Righteousness in Christ

Originally posted by FMF
Genesis 9:4 is about never eating meat that hasn't had the blood drained from it [does Mosaic Law still apply to Jehovah's Witnesses? robbie carrobie has stated many times that it does not apply to Christians] ~ so there's nothing about blood transfusions being "sin" in Genesis 9:4. As for Acts 15:20, it's about pagan rituals and animal blood sacrifice ~ so there's nothing about blood transfusions being "sin" there either.

The prohibition on blood in Genesis was before the Mosaic Law was given to Israel. It was a prohibition on all mankind.
It also applied to Israel years later when they were formed as a Nation.

The issue here is really loyalty to God. It is God's word that tells us to abstain from blood.

Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.&rdquo😉 Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

Originally posted by roigam
The prohibition on blood in Genesis was before the Mosaic Law was given to Israel. It was a prohibition on all mankind.

The prohibition in Genesis 9:4 is about never eating meat from animals that hasn't had the blood drained from it and suggests or implies absolutely nothing about life saving blood transfusions being "sin".

Originally posted by roigam
The issue here is really loyalty to God. It is God's word that tells us to abstain from blood.

The issue here is that the Bible in no shape or form can be said to prohibit life saving blood transfusions. You are unable to quote any part of it that might be applied to blood transfusions.

Originally posted by roigam
Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood.

Acts 15 is about pagan rituals and animal blood sacrifice. There's nothing about life saving blood transfusions being "sin" in that part of the Bible.

Originally posted by roigam
Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

I applaud early Christians if they chose not to eat human blood. But one cannot seriously draw a parallel between such an admirable interdiction and the prohibiting of blood transfusions now that such life saving procedures have been discovered and developed.

Originally posted by FMF
The prohibition in Genesis 9:4 is about never eating meat from animals that hasn't had the blood drained from it and suggests or implies absolutely nothing about life saving blood transfusions being "sin".

Of course it is not specified. Blood transfusions were not a practice back then.
Do you think they ate human blood?
Those who left Jehovah God may have.
Evenso, the Holy Spirit said to "abstain" that is "to refrain from something by one's own choice".
We choose to obey the direction of God's Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by roigam
Of course it is not specified. Blood transfusions were not a practice back then.
Do you think they ate human blood?
Those who left Jehovah God may have.
Evenso, the Holy Spirit said to "abstain" that is "to refrain from something by one's own choice".
We choose to obey the direction of God's Holy Spirit.

The issue you face when talking to anyone who has not internalized your corporation's carefully constructed self-differentiating ideology is that you are quite simply unable to cite any Bible references that might in all seriousness be claimed to be prohibiting a life saving procedure like a blood transfusion. Quite the opposite in fact, the NT is full of symbolism that can easily ~ without the kind of contrivance you resort to ~ be interpreted as advancing the healing and life giving and life saving property of blood.

Originally posted by roigam
Of course it is not specified. Blood transfusions were not a practice back then.
Do you think they ate human blood?
Those who left Jehovah God may have.
Evenso, the Holy Spirit said to "abstain" that is "to refrain from something by one's own choice".
We choose to obey the direction of God's Holy Spirit.

You are adding to scripture when you prohibit the giving of all blood to provide blood transfusions for the purpose of saving lives. Certainly, we do not want to use contaminated blood for blood transfusions. However, today medical science has advanced enough that the blood can be checked to make sure it is safe.