Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Reject Blood Transfusions?

[BroRando]

I think God has excellent timing, because I was at one time long ago going to baptists and pentecostal churches and seen things that didn't seem scriptural to me and then one day the witnesses were at my door and left the book live forever on Paradise Earth I got hook on that book which had scripture in it that showed that the book was in keeping with God's word. I began going to the meetings the next Sunday after reading the book which one took me a few days.

Sometimes Persecution can build up one's faith as being refined by fire.... "Beloved ones, do not be surprised about the fiery trials that you are experiencing, as though something strange were happening to you. On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory." (1 Peter 4:12-13)

 

[robert derrick]

that is not what is written. If a person feels convicted to abstain personally, that is their right before God!

Romans 14
King James Version

14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

If a person feels convicted to abstain personally, that is their right before God!

A personal application of Scripture based upon conscience is absolutely a believer's right. It is a private interpretation of Scripture applied accordingly.

You have 'private interpretation' as a bad thing, I simply read scripture that preaching them as Scripture is what makes them bad teaching.

There are no private interpretations of Scripture.

That is what is not written.

When you learn to make proper difference between what is written and what is not, then you will see what I am saying.

Until then you can believe there aren't any, and I will believe there are, and they ought not be preached as Scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

And that's why you have No Understanding. Only a person who rejects the Blood of Christ, seeks to save his life by other means. "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 16:25)


Teaching of the Holy Spirit:

• "Abstain . . . from blood. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:28-29)

• "For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come." (Matthew 12:32)

Such ones who have spoken ageist Holy Spirit have No Understanding. You can Claim Holy Spirit is Church Doctrine all day long but that doesn't make it so. (Daniel 12:10)

We don't have the blood of Jesus in our flesh.

Otherwise there would be much profit in the flesh, which is contrary to what Jesus said, when He was explaining He was not talking about His physical blood.

If the blood of Jesus were in our flesh, then we ought be drinking it to have eternal life.

You did not respond to the Scripture telling us to drink His blood, because you know His blood we are to drink is not physical.

You just have another one of those weird ideologies, that have no Scriptural basis.

And as usual, as with Mr Brightness, it is a self-righteous one too.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

But the blood of Christ accepted by the Father on the altar in heaven for the forgiveness of sins, and a blood transfusion are two entirely different things. They are not related in function in any way at all. I respect the conscience of the JW and do not want to attempt to cause them to do something they are not convinced they can do. But they should at least understand why others do not hold their convictions. It has nothing to do with rebellion.

I believe a True Christ should listen to the leading of the True God so should listen to his Holy Spirit. At Acts 15: 28,29 the inspired written word of God says, "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."
Now a true Christian knows it's necessary that he/she should have nothing to do with idols or have anything to do with formication but this scripture at Acts 15:28,29 tells us that it's just as necessary that we have nothing to do with taking blood into our bodies too.

 

[robert derrick]

Now a true Christian

The great and famous words of the great and famous Christians.

we have nothing to do with taking blood into our bodies too

And here is how they go from eating to 'taking into body'.

I would suggest storing their own blood, as some do,a nd then using that for future emergencies; however that would lend credence to a nutty idea, and be rejected anyway.

Of maybe freezing blood is sacrilege.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

tsr said:
It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions.[/Quote\]

This scripture at Acts 15:28,29 tells us it's necessary to abstain from blood. The word is abstain in this scripture. This word means to refrain from something like refrain from a certain practice such as to refrain yourself from worshipping idols or false gods or to refrain yourself from having sex with a married person or to refraining from drinking alcohol if you're an alcoholic. Now if an alcoholic reasons that taking alcohol intravenously isn't drinking, that would seriously be unreasonable if he actually did something like that, since it most likely would him/her. But that person wouldn't truly be following his doctors advice when the doctor said to him\her to abstain from alcohol. When the doctor advised an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol the doctor means that he/she needs to keep alcohol out of his\her body. It's the same thing with abstaining from blood you keep other creatures blood whether they're animals or humans out of your body.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

But the blood of Christ accepted by the Father on the altar in heaven for the forgiveness of sins, and a blood transfusion are two entirely different things. They are not related in function in any way at all.

