Posted by FaithFulJW on January 20, 1999 at 20:55:49 {MWhOF/LEzS4yw}:
In Reply to: **Internal Strife in the WTS posted by Tom on January 20, 1999 at 17:30:39:
"No one can truthfully say that he abstains from blood as an object"
I can, except for that which I come into contact with by accident. I don't count my own blood of course. I do take it literal and I think that the decision by the Jerusalem governing body was absolute in its meaning. Acts 15:20 "to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." Now I wonder why it would be worded this way? Lets take another look and see.....Things polluted by idols are listed with fornication and things strangled and from blood. No one would feel that it was ok to commit fornication when it was listed here with other things thought to be like it. How about from things strangled? Would not the blood be still in it and not drained so therefore it could not be eaten. Because it was worded that way it was. The word used here was ap-ekh'-o meaning to hold oneself off, i.e. refrain--abstain. (Strongs Dict.) I see a broader meaning here then merely not eating it. Certainly the ritual cleansing of the priests was an indication of how it was to be viewed. When we get into the area of blood components, I think of it as you mentioned, not to be concerned with our conscious. But as for deliberately taking it into my body by whatever means would be NOT abstaining in every sense of the word.
FaithFulJW