Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

aqwsed12345
For a Christian, only the moral commandments of the Old Testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them. This includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.
Take a look at the following verses: Mt 15:11, Mk 7:15-19, Acts 11:7-9, 1 Tim 4:3-5.
The Jehovah's Witnesses say that, yes, but in the Acts of the Apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the New Testament still forbids it. For Catholics, the Council of Florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between Jews and Gentiles in the early Church. Thus, the regulation was only binding under those specific circumstances. One could say it was a matter of church discipline.
The Bible also confirms this and provides an answer to why the apostles made this decision. Paul speaks of this twice. Rom 14:1-23, 1 Cor 10:25-32.
They generally bring up certain resolutions of the apostolic council (around AD 50). However, they quote a pastoral and not doctrinal decision of the apostolic council, which can be changed at any time according to the circumstances.
The apostolic council affirmed the eternal dogmatic truth that salvation for all people on Earth comes solely through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; the Old Testament was only a prefigurement, which was fulfilled. Therefore, the Church is catholic (universal), speaking to people of all times and places with the "royal decree" or the "Euvangelion."
In addition to this, the apostolic council also made pastoral, disciplinary decisions. From a purely pastoral point of view, Jews can maintain (not mandatory) the ritual and disciplinary rules of the Old Testament (based on the 613 commandments in the Torah), while the "multitude" of converted Gentiles (goyim) are obliged to maintain the 7 Noachide laws for the sake of peace. This includes the prohibition of bloodshed. However, do not forget that the apostolic council took place before the destruction of the Zerubbabel-Herodian Temple (AD 70), and after its destruction, the Old Testament "halakha" became practically impossible to maintain. Despite the two-thousand-year effort of Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism, a deep longing and sense of loss exist in every devout Jew, because they feel that something is deeply wounded within them, regardless of any Talmudic paraphrase... The stone heart, the stone temple was carved out, but the flesh heart, prophesied by the prophet, is given through the "sprinkling with water," the Eucharist becomes the new flesh temple at the center of man.
The prohibition of consuming so-called unclean animals described in the Mosaic Law was meant to strengthen the sense of separation of the Jews, incorporating a distinction between Jewish (holy) and Gentile (unclean) things into everyday life. This ceased after Christ's universal mission, so the distinctions between clean and unclean things also ceased, and the New Testament lifted these prohibitions (see Acts 11:7-9; Rom 14:14.20; 1 Cor 10:23-33; 1 Tim 4:3-5). The same applies to blood: "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean; rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." (Mk 7:15).
The prohibition found in Acts 15:20,29 may seem to be a reinforcement of the old law at first glance. However, in this case, the apostles are quoting the law applicable to foreigners living in Israel (Lev 17:8-9, 10-12, 15; 18:6-18). This means that, on one hand, converted Gentiles (or Christians in general) have been admitted to the "land of Israel," but on the other hand, they did not want to cause offense among the old "earthly" residents (see 1Cor 10:28-33). In these prohibitions, the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the reasons, which gave rise to it. The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, were here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches.
In summary, the apostles' decisions were primarily pastoral and disciplinary, rather than doctrinal. They recognized the eternal truth that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, and the Old Testament's laws and prohibitions were, for the most part, no longer binding on Christians. The apostles aimed to facilitate harmony between Jews and Gentiles in the early Church, and their decisions were adapted to the specific circumstances of their time.
When does biological death occur, and how ethically permissible is organ transplantation, including blood transfusion? Here, of course, it is not a ritual consideration, but a deeper one that has guided us. Somehow, I concluded that although Old Testament anthropology is not based on today's abstract and experimental medicine, there is some truth in the idea that the "vital spirit" is in the blood; that is, as long as it is in the body, the given physical being (higher vertebrate) is alive. This is why, for example, Muslims and Jews prohibit the consumption of mollusks because their vital bodily fluid cannot be separated from their flesh. In the vertebrate body, cells absorb practically everything from the blood. If this medium is not present, their metabolism stops, and they begin to decompose.
The biological phases of human death (death throes - agony) are:
- cessation of mental functions
- cessation of sensitive functions:
- cessation of breathing
- cessation of heart function
- cessation of brain function
- cessation of vegetative functions: o cessation of metabolism
In the Middle Ages, for example, it was forbidden to dissect humans (more precisely, living humans) because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, a relic, a remnant, which will rise again. Who was considered a living human? This is where the "anima forma corporis" principle comes in. What does the Catholic Church teach about humans? Three universal councils produced dogma concerning this issue:
1. The General, Universal, and Holy Council of Vienne (1312)
"Substantia animae rationalis seu intellectiva sit forma corporis humani per se et essentialiter." "The substance of the rational or intellectual soul is the form of the human body in itself and essentially."
- spiritual substance of the human soul => substantia incompleta
- material substance of the human body => substantia incompleta
- spiritual-material human => substantia completa
