12:9-14)


Given that right within their own law an exception to the Sabbath could be made, why did they continue upset and wrathful with him when he applied the same exception to healing someone of infirmity? Why would they conspire to kill him? Because, they were wicked at heart. What mattered to them was their own personal interpretation of the law and their power to enforce it. Jesus took that away from them.


Regarding the Sabbath Jesus said: “The Sabbath came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath. So the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27, 28)


I believe it can be argued that the law on blood also came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the law on blood. In other words, a man’s life should not be sacrificed for the sake of the law on blood. Since that law comes from God, then Jesus also is the Lord of that law. That means the law of the Christ, the law of love, must govern how we apply the injunction against eating blood.


But there is still that nagging thing from Acts: “Abstain from blood.” To abstain from something is different from not eating it. It goes beyond that. It is interesting when issuing their ruling on blood, that the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses likes to quote those three words but rarely focuses on the full context. Let’s read the account just to be safe so that we are not misled by easy logic.


“Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”” (Acts 15:19-21)


That reference to Moses seems like a non sequitur, doesn’t it? But it’s not. It’s intrinsic to the meaning. He is speaking to the nations, the gentiles, non-Jews, people who have been raised to worship idols and false gods. They are not taught that sexual immorality is wrong. They are not taught that idolatry is wrong. They are not taught it is wrong to eat blood. In fact, every week when they go to the pagan temple, they are taught to practice those very things. It is all part of their worship. They will go to the temple and sacrifice to their false gods, and then sit down at meals to eat meat that has been sacrificed, meat which was not bled according to the law given to Moses and Noah. They can also avail themselves of the temple prostitutes, both male and female. They will bow down before idols. All of these things were common and approved practices among the pagan nations. The Israelites do none of that because the law of Moses is preached to them every sabbath in the synagogues, and all such things were prohibited under that law.


An Israelite would never think of going to a pagan temple where banquets are held, where people sit and eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols and not bled properly, or people get up from the table and go into another chamber to have sex with a prostitute, or bow down to an idol. But all this was common practice for the Gentiles before they became Christians. So, the four things that the Gentiles are told to abstain from are all connected with pagan worship. The Christian law that was given to us to abstain from these four things was never intended to extend itself to a practice that had nothing to do with pagan worship and everything to do with the preservation of life. That is why the account goes on to add a few verses further on,


“For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”” (Acts 15:28, 29)


How could the assurance, “You will prosper. Good health to you!” possibly apply if these words required us to deny ourselves or our children a medical procedure designed to help us prosper and restore us to good health?


A blood transfusion has nothing whatsoever to do with false worship of any kind. It is a life-saving medical procedure.


I continue to believe that eating blood is wrong. It is physically harmful to one’s health. But worse than that, it would be a violation of the law given to our forefather Noah which continues to apply to all mankind. But as we’ve already shown, the purpose of that was to show respect for life, life which belongs to God and which is sacred. However, transfusing blood into one’s veins is not eating it. The body does not consume the blood as it would food, but rather it utilizes the blood to perpetuate life. As we’ve already stated, transfusing blood is equivalent to an organ transplant, albeit a liquid one.


Witnesses are willing to sacrifice themselves and their children to obey the letter of the law that they believe applies in this instance. Perhaps the most powerful scripture of all is when Jesus rebukes the legalistic religious leaders of his day who would obey the letter of the law and violate the law of love. “However, if YOU had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones.” (Matthew 12:7)


Thank you for your attention and your support.

Archived Comments

We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.

  • Comment by loveyourneighbor on 2021-02-20 10:58:07

    Eric -

    Curious to hear your thoughts on this pattern of logic, as it would easily debunk the idea that consuming something is equivalent to injecting it for medical purposes.

    Jehovah’s witnesses allow organ transplants (almost across the board).

    Applying the same logic, would that not be cannibalism?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-20 11:35:47

      Initially, Witness leadership banned organ transplants claiming they amounted to cannibalism, but then after a period of time "new light" was revealed from God to indicate they were not.

      • Reply by loveyourneighbor on 2021-02-20 14:51:10

        So I suppose the real question would be, why we’re blood transfusions not given the a-ok when that new light came out?

        Apparently we knew where to draw the line. Someone spoke up and said “hey, medically transplanting an organ isn’t the same as eating it”. Why that didn’t extend to blood transfusions, I have no idea. What does WT gain from hanging onto it? It’s not a sacred cow a la 1914 in that manner.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-20 18:04:20

          Follow the money. How many lawsuits would there be if they reversed the policy?

  • Comment by jujubean on 2021-02-08 13:53:42

    For years, I have always been conflicted with the JW's teaching of blood, I refused the NO BLOOD Card over 15 years if not more, my understanding of what the bible states aligns with what Eric talked about. Thank you so much for fine tuning it up for me. Agape.

  • Comment by Bamba64 on 2021-01-30 06:05:59

    Hi Eric,
    Congratulations on an excellent article/video. However, I would have been more forceful on the subject; as this was a subject that has come up quite a few times in the congregation in my country of Wales in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
    It’s not in regards to blood transfusions but in regards to eating a certain (what is thought to be) delicacy we have that is commonly eaten with breakfast, it’s known as “Black Sausage / Black pudding” it’s made of congealed cooked pigs blood and oats formed into a sausage sliced and fried with your bacon and eggs!
    As a young Christian this subject came up very early for me after reading the Old Testament, but I was given teaching by a wise old Christian that took me under his wing. I think you will see that although there are many things that we eat that are physically harmful they are not anymore a violation of God's law.
    First of all, we have to ask ourselves what is going on with the seemingly contradictory statements by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 10:25 “Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience,” and Acts 15:29 “that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled”?   Then we have the Apostle Paul in Galatians giving a diatribe on the ills of Christians getting circumcised, only for Paul to have Timothy circumcised before going before the Jews! So what is going on here? They may seem unrelated but I don’t think they are, a careful reading of Acts I believe gives us the answer. Look at Acts 15:5. “But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed.” You know the story, Gentiles were being saved and the thought was that they had to be circumcised, etc.
    It is obvious from 1 Cor 10:25 that it’s ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols “if” and here’s the big “if” you are strong enough in your faith, but for your weaker brother that has not yet grown into the liberty that is in Christ you should abstain. Among the Apostles and the Elders were Christian Pharisees! They were probably still observant in some things not having come into the fullness of the Liberty that is in Christ, and for these “weaker” brothers we should abstain, that is why Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the Jews, Paul tried to be all things to all men, he didn’t want a full-on confrontation with un-saved Jews he wanted to reach them with the Gospel. I, therefore, think that the statement in Acts was a compromise for the weaker brothers.
    And the final nail in the coffin for me was the Highest authority on the subject we can get, Jesus said “Mark 7:18. (NET) He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? 7:19 For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)”
    What do you think?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-30 08:49:03

      At 1 Cor 10:25, Paul isn't saying that it is okay for a person with strong faith to knowingly eat food sacrificed to idols, or things strangled, or blood. What is he is addressing is that fact that it was not possible to know which meat you were buying was properly bled and which was not, so a person with weak faith wouldn't eat any meat at all, while a person with strong faith would realize that he wasn't knowingly disobeying God's law by buying his meat there.

      To illustrate, in Canada when I was a boy one manufacturer of hot dogs used blood products, while the others did not. So it was possible to know at the supermarket which brand to avoid, but when you were going to buy a hot dog at a football game, you had no way of knowing. Some might decide for their conscience not to eat any hot dog at a game. Others would feel free to do so because they were not knowingly breaking God's law. However, if you were with someone with a weak conscience and ate a hot dog, he might feel moved to do the same thing. For him it would be a sin, because his conscience was telling him it was wrong yet he was disobeying his own conscience.

      In the case of Acts 15:5, Paul was having Timothy circumcised to appease the Pharisees, not because it was a requirement. The judaizers were trying to make it a requirement for Christians and that is what Paul fought against, because it not only deprived them of Christian freedom, but provided the thin edge of the wedge for the reintroduction of the Mosaic law code into Christianity. There is nothing wrong with being circumcised if one choose to do so, but it is wrong to make it into a law.

      As for Mark 7:18, one has to consider context. Jews considered some foods to be unclean, like pork, but they did not consider blood to be a food. The body doesn't digest blood. When I had my wisdom teeth removed, the doctor told me that the first things I would do when I awoke from the anesthetic would be to vomit up the blood that had drained into my stomach from the operation. Blood is full of iron which is toxic in too great a quantity and cause liver failure. So Jesus wasn't declaring blood as clean, but only the foods which were prohibited under the law. Blood was never considered a food.

