Interpretation of Acts 15:28,29

by Christianhonest 12 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Christianhonest
    Christianhonest
    What does the mandate to "abstain from blood" mean for Jehovah's Witnesses freed from the control of the Governing Body?


    It had previously been understood that the best translation of Acts 15: 28-30 was "to abstain from blood." However, a careful analysis of the passage shows that the best translation of this passage is "to abstain from (shedding) blood," where the word "pour out," which does not appear in ancient manuscripts and other biblical versions, does.
    it appears there understood in elliptical form.

    In the same way it happened in the case of Colossians 1: 16-20 where the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures correctly inserted the word "other" several times, understood there in elliptical form, in the phrase of the original Greek "all things ", thus obtaining the correct translation" all (other) things ".

    Even though Christianity reaffirms itself in translating this passage as saying that "through him all things were created", because he maintains that Jesus is God according to his pagan doctrine of the Trinity, multiple biblical passages sustainthe biblical truth that Jesus is not Jehovah God, but his beloved son that God later used as his creative partner.

    According to this Paul said that "though he existed in the form of God, he did not give consideration to a usurpation, namely, that he should be equal to God, no, rather, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave and he came to be in the likeness of men, more than that, when he was in the manner of a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, yes, death on a torture stake, for this same reason, also, God he exalted a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above all else, so that in Jesus' name every knee of those [who are] in heaven and those who are [over] the earth and those [who are] under the ground, and openly recognize * every tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord for the glory of God the Father. " (Philippians 2: 5-11)

    Just as in Philippians and Colossians there is a clear distinction between Jesus and all the creation that was created through him, 1 Corinthians 15: 27,28 says clearly about Jesus, that: "... [God]" subjected all things under his feet. "Butwhen he says that 'all things have been subjected', it is evident that this is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him, but when all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself He will also be subject to Him who put all things under him, that God may be all things to all, 1 Corinthians 15: 27,28)

    These are the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 27,28 clearly distinguishing between Jesus, his Father, and all creation (that is, all other things). to him subjected, after subjecting himself to the Father, they fully justify the correction of inserting the word "other" in Colossians 1: 16-20, since both Jesus and his Father are excluded and differentiated from "all (other) things" .

    Just as the word "other" appears four times in parentheses in the phrase "all (other) things in Colossians 1: 16-20, so should the word" pour out "in the phrase from Acts 15:28. -30 where "abstaining from (spilling) blood" is being implied.

    Since in Acts 15 there had already been talk of "abstaining from the drowned," which involves eating the blood, the logical thing is that "abstaining from blood" means then "abstaining from (spilling) blood", not only because it would be redundant or repetitive, but because this would maintain the parallelism with Genesis 9: 3,4, where it is first forbidden to eat the blood and drowned, and then, in Genesis 9: 6 it is forbidden to shed human blood.
    If we continue to insist on our old interpretation that "to abstain from blood" does not mean "to abstain from (shedding) blood", - and in addition to extend the mandate to human blood - it would be in effect incurring the grave sin forbidden by Genesis 9: 6 not to spill the sacred blood of another man, by which one would have to respond with one's own.

    If we refused to recognize this parallel between the original command over animal blood and the blood of man in Genesis 9: 3-6, for the apostolic mandate of Acts 15: 28,29, this would lead us to the use of blood a place above the same life symbolized by that blood, and that Genesis 9: 6 commands us to protect the price of our own life.

    By refusing to recognize this parallel, and proceed to violate it, it would be changing in effect "not spilling blood" by "spilling the blood of man" by denying him a transfusion, when Genesis 9: 3-6, forced us to spill the blood of the animals ONLY, while preventing us from spilling the man's blood.

    Taking then the word "blood" alone out of its elliptical context would be equivalent to a simplistic and literal approach, where the word "blood" would be used as synonymous "blood liquid" or as referring to "the bloodstream". A more exhaustiveand detailed analysis of each of the uses of the word "blood" in the book of Acts will show us that there is a figurative use of "sacrifice", bloodshed ", or" act or event to remove ". life for criminal purposes or a propitiatory sacrifice for sins).

    Note that in all the places of the book of Acts where the word "blood" is used does not refer to the liquid of the veins. It always has a figurative meaning.