- body and soul => metaphysical difference + metaphysical interdependence
- forma substantialis => substantial form
- substantia incompleta => incomplete substance
- The unity-difference of man – the hylomorphist synthesis of body and soul.
With this, extreme monist and extreme dualist conceptions of man were condemned: the extreme dualism of the objective idealist direction - Platonism: • + the body is the prison of the soul, it is only a garment, so transmigration of souls is also possible; • + the soul alone is the human being.
Objective materialist - Epicurean - sensualism: • only matter exists, the soul is merely a reflection of it. • matter-energy-information (soul) transformable reality; • this philosophical conception of man, based on the hermeneutic-Gnostic heresy, was in fact held by Teilhard de Chardin and Henri de Lubac, who were not condemned by the teaching office for their theory of evolution! The inductive natural scientific evidence does not support this conception of man.
• the Magisterium maintains the separate creation of the world, life, and man, because there are gaps in existence, and the existence of our ancestors is not a fairy tale. The existence of our ancestors (Adam and Eve) is real, and their creation story should not be dismissed as a mere fable.
1. Fifth Lateran Council (1513)
The condemnation of the Renaissance-era Neoplatonic heresy, which the Council labeled as "Averroism," involved the condemnation of the myth of the "transhuman spirit."
This heresy assumed that there is a general "Human Spirit" that exists within every human individual, and it is this spirit that gives the intellectual, rational properties to humans, being eternal within them.
From this, it can be seen that the vegetative functions of humans are also provided by the individual, intellectual, rational soul. Therefore, people with intellectual or physical disabilities cannot be killed in the name of any ideology because they also possess a complete spiritual soul, even if it cannot manifest itself due to their bodily or brain abnormalities. Thus, the prohibition of blood consumption was not solely for ritual reasons, as confirmed by the apostolic council.
Are Jehovah's Witnesses right? Their anthropology is different, for example, they do not consider the human soul to be immortal by nature, etc. They reject it for different reasons. I consider this to be a ritual law, not a dogmatic or moral one, although it does have anthropological foundations. The Church Fathers and their commentaries should be reviewed, as well as what both the Franciscan and Dominican Schools said about this issue, as they thoroughly dealt with human nature and the onset of death on both medical (much of which is outdated) and philosophical grounds. The prohibition would only be justifiable and reasonable in this case, with certain limitations.
The apostolic council essentially provides disciplinary rules, even if they have dogmatic-moral and ritual implications. It essentially repeats the seven Noachide laws so that pagan converts to Christianity maintain these external rules (of course, with an internal disposition!), while Jewish converts to Christianity can keep the 613 laws of the Torah, provided they attribute their salvation solely to the redeeming grace of Christ, resulting from internal, heartfelt actions, and reject the ritual-external justification conception prevalent among the Pharisees of that time.
However, the Old Testament's ritual and political laws have ceased to exist, and their observance is now sinful. Only the eternal dogmatic-moral truths remain. The ritual laws will never be revived, while the political laws can be revived if the Jewish people, as a collective (not as individuals), convert to the Catholic Church.
It is important to include this because I have heard enthusiastic, well-intentioned statements from traditionalists, describing how today's Rabbinic Jewish liturgy will be incorporated into Christian worship after the conversion of the Jews (I am omitting the explanation that, objectively, today's Rabbinic-Talmudic Judaism is not identical to Mosaic Judaism, even if some elements are distortedly present, but a human creation, just as pagan cults are not legitimate descendants of the pure Noachide cult, but distorted idolatry partly preserving them).
Dogma of the COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438
The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches "that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" [ 1 Tim. 4:4], since, according to the word of the Lord [ Matt.. 15: 11 ], "not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man"; and it asserts that the indifference of clean and unclean foods of the Mosiac law pertains to the ceremonials which, with the rise of the Gospel passed out of existence and ceased to be efficacious.. And it says also that the prohibition of the apostles "from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things strangled [ Acts 15:29] befitted that time in which one Church arose from the Jews and the Gentiles, who before lived according to different ceremonies and customs, so that even the Gentiles observed some things in common with the Jews, and occasion was furnished for coming together into one worship of God and one faith, and ground for dissension was removed; since to the Jews, by reason of an ancient custom, blood and things strangled seemed abominable, and they could think that the Gentiles would return to idolatry because of the eating of things sacrificed. But when the Christian religion is so propagated that no carnal Jew appears in it, but all passing over to the Church, join in the same rites and ceremonies of the Gospel, believing "all things clean to the clean" [Tit. 1:15], with the ending of the cause for this apostolic prohibition, the effect also ended. Thus it declares that the nature of no food, which society admits, is to be condemned, and no distinction is to be made by anyone at all, whether man or woman, between animals, and by whatever kind of death they meet their end; although for the health of body, for the exercise of virtue, for regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things not denied should be given up, since, according to the Apostle, "all things are lawful, but all things are not expedient" [1 Cor.. 6:12; 10:22]."
DesirousOfChange

Sorry. I can no longer GAS.
Beth Sarim

WT studies a truly make someone gag, sick to the stomach.
You hear comments like ''we don't want to be overbearing with rules and commands'', or ''jeopardize someone's health and safety''.
Yet, they have an entire WT about adhering to a deadly blood policy including using liason committee elders to enforce this with possible resulting in a disfellowshipping if someone takes a transfusion.
Just doesn't make sense.
Rattigan350

"For a Christian, only the moral commandments of the Old Testament are binding"
No they are not. None of the 10 commandment are binding.
"The prohibition found in Acts 15:20,29 may seem to be a reinforcement of the old law at first glance."
No, it was not. Act 15 was about the apostles peeling away the Law and seeing what remains.
Phizzy

" Acts 15* was about the apostles peeling away the Law and seeing what remains."
Exactly, what remains of a dietary instruction/law ! And the Council of Florence, mentioned in the O.P. had it right, it was a temporary, pragmatic 1st Century thing. The J. W org have got this blood business SO wrong, with devastating and lethal consequences, so unnecessary, so Evil.
* The consensus of modern N.T scholars is that Acts is mainly Fictional, so in all probability that "Council" to decide on what to eat, did not take place in real life anyway ! yet J.W's , and this is horrendous, their children, are STILL dying because of their crap interpretation!
aqwsed12345

