Jehovah’s Witnesses have long argued that if a doctor told you to “abstain from alcohol,” you couldn’t get around that command by injecting alcohol into your veins. Fair enough. But Acts 15:29 doesn’t say, “Abstain from other people’s blood.” It simply says, “Abstain from blood.” So if we’re not allowed to add distinctions about the method of using blood, why are we now allowed to add distinctions about the source of blood? Why does the command prohibit someone else’s blood but permit storing and later transfusing your own? The verse doesn’t make that distinction. So here’s my question: If the Bible is silent on that distinction, why wasn’t it always a matter of conscience?
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
MJF APOLOGETICS 
I’d like to hear what a genuine (truthful) JW would say, but I suspect the answer would be something like “oh, it’s ALWAYS been one’s own choice.”
I suspect their only argument could be, “it’s implied in Acts 15:29 that it’s not talking about abstaining from your own blood.” But how is it implied? Also, their answer could simply be that they choose to not obey the direction from the GB since they are the trusted representatives of Jesus.