Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Vanderhoven7


    Do you believe a doctor who told a patient to abstain from meat would be upset if he found out his patient later had a liver transplant?

    "Whether that particular doctor in your illustration gets upset probably depends on whether the insurance provider was willing to completely pay him for the surgery or not"

    This is not a joking matter E.P.

    Why do you think the doctor would not be upset to learn his patient had a liver transplant? Could it be because his patient did not disobey his instructions? Do you think the patient disobeyed his instructions?

  • EasyPrompt
    "Do you believe a doctor who told a patient to abstain from meat would be upset if he found out his patient later had a liver transplant?"

    Well, it depends. I do not know the doctor in your illustration, or the patient, or the situation.

    If the patient had Alpha-Gal syndrome and was allergic to certain proteins and if the liver transfusion was of the experimental kind such as discussed in one of the articles here, then, yes, I think the doctor would be upset if he found out the patient had a liver transplant.,scaffolds%20floating%20in%20large%20jars.

    🫶Vander, I agree with you that life is sacred. But I will never agree that it's "okay" to disobey a clear command of God.

    "Abstain from blood."

  • TD

    Faithful Israelites in ancient times didn't transfuse blood or use medical blood products.

    Ancient Israel did not wrestle with the ethics of artificial and in-vitro fertilization. Or performing a root canal on the sabbath. Or autopsy. Or bone marrow transplant. Or post-exposure vaccines and serums.

    The argument from silence (If that's your argument) is a logical fallacy.


    "Abstain from blood." (again)

    Another way to look at the grammatical error in the JW interpretation is to rephrase the abstention as a finite negative.

    As an example, I can easily state what it means to abstain from fornication.

    It means, "Do not fornicate."

    What does it mean to abstain from blood?

    "Do not ______" ---What?

    At some point the act of abstaining must be defined and the only interpolations a translator may legitimately make are those supported by the context.

    I've explained this in every way I can think of and you continue to regurgitate the dishonesty of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  • Vanderhoven7

    The point that you do not want to admit, as evidenced by your unwillingness to answer the question being asked is just this.

    The doctor would not be upset with the patient for disobeying his instruction to abstain from meats, because the patient did not disobey that instruction by having a liver transplant.

    Simple as that.

    But what he did do by having that transplant, was receive billions of white blood cells from the organ donor.

    So am I to gather that you also believe Jehovah is against organ transplants?

  • EasyPrompt

    Hebrews 10:26-31

    "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition. Anyone who has disregarded the Law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three. How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? For we know the One who said: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again: “Jehovah will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

    TD said: "you continue to regurgitate the dishonesty"

    TD said: "The argument from silence (If that's your argument) is a logical fallacy"

    TD said: "EasyPrompt appears to be confused about every material detail here"

    TD said: "dishonest"

    TD said: "ignorant"

    TD said: "EasyPrompt, Your ignorance of your own ignorance is hard to deal with"

    TD said: "So you can step off your fundamentalist pedestal and at least agree with Jesus of the Bible here.

    While you're at it, you might want to reread (And possibly amend) your reply to Vanderhoven7 above"

    Go ahead and drink your blood, @TD. Take your fractions. Whatever. Nobody's stopping you. But you can't say you weren't warned. I think it's nasty and God says it's an abomination, but you can do what you want, you have free will.

    Acts 18:6

    "But after they kept on opposing him and speaking abusively, he shook out his garments and said to them: “Let your blood be on your own heads. I am clean.""

    @Vander, I am not going to argue with you about liver transplants.🙂

    Taking in blood products in any form is wrong in God's eyes. When the blood comes out of the body, it needs to be disposed of. End of story.

    "Abstain from blood."

    (Nighty-night! Likely see you soon on another thread on another day...)


  • Fisherman

    Abstain from shrubbery"

    "Abstain from locomotive"

    "Abstain from sky"

    "Abstain from crankshaft"

    These phrases do not relate to “abstain” because abstain deals with consumption. Or conduct involving pleasure.

    abstain from women

    abstain from alcohol

    abstain from tobacco

    abstain from blood

    If eating blood is proscribed how can one justify consuming blood in a bt because technically it is not eating blood.

  • PetrW

    A quick glance at the NT Greek dictionary (see Bauer) for the verb απεχω, confirms that this verb, has the meaning of: 1. "terminus technicus" of the business world, expressing the receipt of a sum of money (see Matt 6:2: "they have their wages")... 2. expressing a geographical/physical or abstract (see Matt. 15:8) distance from something to something (Lk. 24:13: "a village 60 stadia from Jerusalem") and 3. to keep away or abstain from something (1 Tim. 4:3: "...abstain from the food that God has created...").

    The meaning of απεχω in Acts 15:29, as abstaining from eating blood, is well attested, both in the NT and in extrabiblical literature (cf. απεχω in Joseph Flavius).

    I will now deliberately avoid examining what abstinence from "blood" means, or what abstinence from blood meant in ancient Judaism. I commend to all the excellent commentary on the NT by Strack-Billerbeck (Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash) on the passage Acts 15:20.