The scriptures are very clear that the reason blood is to be abstained from is because the life of the creature whether it be a animal or human is in the blood of the creature and it has been put on the alter. This is the reason a person abstains from blood. These animal sacrifices where a foreshadow of the greater sacrifice to come which was Jesus Christ who came as a human so his human life was in his blood. The scriptures at Acts 15:28,29 tell us we are to abstain from necessary things such as abstaining from having anything to do with idols and it's necessary to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality, and so it's just as necessary to abstain from blood. The word used at Acts 15: 28,29 is abstain. This word means to refrain from a practice or Action. Let's take the example of an alcoholic the doctor tells the alcoholic he\she will die if he\she doesn't abstain from alcohol. Now let's say the alcoholic thinks he\she can take alcohol intravenously because that's not drinking alcohol. That would be seriously unreasonable, especially if the alcoholic actually did something like that since doing something like that would most likely kill him\her. Besides the alcoholic wouldn't be following his\her doctors advice when the doctor said to abstain from alcohol. The doctor meant when he\she said to abstain from alcohol to have nothing to do with putting alcohol into your body.

 

[Brakelite]

This is really a deep subject my brother, personally the reason I will never take one is found in your last sentence, the governing body of the first century stated to abstain from blood. It is recorded in God's word, therefore I believe it to be His will. Healthwise I have fared very well, as living the faith will render the best health possible. Since none of us smoke, or are alcoholics or illegal drug users, that alone makes us healthier. Many of us go even beyond that and are very health conscious, taking into account that physical training is beneficial. Just look at some of our elderly brothers and sisters compared to those not of our faith, there is no doubt in my mind that living the requirements of Jehovah is the best possible way of life.

If you eat meat you are eating blood, unless you know of a certainty that every drop of blood was drained after butchering. Otherwise you are eating cooked blood... Unless of course you prefer rare steak.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The scriptures are very clear that the reason blood is to be abstained from is because the life of the creature whether it be a animal or human is in the blood of the creature and it has been put on the alter. This is the reason a person abstains from blood. These animal sacrifices where a foreshadow of the greater sacrifice to come which was Jesus Christ who came as a human so his human life was in his blood. The scriptures at Acts 15:28,29 tell us we are to abstain from necessary things such as abstaining from having anything to do with idols and it's necessary to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality, and so it's just as necessary to abstain from blood. The word used at Acts 15: 28,29 is abstain. This word means to refrain from a practice or Action. Let's take the example of an alcoholic the doctor tells the alcoholic he\she will die if he\she doesn't abstain from alcohol. Now let's say the alcoholic thinks he\she can take alcohol intravenously because that's not drinking alcohol. That would be seriously unreasonable, especially if the alcoholic actually did something like that since doing something like that would most likely kill him\her. Besides the alcoholic wouldn't be following his\her doctors advice when the doctor said to abstain from alcohol. The doctor meant when he\she said to abstain from alcohol to have nothing to do with putting alcohol into your body.

I don't eat blood. I'm an American of European descent. We just don't prepare meals of blood in our culture. Practically speaking, that's the main reason it's a non-issue for me personally. I just don't eat blood anyway!

Spiritually speaking, in the law we see the life blood of the sacrifice being poured out on the ground and not consumed. This is the sign that the covenant of law can not give life to the worshiper. The New Covenant is where the life blood of the Sacrifice is applied to the worshiper and gives life. This understanding comes to me from the example of the veil where the author of Hebrews says the prohibition to go behind the veil was symbolic of how you can't go behind the veil in a covenant of law. And the attempt to do so would result in death. But in the New Covenant you can go behind the veil, and not die. These illustrations in the law teach us spiritual realities and are not meant to be of practical, outward significance in and of themselves.

So you're probably wondering, "how can you just decide to apply the same kind of symbolism concerning the veil to the blood of the sacrifice?". And that's a good question. I can because the scriptures are very clear that the blood of the Sacrifice IS allowed to be eaten in this New Covenant, and so the life blood of the Sacrifice goes into the worshiper. And so we understand this matter of eating blood in the same vein of symbolism as the matter of entering through the veil in the temple is understood symbolically.

This spiritual truth is very liberating, and my hope is that all believers would see it and be set free from the bondage of the symbols and enter into the joy and freedom of the knowledge of the truth that the symbols illustrate. But I'm not trying to make anyone do what their conscience won't allow them to do (assuming they eat blood in their culture). I'm explaining why I am not restrained by conscience to not eat blood (assuming I wanted to eat it). If someone can learn from this, good. If not, I'm fine with that too.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

If you eat meat you are eating blood, unless you know of a certainty that every drop of blood was drained after butchering. Otherwise you are eating cooked blood... Unless of course you prefer rare steak.

A Messianic believer explained to me that the juice that is in raw, butcher prepared meat is not blood.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The scriptures at Acts 15:28,29 tell us we are to abstain from necessary things such as abstaining from having anything to do with idols...

Yes, exactly.
And that's why the eating of blood is in the list along with the other three seemingly unrelated things. The common denominator between them is idol worship. Popular pagan rituals of the day involved eating blood (yuck, no thanks, lol). It has taken me years to stumble on this knowledge and discern the matter, but I am now convinced that's what the prohibition against blood is about. It's not about the blood itself (for the life blood of the Christian Sacrifice is consumed). It's about abstaining from the practices associated with pagan idol worship.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Unless of course you prefer rare steak.

Yes, I do, thank you!

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I don't eat blood. I'm an American of European descent. We just don't prepare meals of blood in our culture. Practically speaking, that's the main reason it's a non-issue for me personally. I just don't eat blood anyway!

Spiritually speaking, in the law we see the life blood of the sacrifice being poured out on the ground and not consumed. This is the sign that the covenant of law can not give life to the worshiper. The New Covenant is where the life blood of the Sacrifice is applied to the worshiper and gives life. This understanding comes to me from the example of the veil where the author of Hebrews says the prohibition to go behind the veil was symbolic of how you can't go behind the veil in a covenant of law. And the attempt to do so would result in death. But in the New Covenant you can go behind the veil, and not die. These illustrations in the law teach us spiritual realities and are not meant to be of practical, outward significance in and of themselves.

So you're probably wondering, "how can you just decide to apply the same kind of symbolism concerning the veil to the blood of the sacrifice?". And that's a good question. I can because the scriptures are very clear that the blood of the Sacrifice IS allowed to be eaten in this New Covenant, and so the life blood of the Sacrifice goes into the worshiper. And so we understand this matter of eating blood in the same vein of symbolism as the matter of entering through the veil in the temple is understood symbolically.

This spiritual truth is very liberating, and my hope is that all believers would see it and be set free from the bondage of the symbols and enter into the joy and freedom of the knowledge of the truth that the symbols illustrate. But I'm not trying to make anyone do what their conscience won't allow them to do (assuming they eat blood in their culture). I'm explaining why I am not restrained by conscience to not eat blood (assuming I wanted to eat it). If someone can learn from this, good. If not, I'm fine with that too.

How people live their lives is their choice, if other people want to ignore Acts 15:28,29 that's their right to ignore it. I'm not going to ignore it as most religions do. They ignore the scriptures that tell us to, not fornicate, even though they say with there lips it's wrong. It's become a corruption with many people and this corruption is so rampant among people today because they have either been taught since they are saved by grace they're excused, the argument of some in the Catholic and protestant Churches is that God’s grace is great and that he will overlook their sins, since he recognizes their imperfections and fleshly weaknesses. But God inspired word through Jesus’ half brother Jude says “ungodly men, turning the grace of God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude 4. Such ones’ profession of Christianity is meaningless. Their service is unacceptable to God; it is as the wise writer of Israel said: “The sacrifice of the wicked ones is something detestable. How much more so when one brings it along with loose conduct.” Proverbs 21:27

 

[Ferris Bueller]

the argument of some in the Catholic and protestant Churches is that God’s grace is great and that he will overlook their sins, since he recognizes their imperfections and fleshly weaknesses.

No, that is not the argument.
The argument is it is not a sin to eat the blood of a sacrifice. It was forbidden in the old covenant, but not in this New Covenant. Jesus says the blood of His Sacrifice is taken into the believer, not spilled out on the ground as it was in the old covenant. The prohibition against blood was to illustrate the inability of the law to put the life blood of the sacrifice being offered into the worshiper. That prohibition was an illustration in the same way that the veil was an illustration. Illustrations that can now be set aside in favor of the spiritual realities they pointed to.

You don't have to agree with this. But what you must do is understand why we say we are no longer under the old covenant prohibition against eating the blood of a sacrifice. This works both ways. We understand you, now, please understand us. This has nothing to do with wanting to sin. It has everything to do with knowledge we have received.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Yes, exactly.
And that's why the eating of blood is in the list along with the other three seemingly unrelated things. The common denominator between them is idol worship. Popular pagan rituals of the day involved eating blood (yuck, no thanks, lol). It has taken me years to stumble on this knowledge and discern the matter, but I am now convinced that's what the prohibition against blood is about. It's not about the blood itself (for the life blood of the Christian Sacrifice is consumed). It's about abstaining from the practices associated with pagan idol worship.

Wrong, the abstaining of blood goes way back further with the Jews. It had nothing to do with idols. It goes all the way back to Noah and was included in the law covenant. For you to say that the only relation about abstaining from blood is idols shows you really don't know about what the scriptures say about blood. Now the scriptures have always taught God's true servants to have nothing to do with idols or anything associated with idols but for you to be teaching that the only reason why God taught his servants to not have anything to do with idols is because the gentiles ate blood shows again that you don't truly understand the scriptures. God taught throughout his word for his people to have nothing to do with idols because the True God is a jealous God and he'll have no one before him and besides this idols of other Gods are associated with demons, and God doesn't want his people associated with anything that has to do with demons. Demons are the True God confirmed enemies. This is the reasons God doesn't want his people to have any association with idols it had nothing to do with blood. God has always taught his people to have nothing to do with fornication too it also had nothing to do with blood. The scriptures at Acts 15:28, 29 shows God's people that you still don't associate with anything that has to do with idols nor do the True servants of God had anything to do with fornication and just as God has always told his people to have nothing to do with anything associated with idols or fornication you still abstain from blood which is a law that goes all the way back to Noah and it had nothing to do with idols when this law was given to Noah.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

No, that is not the argument.
The argument is it is not a sin to eat the blood of a sacrifice. It was forbidden in the old covenant, but not in this New Covenant. Jesus says the blood of His Sacrifice is taken into the believer, not spilled out on the ground as it was in the old covenant. The prohibition against blood was to illustrate the inability of the law to put the life blood of the sacrifice being offered into the worshiper. That prohibition was an illustration in the same way that the veil was an illustration. Illustrations that can now be set aside in favor of the spiritual realities they pointed to.

You don't have to agree with this. But what you must do is understand why we say we are no longer under the old covenant prohibition against eating the blood of a sacrifice. This works both ways. We understand you, now, please understand us. This has nothing to do with wanting to sin. It has everything to do with knowledge we have received.

When Acts 15:28,29 was written the Christians knew then they were not under the law covenant, yet the scriptures still said to God's true servants to have nothing to do with idols or fornication. Acts 15:28,29 shows us that just as God's True servants will continue to abstain from idols or fornication they will also continue to abstain from blood. Abstaining from idols and fornication is something taught throughout the the scriptures and now you're trying to say it's ok if we don't abstain from idols or fornication it's ok because God has changed. People such as that will excuse themselves for not being obedient to the scriptures by saying grace excuses them. That is what people are teaching if they're saying that the True God is saying it's ok if you don't abstain from idols or fornication. People such as that can disagree with it all they want but they are using grace as an excuse to be disobedient to the scriptures. They are people who honors the True God with there lips but there hearts are far from being with the True God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Now you are just chanting gibberish without scripture...... That was expected. It's not like all of sudden you will gain understanding... it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come." (Matthew 12:32)

Well then you should stop dialoguing with me as you deem me hopeless.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And I will say the way it actually is, and that's you're a weed calling the truth false and what is false you call the truth.

Well we will find out when we all stand before the Lord Jesus Christ for judgment won't we.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

A personal application of Scripture based upon conscience is absolutely a believer's right. It is a private interpretation of Scripture applied accordingly.

That is not what a private interpretation is.

Peter, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit forbids any private interpretation. People exercising liberty in areas where there is room is simply living according to how their conscience acts towards god. It is not reinterpreting Scripture which is what a private interpretation is.

We must exercise care when using biblical terms.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That is what is not written.

When you learn to make proper difference between what is written and what is not, then you will see what I am saying.

Until then you can believe there aren't any, and I will believe there are, and they ought not be preached as Scripture.

Well people privately interpret Scripture all the time. And they are all wrong! Private interpretation translated means ones own personal opinion. We are forbidden to add our opinion to Scripture. the Bible makes a clear distinction between ones personal opinion and ones liberty to do or not do.