That is fine. No offence but I didn't come to RF to win over any converts or to get anyone to agree with Sinaiticism but rather to reach out for and look for others of same mind set and beliefs to converse and discuss the true word of Yah. I am not one to worry about what others think and feel as to my beliefs and try not to debate them. If someone disagrees with me then that is o.k. I can live with that and hope that they can. If they cant then Oh well. Theyll just have to get over it. I dont come looking to start a fight with anyone but again, do not give a hill of beans if my beliefs upset anyone. I am not here in this life to please nor appease man but to serve and obey Yah.
If you say so. At the same time, though, you are a flawed human being, aren't you? A perfect understanding of anything is beyond us, which would mean that a perfect understanding of God's (or Yah's) will is beyond you as well.
As far as blood transfusions go, we are told that the blood is the life there of. This is true not just for the animal kingdom, which are the ones that we are allowed to partake in as food but also the blood of man is his life as well. Blood carries all kinds of waste and toxins, pathogens and has the DNA makeup of that person.
Donated blood is screened for pathogens before it's administered to a patient. Blood does carry waste and toxins, but this is true of all blood, including the blood coursing through your veins. Transfused blood wouldn't have any more of these things unless the donor had some sort of liver or kidney condition, which would be screened for as well.
There is even some thought that those things within the blood could play a role in the makeup of the persons train of thought, psyche and how they are. It might even be said that one might choose not to take the blood, or any other part, of another human being because they are not sure from whom the blood came and would be afraid that it might have came from a crazy person with all kinds of disorders as well as even maybe being a mass murderer. Even more is that one doesnt know what type of person it is as far as their beliefs. They could be a total reprobate. I, for one, would not want to know that I might have this type of persons blood running through my veins. What if you started taking on some of the physiological traits of said person? Not me.
It seems like this part of what you said isn't based on scripture or anything like it, and it's certainly not based on science. This makes me wonder if it's based on anything at all.
In any case, though, it seems like so far, your argument is based on the idea that blood transfusions are bad on some sort of objective scale. Isn't the more appropriate question whether they're better or worse than the alternative?
Not only that but we are told in scripture that if a man spills the blood of another then by his blood will it be required. Again I wouldnt want that mans blood in me either.
This part seems like a complete non-sequitir. Are you saying that blood bank nurses are going to have their blood spilt? It's really not clear what you're getting at.
We even see where the woman that has an issue with her blood that she be separated. This shows that blood of another is unclean for even her own husband to touch. It even states that it is Torah that any man that defiles himself with a woman that has this issue with her blood that this same man shall be put to death. No, I am not going to go along with having anyones blood, and or body parts, put into my body, or anyone that I have control overs body.
You're talking about menstruation, I assume. This prohibition on touching her blood wouldn't extend to things like first aid, would it? If your wife cut herself chopping vegetables in the kitchen, surely you'd be allowed to touch her blood in the process of putting on a bandage, wouldn't you?
As far as what Shaul taught, he taught the same thing the rest of the disciples taught which was the same thing that Yahshua taught. That was the Torah had not been done away with and that we were to obey the Torah. The only laws (plural) that has been set aside for the moment is mainly that of the sacrificial laws.
Really. I don't know what your interpretation is of the Epistles, but they seem to me to explicitly say that, at the very least, dietary restrictions no longer apply.
Also, in the Gospels, Jesus gives examples of where the Law is made secondary to more important things: he talks about the sheep in the pit, explaining (IMO) that the Law of the Sabbath is secondary to saving the life of an animal. He talks about not attending to your sacrifice at the Temple until after you've remedied things with your brother.
If the Law of the Sabbath -
written by the Hand of God Himself, according to Exodus - is secondary to saving the life of a sheep, why aren't the laws you refer to, which I would assume you consider
no more important than the Law of the Sabbath, secondary to saving the life of a human being, who I would hope you consider much more valuable than a sheep?
But all the other laws which pertain to such and such of the ways that Yah commanded us to observe and worship him as well as all those laws commanded as to the ways that we treat each other and also those laws pertaining to the ways we treat ourselves (dietary laws) are all very much still intact and are to be obeyed.
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this view with 1 Timothy 4? Or do you?
You may disagree and like I have stated, and no offence intended, that I am more than happy to live with that knowledge. I hope that you are.
I disagree vehemently, but I'm trying hard to be respectful. Still, I don't see how your position is consistent with the Bible or with a normal approach to compassion.