Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EasyPrompt

  "I almost get the impression you believe the meaning is entirely subjective, in which case, there would be nothing to discuss."
  

  
  

  It is completely subjective, TD. Understanding the Bible is subject to Jehovah's understanding, Jehovah's viewpoint, Jehovah's holy spirit.

  
  

  If I want to understand a verse, I don't ask a scholar. I don't research on a website. I ask Jehovah.

  
  

  "Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you; for everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking, it will be opened."

  
  

  "There he found some disciples and said to them: “Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?” They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.""

  
  

  "At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him."

  
  

  "Moreover, if you call out for understanding

  And raise your voice for discernment;

  If you keep seeking for it as for silver,

  And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures;

  Then you will understand the fear of Jehovah,

  And you will find the knowledge of God.

  For Jehovah himself gives wisdom;

  From his mouth come knowledge and discernment."

  "Therefore, subject yourselves to God..."

  
  

  It is entirely subjective.😊
• 

  Fisherman

  TD,

  
  

  Thank you for your informative post. I respectfully do not intend to argue dishonestly to win an argument or to be an apologist here.

  
  

  What is blood?

  The gb defines (fractionated) blood at this time as its major components. But whole blood is blood, major, minor and solutes—seems to me.

  
  

  Transfused blood contains nutrients: dissolved vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins from the donor which can nourish the recipient’s body. And while the intended purpose of a bt might not be to provide food, it might actually be doing that with the dissolved nutrients immediately and later on gradually as the body absorbs the blood too, —in addition to the intended purpose of the transfusion which was not to feed the recipient.

  
  

  —My heart goes out to the lone grave in PA.—

  
  

  It could be argued that the dissolved nutrients in blood are not blood and therefore the recipient’s organism is technically not eating the transfused blood itself but the nutrients previously dissolved in it. However, also technically, even if some part of the actual donor blood nourishes the body, the recipient may be eating blood in violation of Acts. Also, since blood always contains nutrients they could also be considered part of the blood.

  
  

  Regarding the gb wrong understanding and teachings throughout the years of how the body absorbs or uses donor blood, the resultant teaching -not to transfuse blood because it violate Acts appears correct even though gb may be wrong on why in their explanations throughout the years.

  
  

  As you’ve painstakingly explained in other threads, transfused blood is not immediately consumed by the body but mixed with the recipient’s to perform a bodily function compared to actually eating blood orally. There is a difference. However, the body does eventually eat, consume, metabolize, absorb the transfused 1/2 gallon or so actual blood -seems to me. And that could violate Acts according to your understanding of keep abstaining from eating blood.

  
  

  Acts does specifically forbid eating unbled animals. Also, drinking human blood by Jews was unthinkable (“this speech is shocking, who can listen to it”)

  
  

  However, your point is reasonable doubt: It is not clear a person eats transfused blood. Therefore, how could a person stand firm in a life and death situation on something that is not solid when there is room for doubt.

  
  

  Another point you have made is: Does God want a person to choose the likelihood of death when there are medical blood options to save a person’s life. Also, in a life and death survival situation could a person eat an unbled animal which is tantamount to actually eating blood? Or is God firm on abstaining from blood in survival situations? What is more sacred to God blood or the life it represents?

  
  

  What seems to to mitigate the Acts decree as not being solid is that Christians were allowed to eat blood instead of making inquiries about it.

  Everything considered, a JW believes the bt teaching comes from God.