    If I look at the context of chapter 15, from the beginning (Acts 15:1) it was about circumcision according to the Mosaic custom, without which - according to some - no one can be saved. In Acts 15:5, the argument of the Pharisees who became believers is repeated, who argued that it was necessary(!) for new Christians to be circumcised. The Pharisees demanded that the Law(!) be kept as well.Peter takes up the word and finds that God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, for He has given His Holy Spirit, both "to them...and to us" (Acts 15:8). Circumcision, like the requirement to keep the Law(!), is evaluated by Peter as a burden (a yoke on the neck) that neither the forefathers of the Jews nor the Jews themselves who became Christians were able to keep (Acts 15:10). It is only by believing in the grace of Jesus that the Jews, as Gentiles, can be saved (Acts 15:11).James speaks last and judges that they are not to make trouble for those who, as Gentiles, have turned to God and formulates four areas from which Gentile Christians are to keep their distance (Acts 15:20). He adds the argument that the Law of Moses is read everywhere and every Sabbath - my understanding is that James was referring those possibly interested in the details of the Law of Moses to a local synangogue where they could learn what all Christ had delivered them from.
    Transferred to the JWs, who draw their position from Acts 15:20ff: to fulfill James' request, then the BG would have to repeatedly urge its members to go to a Catholic church from time to time, if they wish, and hear a Latin Mass, and thereby learn that this, is not for them... The covering letter of the Apostles from Jerusalem to Antioch and other cities, declares again - for the third time (Acts 15:28) - that the aim was to avoid additional, unnecessary burdens for Gentile Christians, outside those four necessary areas. The original controversy over circumcision and other requirements for keeping the Law is no longer explicitly mentioned in the letter. That is, the original requirement about circumcision and other rules of the Law, is reduced to four "tolerable" requirements, and anyone could see for themselves in any synagogue among Jews who wanted to continue to keep the whole thing...
    I understand the temporariness of the whole ordinance from the meaning of abstaining from a "strangled" animal. This is commonly explained using the OT, where the animal, whether it died by accident or predator, or was ritually killed, had to be bled. Strack-Billerbeck, in my opinion, correctly reason that the prohibition against eating a "strangled" animal must have applied to a dead or torn animal, since the rabbinic requirements for bleeding an animal were beyond the OT, and certainly those requirements, in themselves, were a burden.

    The NT describes (Mk 5:13) the case of the 2000 "strangled" pigs who threw themselves into the sea. These drowned pigs, according to the literal interpretation of Acts 15:20ff, would have been inedible. But if you look more closely at the Greek NT, you will find that the verb "to strangle"/"to choke" does not refer only to animals. In Mat 13:7, the term "choked" plant appears. If I were to update - in the JW sense - also the prohibition of eating "strangled" to plants and their fruits, then I would have to examine whether, for example, an apple, grew on a tree that was not girdled by some weed. A must, compote or even cider, made from apples I picked from old apple trees that were covered with creepers, would be as serious a sin as having a blood transfusion...

    For me, Christ is the end of the Law (Rom. 10:4) and the Law is as dead as dead can be (Rom. 7:2-4).

  • EasyPrompt

    TD said: "Abstain from shrubbery"


    ARTHUR: O Knights of Ni, we have brought you your shrubbery. May we go now?

    HEAD KNIGHT: It is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly,... but there is one small problem.

    ARTHUR: What is that?

    HEAD KNIGHT: We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.

    KNIGHTS OF NI: Ni! Shh!

    HEAD KNIGHT: Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zu-owly-zhiv'.

    RANDOM: Ni!

    HEAD KNIGHT: Therefore, we must give you a test.

    ARTHUR: What is this test, O Knights of-- knights who till recently said 'ni'?

    HEAD KNIGHT: Firstly, you must find... another shrubbery!

    [dramatic chord]

    ARTHUR: Not another shrubbery!

    RANDOM: Ni!

    HEAD KNIGHT: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here beside this shrubbery, only slightly higher so you get the two-level effect with a little path running down the middle.

    KNIGHTS OF NI: A path! A path! A path! Ni! Shh! Knights of Ni! Ni! Ni! Shh! Shh!...

    HEAD KNIGHT: Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!

    [dramatic chord]

    KNIGHTS OF NI: A herring!

    ARTHUR: We shall do no such thing!

    HEAD KNIGHT: Oh, please!

    ARTHUR: Cut down a tree with a herring? It can't be done

    Funny, there are "red herrings" all over this thread, but not one has been able to cut down the basic clear command from God for Christians: "Abstain from blood."

    Isaiah 40:8

    "The green grass dries up,

    The blossom withers,

    But the word of our God endures forever.”

  • TD


    These phrases do not relate to “abstain” because abstain deals with consumption. Or conduct involving pleasure.

    If you're asserting that eating (or possibly drinking) of blood should be understood from the context of the Decree, then I'm in complete agreement.

    Abstain and its synonyms (refrain, forbear, etc.) negate action. The fundamental meaning is to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something. (I'm quoting the American Heritage Dictionary word for word)

    "Although the argument was intense, the couple abstained from hateful words"

    This is a perfectly legitimate use of the word. The action, though unstated, is derived from the context

    "Her obstetrician said, 'Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.'"

    "His dermatologist said, 'Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.'"

    Even though both doctors have said, "abstain from alcohol" we would not automatically understand them to be talking about the same thing. While we would understand the former to be a reference to alcoholic beverages, we would understand the latter to be a reference to the topical application of alcohol.

    English, of course, is not the language the bible was written it, which is why grammar and context are crucial.

  • TD

    HEAD KNIGHT: It is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly,... but there is one small problem.

    If it helps, I'm criticizing the quality of your argument. --Not you as a human being.

    I don't hang with and discuss things with people I don't like. Not even online.

Share this