      Sorry, but I think that black sausage should be off the menu for Christians, but that is my understanding. I'm not making a law. Each one must work out his own salvation.

      • Reply by katrina on 2021-01-30 21:51:51

        Really explained the scriptures so logically taking in the context is vital, this video is a must keep and share, also the reference to old belief that blood is food, thank you.

      • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-01-31 10:44:02

        Tend not to agree with there Eric, a quick look at a commentary seems to suggest I'm on the right track.

        For a Christian who bought meat at a market with the intent of eating it at home, Paul recommended that selections be made without reservation. No one could contaminate what God had made clean (cf. Acts 10:15) since everything belongs to Him (Ps. 24:1).
        10:27–30. For a Christian who accepted an invitation to another’s home Paul recommended eating from all the fare without scrupulous reservation. But if another Christian guest piped up (cf. 8:7–13) that the food had been part of a pagan sacrifice, the knowledgeable Christian should defer to the uninformed scruples of the weaker brother. To exercise his rightful freedom to eat might cause the brother with the scrupulous conscience to follow that example and cause him to sin (cf. Rom. 14:14–23).
        A knowledgeable Christian did not need to alter his convictions to accord with the conscience of a weaker brother (1 Cor. 10:29b), but he did need to alter his behavior when in the weaker brother’s presence. Otherwise, the weak brother might act against his conscience and harm himself (cf. 8:11), which would bring denunciation on the strong brother. What the knowledgeable Christian could enjoy privately with thankfulness became in the presence of the weaker brother a contemptible act eliciting condemnation (why am I denounced [blasphēmoumai] because of something I thank God for?

        As far as blood being toxic, blood sausage is known to be good for those that have iron deficiency, of course too much of anything isn't good for you, and personally, I hate black pudding, too many hamburgers are not good, but Mark states "all " food are clean, either all foods are clean or we will have to give up pork as well, blood may not have been used as a food but neither was Pork, you may have trouble digesting your own blood but blood from animals is often consumed by many peoples of the world. One other thing, keeping away from blood may not be in regards to eating it, blood was used for ceremonial purposes as well, the Hebrews used it that way and no doubt so did the pagans.

        Everyone should be convinced in their own minds based on an exegesis of scripture. We are in general agreement so no major problem here.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-31 11:21:12

          I think that a Hebrew would have recognized pork as food, but would have considered it as prohibited food under the law. He would also have known that no prohibition was put on pork to Noah after the flood. So to Noah, the only thing they were not allowed to eat was blood. But under Moses, there were many prohibited foods. I think the context of Mark's account refers to the dietary laws of Israel, not the Noahic covenant.

          But that is my understanding, and each one must determine for oneself what to do. If one's life were in danger due to iron deficiency, then the evidence would support eating a black sausage if that was the only source of iron available.

          Saving one's life overrides a symbolic acknowledgement of respect for the sanctity of life, since it is the sanctify of life that motives one to eat the sausage. But if one only eats it because one likes blood sausage, well, then it is between one, one's conscience, and God.

          I'm not making a rule.

          • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-01-31 11:38:42

            Yes, and that's fair enough, but I will still hold to what Jesus said "nothing that goes into a man defiles him" as it says in the Greek it all goes down the toilet at the end of the day. and also Romans 14:14. ;-)

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-31 11:56:23

              I'm always wary of hyper-literal readings, however. I'm sure you wouldn't apply Jesus' words to ingesting cyanide, would you? So then where does one draw the line?

              • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-01-31 12:44:19

                No, I wouldn't be that literal, obviously, I would be thinking of things that are edible. The line would be that which is drawn by scripture, anything edible that your conscience allows (1 Cor 10), of course, If you came to Wales I wouldn't eat Black sausage in front of you.
                Incidentally, cyanide ingested wouldn't make me spiritually un-clean but would give me a bad stomach!.

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-01-31 15:48:00

                  Go ahead and eat it. My conscience isn't so weak that seeing you eat it would move me to violate my conscience. It would gross me out, however, so given that, perhaps I'd prefer not to watch you eat it. The same goes for haggis.

                  Perhaps that is why in heaven all the cooks are French and all the engineers are Scots, but in Hell, it's the opposite.

                  • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-01-31 18:14:23

                    It would gross me out as well, I hate the stuff.

              • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-01 11:00:37

                Good point. That would make the willful eating of blood a moral issue given that God did not declare blood to be an unclean food to Noah, but a sacred substance symbolic of life. Rather than unclean like Pork, blood is holy. So eating it willfully would be to show a disregard for the sanctity of blood which represents the sanctity of life. Thus, Jesus declaring all foods to be clean would not release one from respecting the injunction against eating blood.

                Thank you, Just Wondering, for giving us that insight.

                • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-01 17:22:05

                  Hi Eric, this is great, excellent article/video. I'd like to translate it and use it (with your permission) in my country as manual for solving the WT blood-transfusion issue (not under my name, but with link to BP).
                  But where is Just Wondering? I can't see his comment.

                  • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-01 17:50:51

                    I didn't mean it officially with that manual, just for my own use.

                  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-01 17:54:13

                    How very odd!? I'm not sure what happened. It was a good comment, I thought. I managed to find the notification email about it, so here it is:

                    "The moral issue is compounded under the Law, since blood wasn't merely unclean to eat, but was an element of worship to God; that is, it was offered in sacrifice under specific conditions laid down in the Law. Thus, consuming blood would not be just unclean or disrespectful to God or to the sanctity of life, but it would amount to stealing from God something that didn't belong to us, namely, blood that was supposed to be solely dedicated for religious purposes, as an element of specific rituals prescribed by God. Whether we termed that act stealing, blasphemy, insolence or something else, it would be insubordination to consume blood. To act in such a way would defile our consciences, because we were told outright not do it, and if we did it anyway, we would rightly feel guilt. Feeling guilt over clear wrongdoing would defile us."

                    • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-03 14:46:30

                      Thank you Eric. Interesting comment and good response.

                • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-03 06:15:25

                  I was thinking, is it possible to eat meat without any blood? No matter how well-drained there's always blood in the flesh, do you think that some of this prohibition could be down to eating meat that isn't well cooked? I still think that Jesus is speaking of ingesting something that will make you ceremonially unclean, He said "nothing" that goes into a man defiles him, are you making the exception that Jesus didn't make? If it was that important why didn't He make that exception clear? Let's not forget that Romans 14:14 was written to a gentile audience who probably were not familiar with Hebrew practices.

                  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-03 09:57:20

                    We have to balance Jesus' words with those inspired by the holy spirit at Acts 15:28, 29.

                    • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-03 15:04:18

                      The problem is there is no balance, just a seeming contradiction; we have in 1 Cor 8:4-13. Paul clarifying the teaching on this subject. First, he says that eating meat offered to an idol is not immoral, because “an idol is nothing at all. So, what is going on? Who are the “weaker” brothers? The consensus is the weaker brothers are the Jews who have been steeped in Judaism and some Gentiles who are used to idol worship and are having a hard time coming to the liberty that there is in Christ. “Quote” “Some believers, especially those with a background of idol worship, were still very sensitive concerning this issue and considered it morally wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Under no circumstances, Paul says, should a believer encourage another believer to violate his conscience.” The reason for abstention I believe is down to the Jews and ex-idol worshipping gentiles. Just as Paul’s diatribe in Galatians against circumcision and yet has Timothy circumcised, not because it was necessary but because of the Jews in this case. To one with a weak conscience, meat taken from pagan temples was spiritually defiled. It would be better never to eat meat again than to cause a believer to sin against his conscience (Titus 1:15).
                      I think also the prohibition on eating blood stems from the unique function God assigns to blood – to be sacrificed to God as a ransom for Israelite lives, blood represents animals, which in turn represent humans. Of course, this was all a type and a shadow, the fulfillment was the Son of God who shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins once and for all. It could be that since blood now holds less significance because of the ultimate sacrifice, which is the reason we have these statements "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean." Romans 14:14. Better for self-denial than lead your brother into sin. What do you think?

