Originally posted by galveston75
Do you understand what the word "abstain" means?

Yes i understand what the word abstain means. Now, answer my question if you will - do you accept that scripture never mentions the word 'transfusion'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Yes i understand what the word abstain means. Now, answer my question if you will - do you accept that scripture never mentions the word 'transfusion'?

The Bible doesn't mention smoking either but clearly its wrong from other principles
examined, your point regarding the scripture that it does not mention transfusion is
therefore, meaningless in this context.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Bible doesn't mention smoking either but clearly its wrong from other principles
examined, your point regarding the scripture that it does not mention transfusion is
therefore, meaningless in this context.

Is that a yes or no?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Is that a yes or no?

its a yes, the Bible does not state the word transfusion and its a, this hardly matters
when considering what principles have a bearing on decisions we make, it also doesn't
state you should not kill with a sub-machine-gun.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Yes i understand what the word abstain means. Now, answer my question if you will - do you accept that scripture never mentions the word 'transfusion'?

I believe I already answered that one.

Originally posted by galveston75
Every bible translation says to "abstain" one way or another. Anyone with reading comprehension will understand what is being said by God.

Well, I have reasonably good reading comprehension, and I think the author means for the audience to abstain from eating meats that aren't properly drained of blood.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, I have reasonably good reading comprehension, and I think the author means for the audience to abstain from eating meats that aren't properly drained of blood.

Read it again....


Acts 15:28-29
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

28 `For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:

29 to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye shall do well; be strong!'



Acts 15:28-29
Today's New International Version (TNIV)

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.


Acts 15:28-29
New King James Version (NKJV)

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[a] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well


Blood is mentioned separately and stands alone in this command from God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a yes, the Bible does not state the word transfusion and its a, this hardly matters
when considering what principles have a bearing on decisions we make, it also doesn't
state you should not kill with a sub-machine-gun.

Precisely. Moral strictures and, on the same grounds, theological doctrines, can be articulated long after the time of the composition of Scripture. Hence, the absence of the word 'Trinity' is not in itself a strong flaw in the doctrine. One has to determine whether the content of the doctrine, its principles, can be found in Scripture.

I brought this up not because I really want to discuss the Trinity or blood transfusions. I just want to point out the flaw in galveston's reasoning.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Precisely. Moral strictures and, on the same grounds, theological doctrines, can be articulated long after the time of the composition of Scripture. Hence, the absence of the word 'Trinity' is not in itself a strong flaw in the doctrine. One has to determine whether the content of the doctrine, its principles, can be found in Scripture.

I brought this u ...[text shortened]... he Trinity or blood transfusions. I just want to point out the flaw in galveston's reasoning.

And what flaw are you speaking of?

Originally posted by galveston75
And what flaw are you speaking of?

You claimed that the absence of the word 'Trinity' in the Scriptures was a strong argument against the doctrine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Bible doesn't mention smoking either but clearly its wrong from other principles
examined, your point regarding the scripture that it does not mention transfusion is
therefore, meaningless in this context.

The bible does not mention "Trinity" in the Holy Bible because that word did not exist at the time the Holy Bible was written. But the Holy bible refers to 3 Persons that are called God. These 3 are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and these 3 are described as being under one name that the disciples of Jesus were to baptize under.

So what makes you deny God in three person as the Holy Bible states just because the word "Trinity" is not in there, yet the Holy Bible says nothing about abstaining from transfusions because that word in neither there nor was the idea of injecting blood by a needle into the veins even thought of at that time???

Originally posted by galveston75
Read it again....


Acts 15:28-29
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

28 `For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:

29 to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye shall do well; be strong!'

...[text shortened]... u will do well


Blood is mentioned separately and stands alone in this command from God.

It can't stand alone. The context and the target audience matter.

Even if there was a lone sentence that said:

Thou shalt abstain from blood.

...and we could take that as a standalone commandment, what would it mean? Abstain from drinking blood? Eating something that has blood in it? Eating something that once had blood? [i.e., thou shalt be a vegetarian!]

See the problem? It's just not specific enough. Is the commandment simple? Yep. Is the meaning clear? Hardly. That's why we must turn to context for clarification.

Probably the worst guess of the meaning is that the writer suddenly started prophesying on the immorality of a medical procedure of the distant future in the middle of a sentence focused on behaviors of society at that time.

Originally posted by galveston75
I believe I already answered that one.

Then you are mistaken.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Precisely. Moral strictures and, on the same grounds, theological doctrines, can be articulated long after the time of the composition of Scripture. Hence, the absence of the word 'Trinity' is not in itself a strong flaw in the doctrine. One has to determine whether the content of the doctrine, its principles, can be found in Scripture.

I brought this u ...[text shortened]... he Trinity or blood transfusions. I just want to point out the flaw in galveston's reasoning.

Not quite, for if the doctrine was a central to Christianity as is being made out, then one
would think that Christ or Paul or any other Christian writers for that matter would
have made clear reference to it, but they do not, thus its complete absence from the
Biblical cannon must be of some concern given its apparent centrality. The Bible on
the other hand does mention blood and its uses and what it represents and thus a
Christian is not introducing an extra biblical doctrine, but trying to ascertain how
these principle may impact on other areas of life. The trinity is not a moral structure,
nor is it a principle, it is a stagnant doctrine which has no bearing on other aspects
of life and has as its basis certain tenuous interpretations of scripture, which of
necessity need to ignore other scriptures which may contradict the claims, again,
this is quite different from what the Gman is claiming with regard to the morality or
otherwise of intravenous blood transfusions, for his is a moral stance, not some
article of faith handed down by church fathers.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Then you are mistaken.

Yes I did. Not to you but in one of my other post. Check it out...