Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

EasyPrompt

"err on the side of life"

"Choosing life" means choosing Jesus' way ahead of the way of men who teach things contrary to the Christ.

No person is able to live forever by means of medical procedures involving blood or blood fractions. Every imperfect person who has ever lived has died, even the ones who accepted blood fractions.

No person has ever been "resurrected" by means of a blood transfusion from another imperfect human. Every imperfect person who has ever died is still dead. There is no medical procedure involving blood that will bring them back.

Hebrews 10:4

"it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away"

Imperfect human blood, just like the blood of animals, cannot remove sin and death.

John 14:6

"Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 11:25

"Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life."

Only Jesus' blood, our faith in the power of that blood and obedience to Christ's direction, manifested by obeying the simple command to refrain from blood (including refraining from blood fractions), is the way to "choose life".

Acts 5:29

"In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.""
EasyPrompt

"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."

Hi, @Rattigan350🙂

Eve said to the snake, "God said not to eat from the tree, no, do not touch it."

Eve only ate a fraction of the tree. How'd that go over?

God doesn't need to make a rule for every little thing under the sun. He gave a us a brain to reason on things.

There are people who smoke pot "for medical use" and there are others who smoke pot for "entertainment purposes" but at the end of the day, they are both inhaling.

"Abstain from blood."
Fisherman

There is no medical procedure involving blood that will bring them back.
Your commentary is moot and assumes the Bible proscribes blood transfusions. We JW believe it does. The issue is whether or not JW belief is only interpretation subject to error. If it is, the grounds for JW ban on BT is Biblically uncertain.
EasyPrompt

"Your commentary is moot and assumes the Bible proscribes blood transfusions. We JW believe it does. The issue is whether or not JW belief is only interpretation subject to error. If it is, the grounds for JW ban on BT is Biblically uncertain."

The JW belief doesn't matter. "It's Moo." 😆 Lol... Sorry, trying to be punny...

It's what Jesus said that matters.

"Eating" blood doesn't just mean literally "eating". It can also mean "taking in".

John 6:53-56

"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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him."

When Jesus used the words "drink" and "eat" here he was not talking about literally "drinking" and "eating". He meant "taking in" his teachings and making them a part of ourselves.

Deuteronomy 12:23-25

"Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh. You must not eat it. You should pour it out on the ground like water. You must not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you are doing what is right in Jehovah’s eyes."

Some people get all bent out of shape about taking in "genetic material" and thimerosal and formaldehyde in certain vaccines. Others are worried about getting an implanted microchip. Their consciences are uncomfortable putting things in their body that don't belong there.

It's good to train and listen to our conscience. But while the Bible doesn't specifically comment on whether or not putting those other objects in the body is right or wrong, it does say for sure that there is one "genetic material" that should never be taken into the body: blood.

John 6:56

"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him."

Jesus was saying that a person "taking in" his teachings and making those teachings part of themself is "in union" with him.

"Taking in" blood in any way (whether whole blood or fractions of blood) and making it a part of your body is becoming "in union" with someone else by means of their genetic material. God said not to do it. The only blood that is authorized for use for salvation is the blood of the Christ.

Leviticus 17:11

"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."
Fisherman

It's what Jesus said that matters.
You are deflecting from the subject scripture in Acts to keep abstaining from blood that cannot be nullified
The JW belief doesn't matter.
It sure does. It matters to JW. And to their believing and non believing family. And to every Christian that wants to obey God.
Foolednomore

I have a relative that says milk has blood in it. Since she is a nurse, I think she is well schooled in what is in milk. Next time some Jw's makes a big deal offer them some milk and tell them what the building blocks of milk are. They would think twice about milk. Cheers! Enjoy!
EasyPrompt

@Foolednomore...

The original language words for "blood" in the Bible were not referring to the white cells in milk.

God told the Israelites they were going to "the land of milk and honey" so obviously it's okay to drink milk.

There is also water in blood. And iron. And a whole bunch of other things. But you don't go around calling water "blood" or iron "blood".

Or, maybe you do, but I don't.🙂

@Fisherman...

"Abstain from blood."

In ancient times, the Jews abstained from certain foods that were legally unclean for them. If they were to eat a "fraction" of a lobster or a "fraction" of a lizard, they would still be breaking that law. We are not under any dietary laws as Christians, with the exception of abstaining from blood. Even taking in a "fraction" of blood that has been removed from another person is still breaking that law.

Haggai 2:13,14

"Hagʹgai then asked: “If someone who is unclean from contact with a dead body touches any of these things, will it become unclean?” The priests answered: “It will become unclean.” So Hagʹgai said: “‘That is how this people is, and that is how this nation is before me,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and that is how all the work of their hands is; whatever they present there is unclean.'"

It wasn't just "eating" unclean things under the Mosaic Law, but even touching them that made a person unclean. A person with a flow of blood was "unclean" under the Mosaic Law. Touching a person with a flow of blood could make someone ceremonially "unclean" under the Law.

We are not under the Mosaic Law. But the principles in the Law help us understand how to read Acts 15. "Abstain from blood" doesn't just mean "don't eat blood". Any blood that came out of a person was supposed to be disposed of, not reused. In the Law, even touching someone's blood made a person unclean. How much more so injecting it into their body, even a fraction of it, would be an abomination to the first century Christians!

"Abstain from blood."

"It matters...to every Christian that wants to obey God."
menrov

Use of blood is not mentioned in the list of things that will block your heritage 1 Cor. 6:9-11.
Acts is not a law given by Jesus.
Yes, there are health risks if one eats blood. But it is not a sin. Only sinning against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.
The JW blood doctrine is simply created to show they are different from main stream Christianity and to control the flock. Blood is on their hands.
EasyPrompt

Wow, @menrov, so you're suddenly a "believer".🙄

Well, interesting that you would choose to "believe" Paul's words at First Corinthians but not "believe" what is written in Acts, such as at 5:29 where it says "We must obey God".

But since you brought up 1 Corinthians 6:9-11...

"Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God."

...maybe you noticed the first part of those verses: "unrighteous persons".

The definition of an "unrighteous" person in the Bible is one who does what is "not right" by God's standards.

The list at First Corinthians 6 there is not "all-inclusive". Murder isn't mentioned there either, but 1 John 3:15 says "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him."

The Bible doesn't outright say that vampirism is "wrong", but it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Rhodes scholar to figure out that vampirism is "unrighteous" according to God.

Whoever teaches that it is acceptable to take in blood or actually does it is the one with blood on their hands before God. The GB/FD$ are bloodguilty for many reasons, and giving tacit approval to medical procedures involving blood and blood fractions is just one of the reasons.

Abstaining from blood has been required by God from the beginning. It is written about throughout the Law, back from Abel's death at Cain's hands through Noah's time and the Mosaic Law to our day.

@menrov, you claimed that Acts is not a law from Jesus as far as requirements for entering into the Kingdom of the heavens. How about Jesus' own words...

"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in relation to the Kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens."
Vanderhoven7

Watchtower has determined that the instruction to abstain from blood would include transfusions. My take is that the dietary instructions in Acts 15 were agreed upon to facilitate Jew and Gentile fellowship and as such there is nothing inherently immoral about eating unbled meat.
Otherwise Paul would not have instructed Christians not to bother asking conscience questions about food provided in the home of a pagan unless there were other weak-consciece brothers (Jewish brothers) present who might be offended.
Even in the law, Jews were permitted to eat unbled meat of clean animals found dead in their fields.
You see, Paul had learned from Jesus that nothing that goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the heart.
You guys are a bunch of Pharisees, making advice into commands while toying with the lives of children.

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

Share this