The Trinity, from the JW view.

[greymare]

ok, to me the way Q says it , is like the animal is alive and is cut up ;and eaten........eeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww. but what is with the whole dietry thing. surely werent we put here to populate the earth and all that. and I would reckon that all the butchers and slaughtermen here bleed the beasts they kill for reasons other than religion.
and what does that have to do with blood transfusions?

mee, why dont jws get blood transfusions?

 

[BlaznFattyz]

mee, why dont jws get blood transfusions?

and before you answer that, think of the greatest commandment of all, which is to love god and the second which is to love others, and think about the disciples eating before washing their hands, or david eating the bread from the temple, or jesus talking and eating with sinners, or christ healing on the sabbath, and then think about the consequence if you don't give a transfusion, and then answer it.

 

[Quahom1]

ok, to me the way Q says it , is like the animal is alive and is cut up ;and eaten........eeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww. but what is with the whole dietry thing. surely werent we put here to populate the earth and all that. and I would reckon that all the butchers and slaughtermen here bleed the beasts they kill for reasons other than religion.
and what does that have to do with blood transfusions?

mee, why dont jws get blood transfusions?

The JW belief is that the blood of another carries the essence of the spirit of the same, therefore, that essence of spirit would be incorporated into the recipient, and "taint" the original spirit within.

Quite an arrogant philosophy, as well as a self centered one. Why? The reverse is also true should a JW give blood to another and, they would rather let Jehovah make the decision as to whether one lives or dies due to lack of blood.

Now I think I'll take my O positive butt down to the local red cross to give some of my univerally accepted (and spirit tainted, lol), blood for some worthy human being in desperate need of it. The least I can do for my fellow humans.

 

[greymare]

Im O negative and I have made over 28 donations so far. we dont get paid or anything for it, just a cup of tea an some bikkies and the ladies at the red cross love us .

 

[mee]

To cut flesh from a living animal and eat it without bleeding it is what is wrong. That used to be a practice of barbarians, and there is of course that fact that such is the blood of a living creature, therefore is still living itself, hence carrying the spirit of the creature into the human...

God told his worshipers that a hunter who caught a wild beast or fowl "must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.

For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it.

Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.’"—Leviticus 17:13, 14; Deuteronomy 12:23-25.


This pouring out of the blood was not simply a religious ritual; it actually was an extension of the divine law given to Noah.

When killing an animal, a person should recognize that its life comes from and belongs to God.
By not eating the blood, but ‘pouring it out’ on the altar or on the ground, the Israelite was, in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.
​

The Israelites were allowed to use animal blood only in one way. That was in offering it up as a sacrifice to God, acknowledging him as the Life-Giver to whom they were indebted.

He told them: "The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [or life] in it."—Leviticus 17:11.


A measure of guilt resulted even from eating the blood-containing flesh of an animal that died of itself or that was killed by a wild beast.—Leviticus 17:15, 16; compare Leviticus 5:3; 11:39.

For an Israelite to show disregard for life as represented by the blood was viewed as a most serious wrong.

 

[mee]

mee, why dont jws get blood transfusions?

because the abstaining of blood is still a nessesary thing for christians .



The decision of the council was sent by letter to the Christian congregations. It is now included in the Bible as part of the inspired Scriptures that are beneficial "for teaching, . . . for setting things straight." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) The decision was:

"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 and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper."—Acts 15:28, 29. ​

Yes, even though Christians were not under the Mosaic law, it was "necessary" that they abstain from blood. Was that just the apostles’ personal opinion? Not at all. As they stated, that decision was made in accord with God’s holy spirit. ​

Do

these Biblical statements, however, apply to the acceptance of transfused blood as a life-saving medical procedure?

Some persons contend that the Bible forbids the eating of blood as a food and that this is fundamentally different from accepting a blood transfusion, a medical procedure that was not known in Bible times.

Is that position valid?
There is no denying that in Bible times God’s law had particular application to consuming blood as food.