    It's like when we say in Spanish: "that individual comes by blood", that what we mean is that "" comes to take lives, that comes to collect, that comes for revenge. "

    Examine the Acts passages that use the word "blood."

    1:19 - The field of blood of Judas (on the bloody death of Judas)

    2:19, 20 - figurative: in the sense of death, and red in the color of blood, also referring to the environment of death and revenge over which the moon shines

    5:28; 18: 6; 20:26; - blood guilt; guilt for the death of

    20:28 - The blood that Jesus shed, the propitiatory price to buy life

    22:20 - Blood spilled from Esteban, related to the murder of Esteban

    Thus, figuratively, and following the parallel of Genesis 9, "abstaining from blood," in Acts 15 is to abstain free from the guilt of snatching life from another, from "shedding blood."

    Already the "eating of blood" had been specified in "abstaining from drowning". Now this mandate is the equivalent to Genesis 9: 6 of not "shedding the blood of man" and of the commandment "You will not murder", not an imaginary use in transfusions, of which nobody thought in 4000 years, and whose illogical interpretation has only achieved in a counterproductive way the loss of lives and lack of respect for the sanctity of life.
  • smiddy3
    smiddy3
    Christianhonest Welcome to the forum buddy ,I hope you stick around and inter -react with other posters and share a little bit about yourself so that we can get to know you and you get to know more about us

    Take care

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Hi CH,

    Welcome to the forum.

    Love to hear your story....especially how and why you left "the truth" while still retaining your faith in God and the scriptures.

  • careful
    careful

    Yes, welcome to the forum. There are at least two problems with your take on Acts 15.

    1. If your interpretation of "to abstain from (shedding) blood" (my emphasis) has force, then what is the point of the next words about not eating meat from animals that have been strangled? Isn't the blood connection obvious? Indeed, weren't Jews required to shed an animal's blood before eating it? That's hardly abstaining from shedding blood!

    2. While your interpretation make be mentally creative, why does it run counter the the understanding that genuine biblical scholarship has had for centuries of this passage? The scholars responsible for connecting not eating strangled meat with the need to drain the blood first, and thus with not eating unbled meat, existed long before the WTS, because it is based on Lev. 17:13.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Welcome to the forum christian and for sharing your thoughts on Acts 5.

    I take the view that the text does refer to eating blood and that there is a much simpler explanation why the bible's prohibition against blood does not apply to transfusions. If you have time I would be interested in your thoughts.

    The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

    My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT...

  • nowwhat?
    nowwhat?

    Acts15:28- "the bible makes it clear without question we must abstain from blood!"

    John 6:53 " apparently, evidently, quite possibly, it would seem what Jesus really meant was......."

  • sir82
    sir82

    Acts15:28- "the bible makes it clear without question we must abstain from blood!"

    John 6:53 " apparently, evidently, quite possibly, it would seem what Jesus really meant was.......

    Good example of the Fundamentalist Rule of Bible Interpretation:

    If a particular Bible verse supports your preferred doctrine, it is to be accepted as stone-cold literal.

    If a particular Bible verse does not support your preferred doctrine, it is symbolic, or figurative, or must be understood through the lens of XYZ, or let's discuss the minutiae of Greek verb conjugations, or....

    JWs are not the only ones who do this. But they are among the best at it.

  • TD
    TD

    The NWT actually renders this passage better than most. "To keep abstaining...from blood" captures both the infinitive and the middle voice in Greek, which is a subtlety that most translations leave out.

    (The JW's themselves often drop the "To keep" off of the sentence because of the clear connotation of existing command.)

    I agree with you that this passage is grammatically incomplete. "Abstain" (In English) is intransitive and as such, can neither take a direct object nor transfer action from subject to object.

    However the only interpolations a translator is legitimately entitled to make are those which explicitly agree with the surrounding text.

    The nature of the dispute comes through loud and clear at Acts 21, where Paul is told to,"Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 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."

    The jump from ceremonial cleanliness (Quite obviously to appease Jewish Christians) to "Shedding blood" is not only huge; it doesn't even follow.

    Seriously, do you think Jewish Christians were refusing to associate with Gentile Christians because the latter were in the habit of murdering people???


  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    TD

    First post I've seen from you in a while....and it's right on as usual.

    Glad you are still checking in from time to time.

  • sarahemily958
    sarahemily958

    How do you guys mean about this post I don’t really know how this works

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit