Acts 15;28-29 ?????????????

Question

Most all fundimental christian organizations do not interpret These scriptures as a command to abstain from blood.....Are the majority of Christians ignoring a direct comandment from God? --or--- are a few misreading scripture?

apmreaserch...as a preacher I would have hoped for a more complete answer....can you expand?

EDs...I am making fun of myself...I am hopelessly dyslexic...and I chose the name in hopes that people would be gracious about my spelling errors....It is not about you.


No one has given me scriptural proof that ingesting blood whether eating or transfusing it, is not in violation of gods directive.....

http://www.ajwrb.org/

http://wwwtowertotruth.net/articles/blood

Thank you Danny Hazzard...freeminds.org

Answer 1

1) JW's use many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?

2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.

3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.

(Some educational links provided below:)

http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site

http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm Will you die for a lie?

(Jehovah's Witnesses do use many products that are derived from blood banks (so called blood 'fractions') but they themselves won't donate a drop)

Answer 2

The scripture in question has two other possible interpretations besides the idea of avoiding blood tranfusions.

The first is to avoid food that has not been prepared according to the kosher rules in which the blood is drained first. If that is the meaning (and by expansion of that idea, blood transfusions could possible be wrong) then you have a major contradiction in the scriptures. In may places the New Testament indicates that the kosher laws do not aplly to Christians. The best known is just 4 chapters earlier where Peter is sent to Cornelius to preaching after seeing a sheet of non-kosher animals from which he was told to eat.

It was Peter's conversion of Cornelius that would lead to this council and its decision. Doesn't it simple a little strange that God would remove the kosher law to send Peter to Cornelius only to then have the Council reinstate the kosher laws?

So the second alternative bacomes more likely. That is that this is a prohibiting of bloodshed. You will find the use of the term "blood" for bloodshed multiple times in scripture. (See Matt 23:30, Acts 5:28, 20:26, Rev 6:10 for examples)

Interesting that the "blood" of Acts 15 is joined with prohibitions of idolatry and fornication. Both of those are part of the moral law (which includes the 10 Commandments - like "thou shalt not murder") and not of the kosher laws. So it would make more sense to also include "bloodshed" rather that a kosher restriction in that list.

Answer 3

For detailed information on this see http://jehovah.net.au/blood.html

Acts 15:28 is not a binding command to not have blood. To understand the meaning one needs to consider surounding scriptures and circumstances, known as Exegesis. When doing so Christians and even the Watchtower originally realise blood use is not offensive to Jehovah.

This scripture was given to the early congregations with a mix of Judaizers and Gentiles. The use of blood by Gentiles stumbled the Judaizers and so it was here stated not to engage in these practices, if it causing stumbling. For example, Paul shows at 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 and 1 Corinthians 10:25-33 that eatting things sacrificed to idols is not wrong provided no one is stumbled.

A further important point is that Jews that will not eat blood take blood transfusions because saving life is more important that following the Mosaic Law. Jesus himself showed that Christians were to follow this same line of reasoning and used David as an example to show that acts of mercy, such as healing a person are more important than the strict adherence of scriptural regulation. This is the principle of pikuach nefesh; that the obligation to save life supersedes Jewish law.

Answer 4

A Christian does not "eat" blood.

Acts 15:29 is this:
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Strangulation = pagan ritual method. Even the Old testament states not to do this.

Fornication = participating in sexual rites of pagan religion. Do Christians do this? Maybe some of the old Easter symbolism remains. But leave out the part of it being pagan fertility ritual and you may be able to twist it into - no sex except procreation and that maybe!!

Meats = foods > are we to stop eating? Just leave out the part about it being ""not Pagan"". And no Christian can ever eat food again.

Blood = blood ritual bathing and consumption during pagan rituals! > Is blood transfusion a pagan ritual? Just leave out the part that this was meant as part of paganism and no Christian can receive blood.

Blood saves lives. < that was a period at the end there.

How far do these knuckleheads plan to go?

Hot Attention above does tow the line and is in error.

Answer 5

Young Princess,
Acts 15:28-29 (KJV) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

I know of NO Fundamental Christians who eat/drink blood or blood-made products such as blood pudding. We certainly do not and I feel that I am basically a Fundamental Christian because I believe that the HOLY BIBLE is GOD's Inspired WORD and that it alone should be our directive in worship to the FATHER. I am careful about reading and studying the scriptures daily so that I am following what HE tells us to do. Please do not make fun of Dyslexics. That is a real disability.
Thanks,
Eds

PS...
Blood Transfusions have to do with saving a person's life. We are told that the body is the Temple of our LOrd. Why would you not care for it whenever possible? There is no mention of anything else about the blood that we must abstain from.


.

Answer 6

Ac 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Ac 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
As a Christian preacher I know of no one that drinks blood.

Answer 7

28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to lay upon you any greater burden than these indispensable requirements:

29That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and from [eating the meat of animals] that have been strangled and from sexual impurity. If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Farewell [be strong]!
I THINK YOU SHOULD READ THIS OVER AGAIN, IT SEEMS AS IF YOU MISSED A FEW PARTS

Answer 8

Very few misread it. There are very few JW's who would interpret the scriptural command to abstain from blood, as prohibiting blood transfusuions. The vast majority - maybe even 100% - only accept it because they blindly follow the Watchtower, and that's how the WT interprets it. Most would never have reached that conclusion on their own.

To the person who said "if a doctor said to abstain from alcohol, would you put it in your veins?", I would like to ask: If a doctor said to abstain from alcohol, would you soak your food in it, then eat your food?" You would avoid it altogether. But does Jehovah require us to avoid eating of meat? He gave men the license to eat meat, when he could have just said "No way".

When a person gives his blood to someone, he doesn't give his soul or his life. He only gives blood, just like when a person gives blood for the purpose of a blood test. There is no "soul" involved, no "life" involved - merely blood in its capacity as a bodily organ. It's not the same as when you eat meat from an animal whose life was lost, in which case that "soul" - its life - is represented by its blood. Not eating the animal's blood "returns" that lost life to Jehovah, as it were. It's an act of symbolism which is totally unrelated to blood transfusions. The donor's 'soul' remains with the donor. The eating of animal flesh requires that "life" or "soul" be lost, and accounted for. That's the difference.

If we want to be perfect, we should abstain from even eating meat. But Jehovah doesn't require perfection - his laws are reasonable, which is why Jesus said you could save a sheep on the Sabbath.

Answer 9

God views life as sacred, and I do not believe He meant for this to indicate that we cannot accept blood in a lifesaving transfusion. As stated previously, He would not break His own rule by allowing pregnant women's blood to mix with the baby. Not to mention that the blood you receive in transfusion is not from a strangled animal, but a living person.

Now regarding consuming blood.... if you take a peek at some Satan worshippers,you will find them cutting each other and consuming the blood. This is sacrifice to an idol (not God).

Answer 10

The principle of the sanctity of life is paramount here. Related to this is the principle of the sanctity of blood, for "the life [or 'soul'] is in the blood". And God requires back life for a life. A murderer should die. Even the animals were included in God's Noachian covenant about blood:

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you... but you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man... Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed." (Gen 9:1-7)

LIFE-blood - shed - even by animals! - requires an accounting before God. This speaks of death - murder etc. When blood is used to SAVE LIFE, then the principle of the sanctity of life is being upheld. But those who would rather see a friend, or family member lose their life for lack of life-saving blood have turned the whole principle upside down and violated it. Nobody dies in order to give blood to a person needing it!

King David refused to drink water obtained at risk of his friends' lives, pouring it out on the ground rather than drinking it (1 Chronicles 11:17-19). he had regard for the sanctity of life, as in the spirit of the Noachian covenant. Blood is not to be treated as a mere food or as drink. But nowhere in the Bible is blood included in the category of food or drink. It stands apart, quite distinct from mere food. So, it is wrong for Christians to eat or drink blood, yet nowhere in his covenant with Noah did God say that death would be the punishment for eating blood. If there is no killing, the law has no claims.

JWs believe the law covenant no longer applies to Christians so they quote it in vain. They CAN quote the Noachian covenant as it applies to all people and animals at all times. That is why I have gone on at length about it. The Acts passages have been dealt with by others. I hope this rounds out the discussion.