Tranfusions? Acts 15:29 says 'abstain from blood?

by Star Moore 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Star Moore

  Hello, I've only D'Aed in Nov. and am still sorting many things out. What about transfusions?
• 

  insearchoftruth

  Hello, I am new to the board as well, so probably not a lot of help, but a good site to learn about the jw blood policy is www.ajwrb.org, they seem to present the issue pretty fairly, not just a puppet of the society.

  Good luck!!
• 

  NeonMadman

  A brief consideration of some of the main proof texts:

  http://www.dtl.org/cults/article/transfusions.htm
• 

  kid-A

  This misinterpretation of ACTS:15 has cost the lives of thousands of people, including innocent children. Clearly, the writer is referring to blood in the 'dietary' sense since at the time of its writing, humans did not even understand how the human circulatory system worked, the actions of hemoglobin or the immune system, let alone considered the possibility of transfusing blood from one human to another. How it can even remotely be applied to the medical procedure of a blood transfusion is beyond comprehension. Complete bollocks.
• 

  drew sagan

  I agree it is a misrepresented issue. Looking over a variety of doctrines held by the WTS one will find a desire to be "differant", finding labels they can apply to themselves to "prove" that they alone follow Gods standards and thus are the only true religion. The fact remains that many issues (like the blood issue) can not only be disputed, but have changed within the organization itself. How can a doctrine be "obvious Bible truth" if it takes an organization filled with thousands (eventually millions) of people years to develop its theroies. Understanding the Watchtowers desire to seperate themselves from mainstream Christianity in order to prove their holiness and truth is a major factor in realizing what it is all about.
• 

  A Paduan

  The literal abstinence was so that they would not give offence to the jews - who were not as yet christian, and who still understood the Law in a literal sense - according to the flesh. Did Jesus talk about literally eating gnats or camels?

  The language is spiritual, for teaching, but the jews applied it literally, as an effort of works salvation, and burdened others with it - this is reflected by the apostles deeming the abstinence as a necessary burden, so as not to give offence, However, the people of our society are not offended by required blood transfusions so this burden of going along with a literal understanding of the Law is not necessary.

  Consider how Paul said regarding how it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned?

  • We know that the law is spiritual
  • we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
  • real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal
• 

  IP_SEC

  1samuel 21:1-5 Eating something holy normally under penalty of death without sanction.
• 

  IP_SEC

  compare 1 Cor 8:4 and Acts 15:29 in greek. I'll give you a hint. eudolothutos
• 

  IP_SEC

  The literal abstinence was so that they would not give offence to the jews

  compare 1 Cor 8:4 and Acts 15:29 in greek. I'll give you a hint. eudolothutos

  Ex freakin zactly padaun.
• 

  M.J.

  The phrase "abstain from" in the Bible or anywhere requires an explicit or IMPLIED progressive verb to complete the idea: "I abstain from junk food" = "I abstain from eating junk food".

  If it's not explicit, it's supposed by the speaker that the implied progressive verb is obvious. "I abstain from buying junk food" would in most contexts require an explicit verb...

  So the WTS twists the context of Acts 15:29 to bring out whatever implied progressive verb suits their argument.
  
  Acts 15:29 thus reads explicitly,
  
  that you abstain from [eating] meats sacrificed to idols and from [______] blood and from [eating] things strangled and from [practicing] fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.
  
  The big question is what exactly fills in the blank? The context should answer that question. What use of blood was offensive to the Jews at the time? Obvious enough to not warrant an explicit verb?

  Supposing someone told you, "abstain from cars." What could that mean? Abstain from DRIVING cars? From RIDING IN cars? From BUYING cars? From LOOKING AT cars?
  
  This illustrates the point already made--that "abstain from" has to refer to an ACTION, not an OBJECT in itself.