                      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-04 08:33:16

                        One of the four things denied Christians in Acts 15 is fornication. Would you view fornication as just a matter of conscience based on Romans 14:14

                        • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-05 05:47:30

                          What is the context of Romans 14:14? Do the Scriptures teach fornication is a matter of conscience? 14:17 For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

                          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-05 10:38:22

                            You are creating a link between Romans 14:14 and all the verses in Scripture that relate to Blood based on the assumption that blood would be included in "food and drink". To overcome the powerful injunction against eating blood given to the father of all humanity, Noah, I would need something more certain than an assumptive link between the "food and drink" listed in Romans and blood. When Jesus declared all foods as clean, the Jews would not have understood blood to be in that category. There were prohibited foods under the law, but blood wasn't among them as it existed in a category of its own, one that preceded the law code.

                            The immediate context of Acts relates to pagan religious practices. The type of food that is being prohibited is meat which has been sacrificed or killed through strangulation. Only meat meeting this specific criteria is being restricted. But all fornication is being restricted. Likewise all blood is being restricted, not just blood that meets certain criteria. By including blood, we see that they are extending the prohibition of blood.

                            The issue that provoked their letter arose over circumcision. Circumcision preceded the law code, so they had to say specifically that it was not a requirement for Christians. However, the prohibition against blood preceded circumcision. Circumcision was a requirement for the descendents of Abraham. The prohibition against blood was a requirement laid upon all humans, all the descendents of Noah.

                            Therefore, I see no basis in Scripture to say that Christians are now free to eat blood. The prohibition against eating blood stands because it was given to all the descendents of our forefather Noah, and it has never been specifically revoked by God. Each one must make their own conscientious decision of course. But I think to teach that blood is now an acceptable form of food would be to run a very great risk of going beyond what is written.

                            • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-05 11:58:15

                              And the context of Romans 14 is "food" not sexual immorality, Why did Paul rescind the prohibition on meat sacrificed to idols? 1 Cor 8:8 "We are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do" context = meat sacrificed to idols, or don't you agree with this? So, there is no restriction on meat sacrificed to idols "if" your conscience can handle it and you're not causing the weaker brother to sin.

                              Maybe we have missed the point, all these "blood" restrictions are in regards to flowing blood used in a ceremonial way and bloody meat, what if the blood is made into "food" such as the black sausage/pudding and cooking, it seems the crux is whether its food or not.
                              2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days—2:17 these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ. I see the only restriction is using free-flowing blood in some sort of ceremony. Frankie has some good thoughts on this. What do you think?

                              • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-05 12:51:10

                                He didn't rescind the prohibition on meat that came from strangled animals, or blood, or fornication. Meat was meat, whether it had been sacrificed to an animal or slaughtered in a butchery for food, it was still meat. But an animal that had been strangled produced meat that contained blood. That was outside of Paul's exception, as was food made with blood as a principle component, as was fornication.

                                • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-06 09:10:29

                                  So, are you OK with eating meat that's bled and has been sacrificed to idols? If I've read you right you're ok with eating blood to save your life even though the examples of breaking the prohibition given were in relation to prohibited foods, as you say blood was never a food, what example do we have that it's OK to eat blood to save one's life? I'm not trying to make a case for JW's as I believe there is no exception to the use of blood whether we take it intravenously or orally, it all ends up in the same place as a waste product. I don't make an exception to what Jesus said or Paul. Again fornication is not the context of Romans 14:14 so why do you keep bringing it up? I'm sorry that I seem to be pressing this so hard, but I believe that if we have to keep one part of the O.T. law or ceremonies; are we not obliged to keep it all? Is our salvation based on faith or of works?
                                  Again, the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Aren't you making the exception by saying that it is about eating; specifically blood?

                                  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-06 13:08:00

                                    I think you are engaging in a flawed premise. When you say O.T. law, I assume you are not referring to the law of Moses since you know that the law on blood predates that. But by stating O.T. law are you trying to discredit the law because it is "Old" and has been replaced with New Testament law?

                                    Agreed, fornication is not found in the context of Romans 14:14, but I put it to you that neither is blood found in that context. You believe it is, but that is a matter of personal interpretation. Frankie has provided a lot of reasoning and scriptural evidence to show that your attempt to connect Romans 14:14 with Acts 15:28, 29 is flawed. If you could demonstrate without engaging in opinion but just scripture where he is wrong, it would go a long way to making your case.

                                    • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-06 15:30:24

                                      No, I am not discrediting the law, just the letter of the law, are we not to obey the spirit of the law (Mt 22:37-40).
                                      What about Peter’s vision? He began to realize just how different this new Christianity was from Judaism. While praying on a rooftop, feeling hungry, he had a vision. A sheet was lowered from heaven, containing many different types of animals. A voice encouraged him to eat. Peter balked, realizing that some of the animals in the sheet were forbidden under Jewish law. Three times the sheet lowered, and three times Peter refused. The vision had a dual purpose. The most obvious was that, under the New Covenant, the ceremonial rules about dietary restrictions had been lifted. Christians are to be set apart and recognized by their love (John 13:35), not by their diets. The second, and deeper, meaning was that Christ’s salvation was open to Gentiles just as it was to Jews

                                      Acts 15 gives certain liberties to gentiles with certain restrictions, one of which was meat sacrificed to idols “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.”What is the context?  These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church.  Later, Paul dealt with the same issue. It is perfectly all right to eat meat offered to idols 1 Cor8-, he says. “Nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). But if eating that meat causes a brother in Christ to violate his conscience, Paul “will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (1 Corinthians 8:13). This was the same concern the Jerusalem leaders had in Acts 15: if the Gentile believers ate meat with the blood in it, the Jewish believers might be tempted to violate their conscience and join them in the feast. Our conscience is a sacred thing, and we dare not act against it (see 1 Corinthians 8:7-12 and Romans 14:5). The prohibition in Acts 15 was because of the Jews, as I have said before there were believing Pharisees there. Again if blood is to be held sacred and is not used for nourishing the body how do you make the exception for blood transfusions? Do you have a precedent?
                                      Now if you think that you can’t eat meat sacrificed to idols please explain 1 Cor 8.

                                      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-06 16:49:50

                                        I'm not sure how eating blood sausage is obeying the spirit of the law?!

                                        "Again if blood is to be held sacred and is not used for nourishing the body how do you make the exception for blood transfusions? Do you have a precedent?"

                                        I explained that in the video. In fact, that was the point of the entire video. Blood transfusions do not nourish the body because putting blood into your veins is not equivalent to putting food into your veins. The body consumes alcohol fed into the veins, but it does not do the same for blood. It uses the blood to perform functions that preserve life just as any other organ does. I thought you had watched the video, so I was reasoning on the basis of that, assuming you had knowledge of my argument.

                                  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-07 23:06:55

                                    Given the context of Paul's words about imposing our conscience on others, I don't think it is advantageous to the spirituality of others for us to be voicing our opinions on what we would or would not eat. The principles are there for all to dwell upon.

                                    You ask: "If I’ve read you right you’re ok with eating blood to save your life even though the examples of breaking the prohibition given were in relation to prohibited foods, as you say blood was never a food, what example do we have that it’s OK to eat blood to save one’s life?"

                                    My point in the video is that it is okay to take a blood transfusion since I don't view that as eating blood.

                                    You state: "Again fornication is not the context of Romans 14:14 so why do you keep bringing it up?"

                                    I've explained in previous comments why I think it is relevant and that I don't see Romans 14:14 as relevant to the injunction found at Acts 15:28, 29. Since I've already explained myself, your continuing to bring this up borders on being argumentative.

                                    You ask: "Again, the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Aren’t you making the exception by saying that it is about eating; specifically blood?"

                                    No, I am not making an exception and both Frankie and I have spent a good deal of time explaining our position which you just seem to disregard.

                                    At this point, I can see no further benefit to continuing this discussion as we have reached the stage of repeating ourselves.

                                    • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-09 06:11:08

                                      I apologize if I seem argumentative, and I guess you're right, we've flogged this horse enough. The main point is we both agree that blood transfusions are not a violation of God's Law.
                                      Every blessing in our Great God and saviour Jesus Christ.

                    • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-04 09:15:05

                      Hi Eric, I would like to write you some thoughts on blood in relation to food and conscience. I'm sorry if I repeat some of your thoughts. 

                      Blood as food
                      --------------------
                      The commandments of blood have dietary meaning throughout the Bible. Animal blood should not be used to eat in any form because it is sacred (Genesis 9: 4-6). The animal's blood was to be poured on the ground and covered with the ground (Leviticus 17: 13-14), it was to be poured out like water (Deuteronomy 12:16) and therefore had no other use, e.g. as a stuff for meals. This was the case when the Israelites killed and prepared the animal themselves. 

