by 30LPP 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
The confusing part is can blood remain sacred in the eyes of god when blood is transfused to another, as an attempt to save the person’s life since human life is sacred ?
No there is no mandate for that view anywhere in scripture.
Israelites could eat unbled meat (sustain their lives to use WT phraseology) with impunity as long as the life of the animal was not taken by another human.
So then from viewpoint blood could be transfused from a person if the giver had died naturally ?
The other thought in that acceptance is blood taken from a living being is therefore not sacred, it’s just a non issue.
So then from viewpoint blood could be transfused from a person if the giver had died naturally ?
Eh?
blood taken from a living being is therefore not sacred, it’s just a non issue
Bingo
Biblically, "Blood" represents DEATH, not life. The presence of blood showed that the previous owner had died. People are saved by Jesus' blood -- his death. The life was in the blood, therefore its presence indicates that life had been extinguished. The blood in a medical procedure does not indicate the previous owner is dead. It is a gift of life.
https://jwstudies.com/The_Meaning_of__Blood_.pdf
https://jwstudies.com/Blood_is_a_religious_issue.pdf
The WTS is inconsistent, in that it arbitrarily permits the use of products made from blood.
They used to decry vaccination, since it often requires the use of blood.
https://jwstudies.com/1931_02_04_Golden_Age__Pattillo_on_vaccinations__blood.pdf
Here is communication with the GB
https://jwstudies.com/The_Jensen_letters_analysis_and_commentary.pdf
Significantly, its booklet "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood" consistently misquotes and misrepresents sources.
https://jwstudies.com/Handling_Medical_Evidence.pdf
The following is a Guide I prepared that was intended to be a Guide for those developing policies within the medical industry:
https://jwstudies.com/Loyalty_Test.pdf
Doug
Fink,
The shepherd book says that if the person shows repentance then they will receive what amounts to public reproof.
They will lose privileges and presumably position but they aren't automatically cast out of the org.
So then an elder would be removed even though he repented ?
There is much information to prove that the blood doctrine created by the WTS is weakly supported, it also have been played with regarding the parts of blood that can be infused.
Plain and simple the blood doctrine by the JWS leaders was wrongly construed, an over interpretation of a Mosaic law that was created under a specific unique meaning and intent.
The Jehovah`s Witnesses aren`t competent enough to resolve anything let alone blood in my opinion .
So then an elder would be removed even though he repented ?
Yes. Once anyone is privately or publicly reproved , automatically all "privileges" and congregation positions are removed ( eg elder , MS , pioneer - right down to microphone handler ).