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh
Somehow the Jewish religious principle of 'Pikuach nefesh' is always left out of these matters, the stipulation that most prohibitions are null if it can save a human life. For example, this includes the consumption of blood, because all non-kosher food is consumable for a Jew if it can save his life, but even a pregnant woman can eat pork if she desires it, even on Yom Kippur. And we saw that Jesus himself respected this when he healed on the Sabbath ... so I don't understand the Witnesses.
Jehovah's Witnesses can defend their organization's special teachings with intense passion. Their teaching related to blood is deeply shocking to non-religious critics of the JW, as well as to public witnesses who have been raised with an attitude like: "It doesn't matter if I die because Jehovah will resurrect me anyway" - which is essentially the same "logic" as the mantra of Islamist terrorists piloting the planes into the World Trade Center or committing other suicide terrorist actions: "It doesn't matter if I die because Allah will accept me into paradise for my heroic act." Of course, I'm not saying that the teaching about blood is the same as terrorism, but in terms of being a totally unnecessary sacrifice of life, ideologized with a completely distorted, god-defying logic, the parallel is valid.
Of course, many Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they don't really have to risk their lives due to the Watchtower's "light" on blood, and they start listing blood-substitute tools they read about in their denomination's publications, ignorant of the fact that just because something is available in America, it doesn't necessarily work the same way on the other side of the world. We've written about several examples where people, even children, have died here. Of course, a Witness may argue that since it didn't come through the official “channel,” Satan wrote it, and it doesn't exist. But do their own publications also refer to the fact that these things have indeed happened, that people, even children, have died because of the “light” invented by the Watchtower in the 20th century? The answer is yes, and everyone can find it in the Awake! May 22, 1994 issue, on pages 3-15 under "Youths Who Put God First." Of course, they claim that it's about God, but God didn't issue the 1961 dogma, and if these young people hadn't read about God in the Society's publications, it would never have occurred to them to ask such things from God. The article seeks to give the impression that it was the children's decision, their faith, etc. But why exactly was this their faith? Just by chance, or because the Organization taught them this? And if the organization were to teach differently, they would no longer believe this, interesting.
The authors of the emotionally appealing article also made sure to include someone who did not die, just as well, so gamble freely, after all, the odds are fifty-fifty that the doctors will be right, right?
And this is written by a person who is a Witness but has a more critical perspective, thus proving that EVEN WITH WITNESS LOGIC, children should not be encouraged to do what they do here: "if you find yourself in this situation, accept death because otherwise, you won't be resurrected."
If we start from the JW (Jehovah's Witnesses) logic that "abstaining" from blood is a clear Biblical command, then it is at most the same command as abstaining from fornication, but by no means a greater command. According to this, JWs do not make the mistake of adhering to this command, but rather in viewing the failure to adhere to it as a greater sin than anything else. Therefore, this is also an imbalance, even a satanic influence – as Satan's tactic is always not to lie consistently, but to corrupt the Truth in such a way that it creates an imbalance within the truth's structure, among its various parts. An example of this is how ordinary members feel if someone allows their child to receive blood.
They argue this way: it might be possible that a blood transfusion temporarily saves the child's life, but on the other hand, they lose eternal life. This is simply not true. If a child is raped, they essentially commit fornication, but since they did not do this of their own will, they cannot be guilty before God. Therefore, if a child has a car accident and the parents allow the doctor to give blood, the child's eternal life is not endangered. The question after this is only whether the parents have committed an unforgivable sin? Take fornication again. There are many cases where someone knowingly fornicates, they are excommunicated, and then after a while, when they repent of their sins, they are accepted back. So these knowingly fornicating individuals could not have committed an unforgivable sin, because if this were the case and they had sinned against the Holy Spirit, they could not be accepted back, as the Biblical statement holds that what the elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose is loosed in heaven. Therefore, it's not even certain that conscious fornicators have committed an unforgivable sin. Furthermore, there are other cases. There is a case where a married man cheats on his wife, then takes his lover as his wife, and divorces his wife. Even such an individual can be accepted back into the congregation after some time (along with the new wife). If we cannot say for sure, even in such glaring cases, that they have lost eternal life, then how the heck can we say this for a parent who, out of natural weakness, allows their injured child to receive blood?
die rather than compromise. This is true. However, Daniel or Abraham is an example that should be followed voluntarily. Voluntarily, from an inner conviction. Daniel-like behavior should not be forced by any sanctions or intimidation. Especially not by psychologically terrorizing people.
A person thinking with normal reason cannot ignore God (if they believe in Him). In this case, the question is not whether God knows about it or not, but whether a Witness who accepts blood can avoid sanctioning by the humiliating human leaders (= elders). The question is not what God thinks about things - because we know what He thinks - but whether one who commits this sin out of weakness commits an unforgivable sin. To decide this, the following things must be realized: it is true that abstaining from blood is indeed a clear biblical command, but it is not a stricter command than abstaining from fornication. The leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not err in their logic by trying to enforce this command, but by considering its violation a greater sin than anything else, and thus creating an imbalance in justice. Concrete evidence for this is how most ordinary members explain a hypothetical situation where the outside world holds them accountable for how they would deny blood to their child if they were to have an accident. They argue: "It might be possible that a blood transfusion temporarily saves the child's life, but on the other hand, they lose eternal life." - This is simply not true. If a child is raped, they formally commit fornication, but since they did not do this of their own will, they cannot be guilty before God. Therefore, if a child has a car accident and the parents allow the doctor to give blood, the child's eternal life is not endangered. The next question can only be whether the parents have committed an unforgivable sin? Take fornication again. There are many cases where someone knowingly fornicates, they are excommunicated, and then after a while, when they repent of their sins, they are accepted back. So these knowingly fornicating individuals could not have committed an unforgivable sin, because if this were the case and they had sinned against the Holy Spirit, they could not be accepted back; the Biblical rule must be valid that what the elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose is loosed in heaven.
Therefore, it's not even certain that conscious fornicators have committed an unforgivable sin. Furthermore, there are more severe cases. There is a case where a married man (Witness) cheats on his wife, then takes his "lover" as his wife, and officially divorces his wife. Even such an individual can be accepted back into the congregation after some time (along with the new wife!!). If we cannot say for sure, even in such glaring cases, that they have lost eternal life, then how the heck can we say this for a parent who, out of natural weakness, allows their injured child to receive blood? Of course - one might say - there's still the example of Daniel, who would have been willing to die rather than compromise. This is true. But the behavior like Daniel or Abraham's should not be forcibly instilled with any sanctions or intimidation, especially not by psychologically terrorizing people.
The alcohol is a bad example, because many people, for example, "abstain" from alcohol, but of course, they disinfect their wounds with it and use it for cleaning.
The situation is the same with blood. The abstaining clearly refers to consumption and not blood used for medical purposes, since when the apostles made this rule, blood was not yet used for such purposes.
With blood donation and transfusion, you save people's lives. If you remove yourself from this, you fulfill the previously written rule: "If someone knows how to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
The eating of the flesh of strangled animals, since the blood is still in it. Being the main element of animal life, it had to be offered as a sacrifice (man must sacrifice the whole of God's will, all the feelings and desires of the heart; being one of the main factors of animal life, blood, God demands it), and was considered unclean. At Christ's death, blood was also shed, since in his death our animal, sinful life had to cease; but through that, the blood ceased to be unclean, since everything became pure (see Acts 10:15), which was unclean because of the sin, which Christ took away. If the eating of blood is still forbidden here, it is not because blood is considered unclean, but out of consideration for the Jews, to ease their conversion, and for the sake of the Jewish converts to Christianity, who were scandalized over this, and perhaps would have even fallen away if their wish in this respect were not fulfilled. Later, when the pure understanding of the Christian religion became general, the Church also allowed the eating of blood.
Abstaining can encompass many things, but let me show you a logic from Jesus: "And he answered them, saying, 'Which of you shall have a donkey or an ox fall into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day?'" (Luke 14:5). I think the same applies to the question of blood: if your child's life depends on whether they receive blood, will you give it to them (allow it to be given to them)? I think the answer should be clear: life is more important than this rule.
And yes, I believe that the Scripture described in the Acts of the Apostles concerning blood: "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 21:25) - applies ONLY to eating, and not to blood transfusion, with which a person's life can be saved.
EasyPrompt