                      Everywhere in the Bible which is written about the blood of animals is in relation to meat (1 Cor 10: 25,27). It is always a question of whether the meat is from an animal that has been bled correctly or not. I understand all the verses in NT that relate to blood in this sense. 

                      Can I connect verses that everything that goes into the mouth is not defiling (Matt 15:11; Mark 7:18) also to blood, because of the word „whatsoever“? If everything, then really everything - even a liter of blood, because “everything”. The problem is that command to Noah has not been abolished by anything, I do not know such verses that would stipulate this clearly, and it is not even Romans 14:14, which relates to food. And for withdrawal of such order, we would need a really clear wording. 

                      In addition, nowhere in the Bible are mentioned products in which blood is used material, as stuff. This was not even possible, because the blood should always was disposed and not used again. I think one thing is the blood left in the meat and the other thing is the blood itself used in the product. If I buy meat in a butcher shop, then I will certainly not be centrifuging it at home for sure (1 Cor 10:25). But I certainly won't buy blood in the store to make food out of it. 

                      Christian does not need to know about blood in meat (or in any product whose composition he does not know) - 1 Cor 10: 25,27. 

                      Another situation arises when Christian buys blood in a store as a component for food preparation, or deliberately consumes blood products and he certainly knows that they contain blood as component added to food. In these cases, it is (to my knowledge) a violation of the command that God gave to Noah in Gen. 9:4-6.

                      Food and conscience
                      -----------------------------
                      The role of the Christian conscience in relation to idolatry is discussed by Paul in 1 Cor 8 and 10, and it concerns food again. He speaks of food that has been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8:10, 10:28). He describes various situations here - when a Christian is alone, or there is another Christian, or when a Christian is noticed by another man that it is a sacrifice to an idol, or when a Christian buys meat about which he knows nothing. These verses are not about blood but about idolatry (warning in 1 Cor 10: 1-22) and I don't think it's right to generalize them to the matter of blood with respect to Gen 9:4-6. 

                      If I think the meat is unclean because it has been ritually sacrificed to an idol, then it is unclean for me. If I think that an idol is nothing (1 Cor. 10:19), then such meat is pure to me and I can eat it (1 Cor. 8: 10a). But we should also notice Paul's warning words in 1 Cor. 8:1-2 and 10:20b-22. Fortunately, few Christians today have the opportunity to "dine in the temple of idolatry." 

                      Here is an important factor of conscience. Paul says. "’All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ’All things are lawful’, but not all things build up." (1 Cor 10:23|. Again, this applies to food. My strong conscience must not destroy a brother who has a weaker one (1 Cor 8:11). Let the conscience of another not condemn my freedom (1 Cor 10:29). And if I eat something or not, let me not doubt it! In any case, I must believe that it is right (Romans 14: 22-23) with regard to the conscience of others (v. 21). 

                      Paul's words in Romans 14:14 also speak of food, not of anything: 
                      “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean“. Similarly he speaks in Romans 14:20.
                      In this case, he speaks of meat in which there is blood or of the meat sacrificed to an idol. It does not apply to blood as such, because Paul's words were (and are) addressed to Christians who knew very well that blood is not food, that blood is a symbol of life and is therefore holy (Gen. 9:4-5; Leviticus 17:14; Acts 15:29). 

                      However, I think there could be a danger of making regulations based on quotes from NT. The law is given to the Christian’s heart, not to paper. Christian behavior is to be guided by love, which is above all (1 Cor 13). If I have love for my brother/sister, I will never act to offend, to insult or to shame them or be a stumblingstone to them - not even through food (Romans 14:13; 1 Cor 10: 24,32). Is the meat worthy of sinning against Christ? Better not to eat it (1 Cor 8: 8,12-13). 

                      ------------

                      Eric, if you have any clarification on what I wrote, I would be grateful for response. 
                      Thank you again for you excellent article about blood.
                      Frankie

                      • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-04 09:29:32

                        Correction.
                        ... Paul’s words were addressed to christian Jews and Christians ...

                      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-04 10:30:59

                        Hi Frankie. I find this to be solid reasoning. The danger we face is hyper-literalism which is often used to justify a personal desire. For instance, if I want to sleep around with any woman I fancy, I could invoke Romans 14:14. As long as I don't consider fornication to be unclean, then it is fine before God for me to engage in it. Essentially, I am making Romans 14:14 an excuse to ignore all of God's laws and set up a law code of my own.

                        • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-04 16:02:24

                          I agree. I also think Romans 14:14 must not be generalized. Therefore I emphasized that Paul said this because of a specific problem (food) in a particular situation, which is explained by verse 15. Using such out-of-context generalization of certain verses, I'm able to reason whatever. Therefore I consider overall context as extreme important. I often say that we should understand the meaning of the whole sentence and not to argue about individual letters. 

                          Also verses Romans 22-23 could be dangerous using such eisegetical method. These verses also relate only to food issue with regard to the conscience of others (v. 20-21). 
                          "22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Verse 22 is explained in verse 23.

                          But if verse 22 would be generalized out of context, then someone could justify murder. For example, someone has faith "between him and God" that murder of certain politician is right because of his awful deeds. And he will tell himself: "I am blessed because I have no reason to pass judgment on myself for what I approve."
                          Yes, I agree with you, no one's conscience should violate the God's and Jesus' commandments. 

            • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-04 10:15:57

              Hi Bamba64, I'm following your interesting “dietary” discussion with Eric and I'd like to present to you my opinion on Matt 15:11. I will use ESV.
              In verses Matt 15: 1-20, Jesus condemns the hypocrisy of the Pharisees - “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.“ (v. 6). The disciples were charged with being sinners for transgressing the tradition of the elders in eating with unwashed hands. Jesus answers: “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (v. 11).

              Jesus is talking here about the food. He used to depict the contrast between the sinner and not the sinner. He said: "Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?" (v. 17). This is not about all food in the world - otherwise we could understand that blood is within "all food", within "everything" mentioned by Jesus. 

              Jesus contrasts two things here - on one hand, the regulations of the Pharisees, the violation of which is defilement in their eyes, and on the other hand, the real cause of the defilement of man (v. 19). To do this, he used a comparison of food and heart - what enters a person and what comes out of it. The consequences are important - in the case of what comes into a person (food, latrine) and in the case of what comes from a person (bad thoughts, sin). 

              Moreover, let’s consider that Jesus spoke the words in Matt 15:11 or Mark 7: 18-19 to the Jews. If he said "whatever" about eating, the Jews understood well that food which Jesus mentioned did not contain blood, otherwise the Jews would respond as they did with Jesus’ words in John 6:54 - "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day“. 

              For these two reasons - consequences and audience - I do not think it is possible to use the verses in Matt 15:11 or Mark 7: 18-19 to justify the correctness of eating a particular food, such as one that contains blood.

              Thank you Bamba64 for your comments.
              Frankie

              • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-05 09:11:37

                Hi Frankie, At the end of the day we are all in agreement as far as blood use versus a loss of life, we are just discussing a finer point as to whether eating blood-based food is still held as something that can make one ceremonially unclean or is it still prohibited. We have to remember that when Jesus spoke it was primarily to a Jewish audience still under the O.T. The book of Romans was probably written to a gentile audience; Acts 18:2 records how Rome's ruler ordered all the Jews to leave Rome, This happened about 5 years before Paul wrote the Book of Romans, did they understand the O.T. prohibition on blood? As I have already written we have this prohibition on blood; in Acts 15  it states: "but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood." We cannot use Romans 14 or any other verse as an excuse for immorality (fornication) as that isn't its context. Why did Paul overrule the prohibition on meat sacrificed to idols and didn't include eating blood as food? What does "abstain from blood mean? Eating it or its use in some kind of ceremony? I am convinced (as Paul stated)  that nothing is unclean in itself, the context is food. If blood is made into food (black sausage/pudding) I believe if your conscience will allow it then it's fine. Now, if you're using blood for some ceremonial reason then I think that is prohibited as would any other unbiblical ceremony or practice. Let's not forget Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
                However each to his own, this is a non-essential issue.
                In Essentials unity, non-essentials liberty, and all else charity.

                Nice talking to you, in what part of the World are you? I'm in the U.K. Wales to be precise.

                • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-06 11:14:19

                  Hi Bamba64. Thank you for your response. You're forcing me to go deeper and deeper into the "eat blood" issue. OK, that's fine. I hope I pulled the last nail out of the coffin with my previous comments regarding Matt 15:11 or Mark 7: 18-19 („nothing that goes into a man defiles him“). 
                  Yes, “we are all in agreement as far as blood use versus a loss of life” but still there are other “finer” things.
                  Since you've written "each to his own," I guess you are firmly convinced about this matter. But still, I'll try to continue the fight a little more :-) I would like to address some of your thoughts from your comments in this discussion. Sorry for extension of my response.

                  1. Letter to the Romans
                  ------------------------------
                  This letter was written to both Jews and Christians, but primarily to Jews. In Rome, Christians from both Jews and Gentiles were, as well as Jews under the Law. Much of the letter to the Romans is devoted to interpreting the mission of Jesus Christ with respect to the Mosaic Law. These extensive passages were irrelevant to Gentiles because they were not under Law and they did not know it. 

                  Practically entire chapters 2 through 7 and 9 through 11 are mainly devoted to explaining the role of the law in God's plan and to the mission of Jesus Christ in it. Chapters 9 to 11 are devoted to the return of the remnant of the nation of Israel to God because of the promises given to the forefathers (depiction of an olive). And before end of the letter, Paul returns to this central theme in verses 15: 8-12, where he again emphasizes the unity of Christians and Gentiles in Jesus Christ as "a servant to the circumcised" (v. 8). 

                  The letter to the Romans is dedicated primarily to Jewish Christians in Rome, who may have been echoed by the OT. At the same time, it is my argument that Christian Gentiles, based on close contact with Jewish Christians, were most likely well acquainted with the issue of the ban on eating blood, while knowing well the significance of the blood sacrificed by the Lamb. 

                  2. Commandment to Noah 
                  ------------------------------------
                  Animal blood should not be used to eat in any form because it is sacred (Genesis 9: 4-6). Therefore, the blood was treated ceremonially in temple and therefore blood had no further use (Leviticus 17: 13-14, Deuteronomy 12:16). This commandment was still valid in Jesus’ times (John 6:60). I don’t know about any scriptures that would cancel the commandment given to Noah up to now - and this would be really very clear scripture. So according to my understanding, commandment given to Noah is binding for us as God’s children and descendants of Noah - no further use of blood from bled animals.

                  But you wrote:
                  “ ... the fulfillment was the Son of God who shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins once and for all. It could be that since blood now holds less significance because of the ultimate sacrifice, which is the reason we have these statements [Romans 14:14] ... “.

                  However, this is not evidence - less significance, but to what extent - to 20%, 50% or 80%? With respect to Jesus’ sacrifice, offered once and for all, there should be no uncertainty - either the commandment to Noah is completely valid or it is completely abolished. For such serious intervention into God’s commandment we need scriptures. Strong scriptures.

                  3. Acts 15:29
                  ---------------------
                  The ESV rendering: "that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.“ This recommendation has 4 items. 

                  You wrote correctly: “all these „blood“ restrictions are in regards to flowing blood used in a ceremonial way and bloody meat“. But what about your next conclusion: „I see the only restriction is using free-flowing blood in some sort of ceremony.“ I'll try to explain it. 

                  Acts 15:29 say about things sacrificed to idols. Among the things ceremonially sacrificed to the idol could be meat and blood. Let’s notice what Paul wrote as a warning against idolatry, which is important:
                  “16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? ..... 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.“ (1 Cor 10:16,21) Here Paul compares two things from the view of holiness - blood and body, drink and solid food. 

                  In other words, you cannot drink blood and eat meat sacrificed to idols sitting at a table (in the dining room). So I think the ritually sacrificed blood is mentioned in the first item of verse 29 - “sacrificed to idols”.

                  But the blood was also mentioned separately in second item. Why? Is it not because it was necessary to emphasize the ban of blood consuming with respect to Gen 9:4-6? Blood consuming existed among Gentiles; this item was not intended for Jewish Christians. I think this was the reason to ban blood as food in this second item.

                  What about the third item of verse 29? Strangled animals are not properly bled, so the blood remains in tissue of meat. In other words - “Don’t eat meat with blood“ - let’s remember the words in Gen 9:4. For me, this is confirming of God’s commandment to Noah.
                  Then only single item out of four (fourth) in verse 29 has nothing to do with blood. 

                  Let's recap items in Acts 15:29 -
                  a) Things ritually, ceremonially sacrificed to idols = meat, blood
                  b) Blood - separately mentioned as food
                  c) Strangled, warning against eating blood in meat
                  d) Fornication, immorality 

                  In my opinion, on the basis of my understanding and upon what I wrote in points 1 to 3, I say with respect to food - no blood. However, I do not condemn anyone, I have no right to do so, because of 1 Cor 8:8; 10:12,17; Romans 14:4,6,10,12-13,20. 
                  I just humbly ask you and everyone who consider the blood in food is right, please, examine your conscience and scriptures with respect to blood as food.

                  4. Essentials (unity), non-essentials (liberty)
                  ----------------------------------------------------------
                  In principle, I agree. Just keep in mind that some irrelevant things may be important to someone else and vice versa. It all depends on the degree of knowledge of a particular person. God works with each individual according to one's abilities and conditions. I would like to know as much as possible, but not everything is given to me from above, because I would either not to understand or not to bear it in the present state (John 16:12) of my mind. And so it is with everyone. 

                  Things from the category of non-essentials are closely related to everyone's conscience, which can be of different degrees. But no one's conscience should violate the God's and Jesus' commandments. Therefore, I think that in this non-essentials region it is necessary to guard one's own freedom. 

                  5. In what part of the World are you? 
                  -------------------------------------------------
                  Middle Europe, Slovakia (eastern part of former Czecho-Slovakia). BTW, we also have something like black sausages here - it is called blood sausages (I don’t like it from my youth because of bad taste, so the Acts 15:29 is not a limitation for me in this case). 
                  However, I like this kind of meal (made of rice and various kinds of pork in sausage casing) and so I always buy white sausages - the same like blood sausages, but without blood, yum-yum.

                  And in the end I have a question. Is black pudding/sausage production widespread in Wales due to Celtic traditions?
                   
                  Take care and be safe. Peace and love to you from lockdowned Frankie, still negative and therefore positive :-)

                  • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-06 15:34:04

                    Hi Frankie, thanks for your response, due to the weekend and our fellowship meeting, I'll be a little slow in my reply. Take care and every blessing in our God and saviour Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13.

                    • Reply by ZbigniewJan on 2021-02-11 11:54:17

                      Hello Mark!!!!!
                      my name is Zbigniew. I live in poland. I am 63 years old.
                      I am following the discussion with Erik and Frankie with attention and interest. Your decisive and tough position has given rise to many arguments. I am very grateful to all of you.
                      Black pudding is very popular in Poland. I am the 3rd generation brought up in the spirit of JW. The very thought of eating blood sausage shakes me a lot. But my mother, born in 1926, told me that she ate black pudding. Fortunately, you can buy black pudding in the markets. I like this black pudding very much. This was what Frankie had mentioned. I think that someday we will meet with you, Erytha and Frankie in Poland or Slovakia and we will all eat black pudding without blood.
                      I will come back to donating blood to God when we kill animals for food. In Poland it is said - blood is life. By killing animals, we take his life. God is the giver and creator of life. By spilling blood, we symbolically return the lives of these animals to God. If we kill animals for sport or pleasure, we sin before God.
                      In the New Covenant, God still has a right to every life. We still have the right to kill animals for food. Life is still in the blood. We should still be grateful to God for the right to kill.
                      If we consciously add blood to food, in my opinion, we are violating the sanctity of life, symbolized by blood.
                      I agree with you that the most important thing is unity in Christ. Such insightful discussions are good because they shape our consciences. I am very edified by the fact that we do not judge each other. We leave it to our Lord.
                      I have a good brother in Christ in my new circle (apart from the circle that closes in JW) who is also in the same position as you, Mark.
                      It is wonderful that we can show empathy, tolerance, all in the name of Christ.
                      I invite you, Mark, for a good black pudding (I can say that it is black because it contains the liver) without blood. You will surely get a good whiski from your colleagues from Scotland or Ireland.
                      Best regards!!!!!!