Intravenous administration of blood was not then practiced.

But, even though the Bible did not directly discuss modern medical techniques involving blood, it did in fact anticipate and cover these in principle.


Note, for example, the command that Christians "keep abstaining . . . from blood." (Acts 15:29) Nothing is there stated that would justify making a distinction between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels. And, really, is there in principle any basic difference?

Doctors know that a person can be fed through the mouth or intravenously. Likewise, certain medicines can be administered through various routes.

Some antibiotics, for instance, can be taken orally in tablet form or injected into a person’s muscles or circulatory system (intravenously).

What if you had taken a certain antibiotic tablet and, because of having a dangerous allergic reaction, were warned to abstain from that drug in the future? Would it be reasonable to consider that medical warning to mean that you could not take the drug in tablet form but could safely inject it into your bloodstream? Hardly! The main point would not be the route of administration, but that you should abstain from that antibiotic altogether.

Similarly, the decree that Christians must ‘abstain from blood’ clearly covers the taking of blood into the body, whether through the mouth or directly into the bloodstream.

​

this is a good read​

​

 

[mee]

Im O negative and I have made over 28 donations so far. we dont get paid or anything for it, just a cup of tea an some bikkies and the ladies at the red cross love us .

yes ,i used to give blood before i knew what the bible teaches .

now i go along with what the bible teaches .

 

[greymare]

for me, its an easy way to save someones life. I hardly feel anything, I feel good abuot myself, the little old ladies make a fuss over me especially cos im 0neg. (not rare but they use me for everyone. im just soooo compatible) lol. and its a risk free way to be a hero. (did I mention that?) I do it purely for my own benefit. (hero worship. lol)

 

[mee]

TheTrinity—Whose Teaching?

What, then, about the teaching that Jehovah and Jesus are, in effect, the same God, as the Trinity doctrine proclaims?

In its issue of April-June 1999, The Living Pulpit magazine defined the Trinity this way:
"There is one God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit, three ‘persons’ . . . who are the same or one in essence . . . ; three persons equally God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really distinct, known by their personal characteristics." ​

Where did this complex Trinity teaching originate? ​

The Christian Century, in its May 20-27, 1998, issue, quotes a pastor who acknowledges that the Trinity is "a teaching of the church rather than a teaching of Jesus." Even though the Trinity is not a teaching of Jesus, is it consistent with what he taught?​

​

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

when meat is cut in the course of preparation for cooking, or when it is sliced after it has been cooked, a reddish fluid may run out of it. Is such meat suitable for eating by a Christian?.



A Christian may eat meat only from animals that were drained of their blood at the time they were slaughtered.

The Bible commands: "Keep abstaining . . . from blood and from things strangled."—Acts 15:29.


Of course, even the meat from properly bled animals may appear to be very red or may have red fluid on the surface. This is because bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled.


Then, too, there is extravascular fluid in the meat. This fluid may mix with traces of blood and take on a red color. The extravascular fluid filling the spaces between the cells is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood.

So,the presence of a reddish fluid does not in itself make meat unsuitable for food. As long as an animal has been properly bled, its meat may Scripturally be used for food.


There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal may not have been bled properly. If there is no way for him to get the facts, he may choose not to eat the meat and thus avoid disturbing his conscience.

This is in harmony with the principle stated at Romans 14:23: "If he has doubts, he is already condemned if he eats."

So, ingesting blood is OK so long as a perfunctory effort is made to "bleed" the animal? Do JW's buy kosher meat? How do you know what the processing standards of the meat you buy are when you pick it up at the grocery store? How do you know that every effort was made to bleed the meat as completely as possible? Is this even a concern? My JW friends tell me that it isn't. They say they just buy the same meat as the rest of us and don't worry about it. So, what I don't understand is why an article of faith is made of abstaining from transfusions, which could save your life, but the much less burdensome act of going vegetarian so you don't eat blood, which is what the command, ON IT's FACE, is about, is too much trouble, or not important at all. How does that make any sense?