If someone calls themselves a "Christian" then they are, by choice, bound to obey Christ.

Christ poured out the holy spirit on the disciples in Jerusalem who wrote:

Acts 15:28,29

"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!”

It was repeated twice for emphasis: "from what is strangled" (congealed blood) and "from blood" (any blood, even fractions).

When the GB/FDS says "blood fractions are acceptable" the GB/FDS is antichrist.

White cells in milk is not the "blood" talked about here. Leftover blood in meat that's been properly bled is not what is talked about here. The Bible shows God is fine with people eating meat and drinking milk.

It's not normal to drink blood or shove it in your body some other way. Just because people can do it doesn't mean they should. It's just as nasty as immorality or idolatry. The GB/FDS have misled their flocks by saying "it's a conscience matter" to take blood fractions. Just like everything else, for them it's about the $$$ and control instead of obedience to God and Christ. They will get their judgment for misleading the flocks so heinously.

On our own, we're all as good as dead. No one can live forever on their own. Only Jesus blood can do that, "save a life". To be a "Christian" means to follow Christ.

"So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves."" (John 6:53)
Rattigan350

Easyprompt why are you arguing about blood fractions?
God has no law against the medical use of blood.
The only law is Gen 9:4.
The apostles and older men were not a governing body. Even with the holy spirit's help they can not expand the scope of Gen 9:4. Only God can. And he has not done that.
enoughisenough

I notice there are things the Bible teaches and people go out of their way to argue that isn't what the Bible means. There seems to be the concept that the "no blood" is a JW teaching...it isn't.The Bible teaches it. But what JW do teach about it doesn't make any sense: you can't take a blood transfusion, but you can have parts of the blood...where did the Parts come from? If I am left to my own understanding and reading the Bible without any outside influence ( religious, medical, or scientific, whatever) I would conclude that blood is sacred and is to be poured out. I see no place for transfusions, even if it means saving a life. Luke 17:33 KJ21
Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Then there is the scripture about not asking what is in the meat markets for the sake of your conscience. We would likely be appalled to know what is actually in many of the foods we eat or the meds we take.
Fisherman

TD crowned this by arguing that if it is arguable and only an interpretation then you must err on the side of life.
However, other than that and if wt says the command not to transfuse blood even when facing death is clearly from God and not an interpretation subject to error then blood transfusions are not for Christians.

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

Share this