                      • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-11 18:23:34

                        Hi Zbigniew, 
                        I hope we will meet with Mark and you at your place in Poland or at me. You will buy black pudding and I will buy black sausages, all bloodless. I think Mark will like it. I wrote him not to forget that whiskey :-) . 
                        Peace and love to you. Frankie

                        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-12 06:10:56

                          I wish I could be there with you all.

                          • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-12 09:17:02

                            Dear Eric, you will be warmly welcome. If you come, you could bring some cake with maple syrup and Canadian wild blueberries for four :-) .

                            Take care and be safe so we could meet. 
                            Frankie

                            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-02-12 11:15:40

                              They'd never let me bring the blueberries across the border, but the Maple Syrup is a sure thing.

                      • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-12 08:08:25

                        Nicely said, obviously we give thanks to God for all things, the reason I question your statement and your reply is because I don't see a biblical precedent for it, that said is this just your (Polish) tradition? While the tradition may be unbiblical it's not violating anything, so the tradition is neutral, just as Jesus observed Hannukah. As to observing the law that is a very slippery slope, as I have already stated circumcision was before the law, just take the time to read Galatians, listen to the harsh language Paul uses, we are to grow in the knowledge of our Saviour, while there may be weak Christians we should not stay that way, but as you have said, we shouldn't judge on this issue as I believe it is a matter of conscience.
                        We have a lot of Polish folk in my hometown and Polish grocery shops, maybe you could suggest a delicacy that I could try (but not Black pudding or sausage!). I may sound argumentative but I don't mean to be, somebody once said that you can never hold to a doctrine unless you've defended it from attack. I'm thankful for the JW's I've met because they challenged me on my beliefs and forced me to study why I believed in them.
                        Every Blessing in our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13)

                  • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-06 17:04:14

                    Correction. In point 1 should be:
                    " ... the unity of Christian Jews and Gentiles in Jesus Christ ..."

                    • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-09 11:48:02

                      Hi Frankie, by the way, my name is Mark.
                      1. Letter to the Romans
                      ——————————
                      This letter was written to both Jews and Christians, but primarily to Jews. In Rome, Christians from both Jews and Gentiles were, as well as Jews under the Law. Much of the letter to the Romans is devoted to interpreting the mission of Jesus Christ with respect to the Mosaic Law. These extensive passages were irrelevant to Gentiles because they were not under Law and they did not know it. 
                      Practically entire chapters 2 through 7 and 9 through 11 are mainly devoted to explaining the role of the law in God’s plan and to the mission of Jesus Christ in it. Chapters 9 to 11 are devoted to the return of the remnant of the nation of Israel to God because of the promises given to the forefathers (depiction of an olive). And before end of the letter, Paul returns to this central theme in verses 15: 8-12, where he again emphasizes the unity of Christians and Gentiles in Jesus Christ as “a servant to the circumcised” (v. 8). 
                      The letter to the Romans is dedicated primarily to Jewish Christians in Rome, who may have been echoed by the OT. At the same time, it is my argument that Christian Gentiles, based on close contact with Jewish Christians, were most likely well acquainted with the issue of the ban on eating blood, while knowing well the significance of the blood sacrificed by the Lamb. 

                      Rebut: Romans:
                      Well I have to disagree with the assumption that it was written to the Jews in Rome at this time; the Bible and history records that all the Jews had left Rome by the decree of Claudius at least 5 years (possibly up to 10 years) before the book of Romans was written, so were there any Jews left in the Roman church at this time, maybe there were. Never the less it is instruction to Gentiles and Jews as it is for us today. The argument is all about justification by faith and not the Law Rom 3:27 “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.” So, can we boast about our work of abstinence from eating blood? I don’t think so. Eric doesn’t see the link between Romans 14:14 and other scriptures, I quote “You are creating a link between Romans 14:14 and all the verses in Scripture that relate to Blood based on the assumption that blood would be included in “food and drink””. The link is that we are talking about blood used as food not ceremonially to false gods, and we obviously don’t use real blood in our Christian worship. Romans 14:14 is speaking of food that Jews classified as “clean” or “unclean,” based on the Bible (Lev 11). We are talking about blood as food hence the link, no Christian is going to drink blood in some kind of ritual in defiance of God that would be sin. However, to use it as food, I don’t see the problem scripturally. David eat the showbread because he was hungry, was he starving to death? Was this a matter of life and death that overrules the sanctity of life?
                       
                      2. Commandment to Noah 
                      ————————————
                      Animal blood should not be used to eat in any form because it is sacred (Genesis 9: 4-6). Therefore, the blood was treated ceremonially in temple and therefore blood had no further use (Leviticus 17: 13-14, Deuteronomy 12:16). This commandment was still valid in Jesus’ times (John 6:60). I don’t know about any scriptures that would cancel the commandment given to Noah up to now – and this would be really very clear scripture. So according to my understanding, commandment given to Noah is binding for us as God’s children and descendants of Noah – no further use of blood from bled animals.
                      But you wrote:
                      “ … the fulfillment was the Son of God who shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins once and for all. It could be that since blood now holds less significance because of the ultimate sacrifice, which is the reason we have these statements [Romans 14:14] … “.
                      However, this is not evidence – less significance, but to what extent – to 20%, 50% or 80%? With respect to Jesus’ sacrifice, offered once and for all, there should be no uncertainty – either the commandment to Noah is completely valid or it is completely abolished. For such serious intervention into God’s commandment we need scriptures. Strong scriptures.

                      Rebut: Noah’s commandment:
                      Now Eric says that because this prohibition on eating blood was before the law, that somehow makes it still prohibited in this dispensation of Grace, i.e. the New Covenant. However the blood ban was under the law as well (Lev 17:10), Paul was quite clear in Galatians that if we have to be obedient to one point of the Law (in this case the context was circumcision) then we have to be obedient to all the law, so, was the blood ban under the law? Emphatically it was.
                      Mark 7:19. Here, Jesus clearly declared, for the Christian (remember we are in a transitional phase here) that all foods are “clean.” This means that one cannot be made ceremonially unclean by eating food–no matter what kind of food. It is, therefore, in principle, not a sin to eat any food, which would include the eating of the blood of animals.
                      Now then, if the blood ban is still applicable under the New Covenant because it was given before the law, then why isn’t circumcision? When was the commandment for circumcision given? Before the law, again if we have to be obedient to one point of the Law then we have to be obedient to all the law, Paul was fully aware of Lev 17 and the blood prohibition, and as he was speaking about the gentiles where is the exception to rule? Only the one law of circumcision was in view specifically, yet Paul states we would have to be obedient to all the law if we were to be ceremonially circumcised.
                      You said: “. So according to my understanding, commandment given to Noah is binding for us as God’s children and descendants of Noah – no further use of blood from bled animals.”
                      No further use for blood in sacrifice for sure, it holds 100% no significance in salvation for Christians, just as Circumcision holds no significance meritoriously. Binding on us, if so why isn’t circumcision?
                      There are no works that are meritorious for Christians, salvation is by Grace through Faith not of works it is the gift of God. Our works come out of a thankful heart, not so we can boast.  

                      3. Acts 15:29
                      ———————
                      The ESV rendering: “that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.“ This recommendation has 4 items. 
                      You wrote correctly: “all these „blood“ restrictions are in regards to flowing blood used in a ceremonial way and bloody meat“. But what about your next conclusion: „I see the only restriction is using free-flowing blood in some sort of ceremony.“ I’ll try to explain it. 
                      Acts 15:29 say about things sacrificed to idols. Among the things ceremonially sacrificed to the idol could be meat and blood. Let’s notice what Paul wrote as a warning against idolatry, which is important:
                      “16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? ….. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.“ (1 Cor 10:16,21) Here Paul compares two things from the view of holiness – blood and body, drink and solid food. 
                      In other words, you cannot drink blood and eat meat sacrificed to idols sitting at a table (in the dining room). So I think the ritually sacrificed blood is mentioned in the first item of verse 29 – “sacrificed to idols”.
                      But the blood was also mentioned separately in second item. Why? Is it not because it was necessary to emphasize the ban of blood consuming with respect to Gen 9:4-6? Blood consuming existed among Gentiles; this item was not intended for Jewish Christians. I think this was the reason to ban blood as food in this second item. What about the third item of verse 29? Strangled animals are not properly bled, so the blood remains in tissue of meat. In other words – “Don’t eat meat with blood“ – let’s remember the words in Gen 9:4. For me, this is confirming of God’s commandment to Noah.
                      Then only single item out of four (fourth) in verse 29 has nothing to do with blood. 