Chris

 

[mee]

So, ingesting blood is OK so long as a perfunctory effort is made to "bleed" the animal? Do JW's buy kosher meat? How do you know what the processing standards of the meat you buy are when you pick it up at the grocery store? How do you know that every effort was made to bleed the meat as completely as possible? Is this even a concern? My JW friends tell me that it isn't. They say they just buy the same meat as the rest of us and don't worry about it. So, what I don't understand is why an article of faith is made of abstaining from transfusions, which could save your life, but the much less burdensome act of going vegetarian so you don't eat blood, which is what the command, ON IT's FACE, is about, is too much trouble, or not important at all. How does that make any sense?

Chris

the bible says that we can eat meat .

but for me i do look on labels to see if blood has been added , i remember going on my hols to the canary isles once , and i DID NOT buy a tin of cassarole because on the label it had blood added to it . i saw it just in time .i nearly bought it so i am careful to look on labels . i think it was from germany as the supermarket was full of german food .


maybe the germans have to check a bit more on their labels but in britain the food is bled .


i think its a case of taking in blood when you know for sure that its in the product.

would a person just go ahead and eat it knowing that blood has been added.

when he knows what Gods thoughts on the matter are .


i dont think the true God would judge us for eating blood if we didnt know we were eating it.

i knew blood had been added to that tin of food , if i just thought ,oh its alright i will eat it anyway,that would be rebellion as i know what Gods law is

 

[mee]

the trinity concept stems from ancient babylon, where the sun-god shamash, the moon god sin, and the star god ishtar were worshipped as a triad,

Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping osiris,isis,and horus.
Assyrias chief god Asshuris is portrayed as having three heads.

following the same pattern, images are to be found in catholic churches depicting God as having three heads. oh dear




Websters third new international dictionary of 1981 defines Jehovah God as a supreme deity recognized and the only deity worshiped by Jehovahs witnesses.

now thats more like it should be

 

[wil]

Websters third new international dictionary of 1981 defines Jehovah God as a supreme deity recognized and the only deity worshiped by Jehovahs witnesses.

now thats more like it should be

So in the previous version and the next version they didn't? Today they don't have a definition for 'Jehovah God' And their definition of Jehovah is

New Latin, reading (as Yĕhōwāh) of Hebrew yhwh Yahweh with the vowel points of 'adhōnāy my lord

 

[mee]

So in the previous version and the next version they didn't? Today they don't have a definition for 'Jehovah God' And their definition of Jehovah is

for Jehovahs witnesses this is the definition of God. He is the most high.

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.psalm 83;18 ​

 

[mee]

In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?

It puts them in a very dangerous position.

The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches.

It grossly misrepresents the true God.

Yet, Jesus Christ said: "The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:23, 24, RS)

Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not "true worshipers."

To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: "For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’" (Matt. 15:6-9, RS)

That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.

​

​

 

[Thomas]

the trinity concept stems from ancient babylon, where the sun-god shamash, the moon god sin, and the star god ishtar were worshipped as a triad, Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping osiris,isis,and horus. Assyrias chief god Asshuris is portrayed as having three heads.

Keep going, Mee — the more you write about the Trinity, the more you show how little you actually know about it, let alone offer a critique. Sorry Mee, but when it comes to this topic, you are an empty vessel.

The above deities are cosmological, and symbolise the forces and rhythms of nature.

Not what the Trinity does at all. There's not the slightest correspondence. You don't know what you're talking about.

following the same pattern, images are to be found in catholic churches depicting God as having three heads. oh dear

Reference please. What Catholic churches, where?

And whilst we're on the subject, how do you explain your founder using the symbol of the Egyptian sun god 'Ra' on the cover of his books, or the Masonic Knights Templar symbol of cross and crown on the cover of his magazine?

Thomas

 

[mee]

Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

 

[mee]

In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read:


“If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism.

The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity.


Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

 

[mee]

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.”


And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

 

[mee]

In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity:


“We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”