                      Rebut Acts 15:29:
                      Firstly, I think that you are being a little too literal in regards to 1Cor 10:21. You said “In other words, you cannot drink blood and eat meat sacrificed to idols sitting at a table (in the dining room)”
                      This is not talking about dining; it’s talking about religious ceremonies i.e. The Lords Table is not a dining table (although it was more of a meal than we practice today), the same thing applies to the table of demons; eating blood/meat sacrificed in an idolatrous manner. And I think that is the restriction, we shouldn’t be involved in any religious ceremonies which are idolatrous, i.e. with the express purpose of worshipping other gods.
                      You say that this wasn’t written for Gentile Christians because Blood consuming existed among Gentiles; this item was not intended for Jewish Christians. I would say the opposite is true; that is what Paul was trying to get over to the Gentiles, the things that they eat and practice are abhorrent to the Jewish believers. Paul taught the principle of freedom (everything is permissible) was to be regulated by love for others. Activities that are not beneficial or constructive or that do not promote the good of others should be avoided. I know this is Corinthians but it was Corinth where most of the Jews traveled to after being expelled from Rome, but it doesn’t matter whether Jews were present or not, the principles apply to us all.
                      However in Acts 15:29 we have a different scenario, it was all about the Jews and observance, so why is that? The key is to look at the context of the passage. In what is known as the Council of Jerusalem, the question of what to do about the conflict of practice between almost purely Gentile churches such as those begun by Paul and the almost purely Jewish churches in and around Jerusalem. 
                       
                       If I may quote Dr John Oakes on the subject:
                      “The Christians in Jerusalem and probably in other churches around Jerusalem had been observing most of the regulations of the Mosaic Law up to the time recorded in Acts 15. They observed the Sabbath and most or all of the other Jewish holy days. They also continued a kosher or nearly kosher food practice. They were still circumcising their male children.  Paul did not impose these practices on the Gentile Christians simply because they are NOT required by Christianity. We are not commanded to circumcise our children, to observe Jewish festivals or to eat kosher anywhere in the New Testament.  In fact, Paul speaks very strongly against commanding such things in the books of Colossians and Galatians.  However, when the church leaders met together in Jerusalem, they wanted to find some sort of middle ground which would satisfy Paul’s insistence that we Christians are not bound by Jewish laws but which was sensitive to Jewish practices. It seems that they decided to ask the Gentile Christians to avoid certain practices which were particularly offensive to the Jews.”
                      This must be seen as a compromise for the sake of love and unity.  We can assume that the eating of blood was particularly offensive to the Jews. Paul conceded, out of humility and a desire to be sensitive, to ask the Gentile Christians to forego the eating of blood so as to make it easier for the Jewish Christians to accept them in full fellowship.
                       
                      Let’s recap items in Acts 15:29 –
                      a) Things ritually, ceremonially sacrificed to idols = meat, blood
                      b) Blood – separately mentioned as food
                      c) Strangled, warning against eating blood in meat
                      d) Fornication, immorality 
                      In my opinion, on the basis of my understanding and upon what I wrote in points 1 to 3, I say with respect to food – no blood. However, I do not condemn anyone, I have no right to do so, because of 1 Cor 8:8; 10:12,17; Romans 14:4,6,10,12-13,20. 
                      I just humbly ask you and everyone who consider the blood in food is right, please, examine your conscience and scriptures with respect to blood as food.

                      Rebut to recap:
                      a) Agree. We shouldn’t do this ritually, however as food. 1 Co 8:8. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. Please read for context.
                      b) Agree. (As a compromise to the Weaker brothers (Jewish Christians))
                      c) Agree. (As a compromise to the Weaker brothers (Jewish Christians)) otherwise rare steaks are on the menu!
                      d) Agree.
                      I say with respect to food. Blood is Ok to eat, but not in the presence of the weaker brother, all things should be done in love for the sake of scriptural unity.

                      Finale:
                      I have thought that if my position is correct then blood transfusions are permissible as a medicine for none life threatening issues, but if the medical issue is not life threatening then from your view it would be a violation, if I understand your position correctly blood transfusion is only permissible under the threat of death and not for the relief of an ailment, otherwise you would be breaking / violating the law. So what about David and the show bread?
                      My problem with this as anyone who reads my comments should see, the moment that you make anything in the law a requirement for Christians you have in effect made another Gospel. Please read Galatians carefully and remember this is over Circumcision, something that God said was to be a permanent reminder for all generations, remember also that a point over the blood prohibition has been made to the fact it was before the law, and therefore will stand forever but, so was circumcision, and both are under the law!   
                      Are you willing to place yourselves under the law, something Paul said was foolish and bewitching, and another Gospel? Jesus said Mark 7:18.  And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) Eric and I believe Frankie has said yes but, this excludes blood, where is the evidence? Frankie, give me a strong scripture for this as you have asked me. For me, the whole argument boils down to this…
                      If you look at Acts 15 and think of the decision of the council as a temporary measure in order to maintain unity within the church, then it all makes sense.  We have a few admonitions in scripture to avoid certain practices that would offend others, even if they are not inherently wrong. Romans 14 is a discussion from Paul which suggests that the strong (in the context, those who are more mature and understand that a particular practice is not wrong per se) should be willing to forego certain freedoms for the sake of the weak (those with a more tender conscience). I believe that Paul applied this to his relationships with the Jewish Christians. 
                      Here is the bottom line. If a Christian lives in a country or culture where the eating of blood is extremely offensive, then that disciple ought to refrain from the eating of blood, not because it is sinful, but because it would be sinful or a stumbling block to those who believe it is wrong. It is NOT sinful for a Christian to eat blood, but it might be advisable in certain circumstances to refrain.
                      If I have seemed argumentative; or if I have in any way offended anyone, I do apologize that was not my intention, it is difficult to get one's demeanor in the written word.
                      Every Blessing in our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13)
                       

                      • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-11 18:20:48

                        Hi Mark, I think I explained the connection between Genesis 9: 4-6 and Acts 15:29 (meat containing blood) sufficiently, using the 1 Cor 10:16,21 and showing that " Strangled animals are not properly bled, so the blood remains in tissue of meat. In other words – "Don't eat meat with blood"”. This is not about Law; this is about principle given by God to our forefather Noah - it is forbidden to eat the blood of animals as a symbol of life. 

                        I read your arguments, but I have other counter-arguments. We can discuss endlessly and shoot arguments at each other from our trenches (Letter to the Romans, blood, whatever). I know you understand this topic differently. But my position is as I have already written: "I just humbly ask you and everyone who consider the blood in food is right, please, examine your conscience and scriptures with respect to blood as food.” 

                        I do not condemn you or anyone. I believe we will meet one day in God's Kingdom and then everything will be clear (1 Cor 13:12). 

                        By the way, maybe one day we'll meet at Zbigniew in Poland or at me. Don't forget to bring that whiskey!

                        Thank you Mark for interesting discussion.
                        Peace and love to you. (John 1:12-13)
                        Frankie.

                        • Reply by ZbigniewJan on 2021-02-11 19:50:48

                          Hello dear brother Frankie !!!!! I was going to write tomorrow but I couldn't stand it. I have great pleasure in addressing you. I feel closeness through brotherly unity in Christ and we are also neighbors. I have been to Slovakia a lot. I love skiing, and Tatranska Lomnica and Chopok are a little paradise in our region. I hope Eric will forgive me for a bit of privacy in this post. If you can, write something about yourself. I am impressed by the arguments compiled in Eric's lecture and your comments so very accurate and consistent. I completely share this broad view of the sanctity of blood. Mark forced you to make an effort, he helped us all to reassure ourselves in the conviction that we can unite in Christ and cover the differences in the conscience that each of us sets for ourselves with love. Jesus is our head, support, teacher and judge. Many religions dictate the understanding of leaders. This is the case in the Catholic religion and in JW. The easiest way is to exclude and disqualify. The better way is to convince with biblical and logical arguments. I thank you all that I can benefit from your insight. Jesus is everything and everything Col 3:11 As Eric wrote, you discussed the topic of the sanctity of blood very thoroughly, now is the time to reflection on God's principles and the limits of conscience. Maybe the whiski brought by Mark and the Slavic black pudding without blood will help us all. Frankie, may our God and his son and our Lord support you. Zbigniew

                          • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-12 09:12:37

                            Dear brother Zbygniew, thanks a lot for your kind words. When someone praises me, I always don't know at all what to say. But one thing is certain - if there is something good in me, I got it from my heavenly Father. 
                            Every minute I live and everything I get from God is a precious gift. And thank to Jehovah's Son, Jesus Christ, my King and my Savior and my beloved brother, I really live through faith in Him, because:
                            "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Gal. 2:20)

                            God bless you. Frankie

                        • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-12 08:11:56

                          Cheers Frankie, If you or Zbigniew are ever in my neighborhood (South Wales) look me up and we'll have a drink together.
                          Every Blessing in our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13)

                          • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-12 09:54:04

                            Thank you, Mark, it will be my (and certainly of Zbigniew) pleasure.
                            God bless you.

                            • Reply by ZbigniewJan on 2021-02-16 15:05:51

                              Hello Frankie !!!
                              I invite you, write me your story, something about yourself.
                              My address: z.piatek-zegarmistrz@wp.pl
                              Your brother in Christ Zbigniew

                          • Reply by ZbigniewJan on 2021-02-16 15:09:32

                            Hello Mark !!!
                            I invite you, write me your story, something about yourself.
                            My address: z.piatek-zegarmistrz@wp.pl
                            Your brother in Christ Zbigniew

  • Comment by bereanthinker1 on 2021-01-31 15:54:58

    Fantastic work! Its amazing how simple and contextual scripture reading leads so many of us to the same conclusions. The Spirit truly is at work when we honestly seek our Father, and follow after His Son.

  • Comment by Fani on 2021-02-01 04:05:47

    Lorsque ses disciples ont ramassé des épis de blé le jour du sabbat ne respectant pas ainsi la loi de Dieu, Jésus dit « N’avez-​vous pas lu ce que David a fait quand lui et ses hommes ont eu faim ? 4 Il est entré dans la maison de Dieu et ils ont mangé les pains de présentation. Pourtant, lui et les hommes qui étaient avec lui n’avaient pas le droit de les manger ; ils étaient réservés aux prêtres" (Mathieu 12 : 3)

    Ces hommes n'ont pas été condamnés par le prêtre ni par Christ. Pourtant ces pains étaient réservés aux prêtres.
    Ainsi les circonstances particulières, exceptionnelles, tels que la faim, le danger, le risque de perdre la vie passent au dessus ou avant la loi.
    Pourquoi ? Parce qu'il est TOUJOURS PERMIS DE FAIRE UNE BONNE ACTION ( Mat 12 : 12)

    Tu as souligné une exception à la loi du sang pour les Israélites qui étaient loin de chez eux. Je ne m'en rappelais pas. Merci.
    Cet exemple, je crois, confirme ce que Christ a montré, que la lettre de la loi n'est pas universelle, par contre la loi de l'amour, de la miséricorde est universelle et supérieure.

    De plus sacrifier la vie de son enfant me rappelle ce que faisaient les nations païennes :
    "Ils ont construit les hauts lieux ... pour faire brûler leurs fils et leurs filles. Or, je ne l’avais pas ordonné, et cela ne m’était jamais venu à l’idée" Jérémie 7 : 31

    Donc la question principale est : que me pousse à faire la loi de l'amour ?

    Merci l'exposé était très clair.

    Nicole

  • Comment by ZbigniewJan on 2021-02-01 15:17:58

    I like Eric's argument: you kill an animal to eat it, but by pouring blood from its body you show that you thank God for the right to kill a living animal that belonged to God because it was created by him. There are only exceptions that prove the rule. The most delicious black pudding is no exception. Blood is life. In the Mosaic law, the blood of animals was placed on the altar. This blood symbolized the blood of Jesus. We drink his blood symbolically to get real life.

    • Reply by Frankie on 2021-02-04 06:12:01

      Nice.

    • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-10 06:21:17

      Can you explain your comment "pouring blood from its body you show that you thank God for the right to kill a living animal" I am not familiar with this concept, and if the blood symbolized the blood of Jesus and that symbol has been fulfilled why would it be held sacred? Obviously, I'm speaking in regards to food, not ceremony.

  • Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2021-02-02 04:56:39

    Hi Eric,
    I know you have used many of these lines of reasoning before, but this is all so well presented, and it is an important reminder for all those who have not read your earlier articles..
    Life is more important than blood. Obvious isn't it.? Sadly, it is another example of the rigidity of JW.Org. And they are proud of it !
    Anyway, I thought it was absolutely fabulous !
    Thanks again.

  • Comment by Sky Blue on 2021-02-02 16:47:05

    This was excellent! I would just like to add a couple more thoughts regarding the issue.

    First, when David and his men arrived at the temple, they needed life-sustaining food, and Ahimelech the priest gave them the Showbread, which was sacred and unlawful to be eaten by anyone but the priests. But he made an exception, in order to preserve life, and they were not held guilty. (1 Sam 21:1-6). Jesus even referred to this incident (Matt 12:3-7) when exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Interestingly he called those that preserved life over obeying sacred mandates "the guiltless ones".

    Also, of note, in Acts 15:28, the Apostles and older men wrote "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things" - But what did the Holy Spirit tell them? The context shows only that they were no longer required to be circumcised nor observe the Law. (Acts 15). The other added mandates, including the prohibition of blood, were added by them - that is why they added the caveat "and we ourselves".

    • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-10 06:14:00

      Interesting, do you believe that David and his clan were dying of hunger?

  • Comment by Torso Boy on 2021-02-07 05:14:20

    This is obviously an important subject and one that causes a lot of serious discussion/debate, as is evident by the number of comments here.

    Please forgive me if I am taking a simplistic approach, but I think there is an obvious distinction between animal blood used in worship and possible foodstuffs, and human blood used for transfusions.

    The scriptures cited throughout this thread all talk about animal blood and how it is/is not to be used, and then try to relate them to blood transfusions. I don’t know of any scriptures that directly relate to the consumption of human blood, either through ingesting it or transfusing it (Please correct me if there are.).

    God’s laws around animal blood are fairly clear, generally speaking. How can we equate the use of animal blood and flesh to the use of human blood? After all, we aren’t talking about transfusing animal blood.

    Again, forgive me if I have missed something obvious. I enjoy reading and learning through this site and videos, and also from the many thoughtful and well prepared comments of all the contributors.

    Love to you all.

    • Reply by Bamba64 on 2021-02-10 06:00:23

      You are right, this is not in regards to human blood; eating or transfusing it, we all know the stories of folks who have had no other food other than human carcasses and have eaten human flesh, nobody would do this ordinarily. However to sustain human life I see no problem in an exceptional case such as that. You wouldn't defile yourself if you had to do this based on Mt 15:11. And I believe the same applies to transfusions, blood eaten or transfused is all broken down and is expelled. Our right standing before God is not based on what we can do but on what Christ has already done, of course, this doesn't give us the license to sin, Paul, was clear on this in Rom 6:1.

Recent content

Addendum to What Did Thomas Mean When He Said "My Lord and My God"?

In a recent video titled What Did Thomas Mean When He Said “My Lord and My God"? it seems that I did a less than adequate job explaining how Scripture shows that Thomas couldn’t have been calling Jesus his God. I say…

What Did Thomas Mean When He Said “My Lord and My God"?

You’ve heard me use the term “cherry-picking” when referring to people who try to prove the Trinity using the Bible? But what exactly does that term, cherry-picking, mean? Rather than define it, I’ll give you an…

Confusing Essence and Identity: Why the Jesus-Is-God People Get It Wrong

In my experience, people who believe that Jesus is God do not believe that he is God Almighty. How can that be? Are there two Gods? No, not for these folks! They believe there is only one God. Both Yehovah and Jesus are…

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is a Named Defendant in a NY Court Child Sexual Abuse Case

Hello Everyone, In case you are not aware of it, I wanted to let you know that it appears something unprecedented is happening. The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is actually being held accountable for…

How to Deal with SLANDER

Hello everyone,Let’s talk about slander for a moment. We all know what slander is, and we’ve all experienced it at some point in our lives. Did you realize that slander is a form of murder? The reason is that the…

If We Are Saved by Grace Then Why Does Truth Matter?

Hello everyone,If I were to ask you, “Why was Jesus born? Why did Jesus come into the world?” how would you answer?I think many would respond to those questions by saying that Jesus was born and came into the world to…