Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue?

by Mastodon 168 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  Hello Rootcause,

  Are, you saying that the mother's blood crosses with that of the fetus?

  I was talking about plasma proteins. (e.g. albumin, IgG, etc.) These do cross between mother and fetus.

  Jehovah's Witnesses forbid the administration of whole plasma as a so-called "major component" of blood, yet plasma is simply water carrying these proteins in suspension. I don't believe the passenger / bus analogy you have offered really explains this position.

  As a side note, it is interesting to me that some blood cells will cross from the fetus to the mother. In 1996, Diane Bianchi, a Professor of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynacology at Tufts University School of Medicine conclusively proved that fetal nucleated red blood cells persist in the mother's blood stream long after her last pregnancy. Since then, erythroblasts, trophoblasts, granulocytes and lymphocytes from the fetus have all been isolated in maternal blood.

  Ms. Bianchi has gone on to speculate that this may serve a useful purpose. http://www.tufts-nemc.org/fhresearch/faculty/bianchi.aspx
• 

  rootcause

  Hello TD,

  Is plasma protein the whole plasma?

  Is'nt it that the study's objectives was for detection and diagnosis of systemic disorder?

  http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/3/47

  thanks,
• 

  TD

  Rootcause,

  Is plasma protein the whole plasma?

  For the third time, No. But what you have once the proteins have been removed from plasma is certainly not anything we would call "blood."

  Is'nt it that the study's objectives was for detection and diagnosis of ; systemic disorder?

  Detection and diagnosis is what we would call the serendipitous result. This began simply as a question of why a PCR assay would turn up 'Y' DNA in a female lab-tech who had submitted a blood sample. It was not until it was disclosed that she was pregnant that the connection to her unborn fetus was realized. Further testing revealed that the source of the 'Y' DNA was fetal blood cells that were crossing the placental barrier.
• 

  Abaddon

  rootcause

  (1 Chronicles 10:13) 13 Thus Saul died for his unfaithfulness with which he had acted faithlessly against Jehovah concerning the word of Jehovah that he had not kept and also for asking of a spirit medium to make inquiry. . .

  Funnily enough Saul was the one who STOPPED the violation of god's laws when the soldiers ate unbled flesh. So whatever unfaithfulness Saul was killed for, it wasn't that.

  Just as I thought, you cannot prove Saul was killed for violating the blood prohibition.

  You are evading answering questions again rootcause, as I and many other posters have commented on.

  The reasoning you used (that Saul was gulity for breaking the blood commandment by putting soldiers in a situation where they were forced to consume blood, and that because it was not their fault the soldiers were not punished) would, if applied today to someone in a accident, allow them to have a blood transfusion without being punished as it was something forced upon them by circumstances, was not an act of defiance towards god, and did not involve the worship of false gods.

  Now I have pointed out the application of YOUR logic today, you avoid responding to this, as basically, your argument is bleeding to death. Maybe it needs a blood transfusion? LOL

  You also have nothing to say about how you are willfully associating with some people JW's term apostates, and thus are setting yourself up in opposition (being apostate) towards the doctrines of the JW's.

  Yet you have the temerity to say people taking blood in medicinal situations are sinning! That is being judgemental AND is also making false claims about the Bible. As I have shown you, it's clear just being hungry was reason enough for soldiers to break the commandment without sin, and when you tried to find a reason you could ignore this example from the Bible, you just end up producing an argument which when applied to today ALSO shows medicinal use of blood is in no way covered by the blood prohibiton.

  By the way are you a JW before? also, did I judge anyone?

  Not only do you apostasize yourself from the Witnesses (and show yourself to be a hypocrite by judging others for not following JW doctrine when you don't follow JW doctrine yourself), you apostatsize yourself from the Bible by making false claism about what it says.

  And still nothing said about your cold-hearted unChristian response to someone who'd lost a member of their family.

  As for my 'status', I am neither df'd or da'd. There is no mention of these being used as as punishments in the 1st Century by Christians in the way they are by JW's. My family are JW's, in fact my father is an HLC member. But I do not identify myself as a Witness any longer as I realise it is a man-made false organsiation that actually would (if the Bible is the word of god) lead people into all kinds of non-Christian behaviour, as your spirited defence of a non-biblical doctrine so magnificently shows.
• 

  Cygnus

  Now the next question can an organization be called an organization without a sets of rules and regulation?

  I'm sorry, you lost me. I suddenly feel nauseated.
• 

  Undecided

  I don't understand, if we need to be circumcised why were we created with that skin on our dooly? Did God make a mistake?

  Ken P.
• 

  jgnat

  LOL Undecided. You have returned the discussion to the appropriate level, I think. Here's rootcause injecting acid directly in to the blood stream.

  These are the people I want around me when I'm sick:

  Cygnus, I can see where rootcause is driving with his "organization" theory, it has as much subtelty as a mack truck. I won't sully a blood thread with the idea that people must "obey the organization or else". I refuse to discuss "organizational obedience" with rootcause on this thread. He can join the one I made for it if he wants.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/100099/1.ashx

  P.S. I don't think we will be hearing from him until Monday. I suspect he has computer access on the job.
• 

  Abaddon

  Re. his computer access being only at work...

  Surely not! I don't think anyone claiming to follow the guidance of Jehovah's Witnesses would ignore the guidelines on 'stealing' time from their employer!

  I loved it when his argument about why the soldiers werent killed'for consuming blood actually became a perfectly decent scriptual justification for the use of blood in an emergency without any punishment!

  Obviously as the Borg have not yet dealt with this irreconcilable contradiction to the blood doctrine, he had to make that one up by himself, an look where it got him!
• 

  blondie

  Below is a typical example of how the WTS reads into the Bible things that were not there. "The Bible does not say, but we the WTS the anointed of the Lord have received God's view on the matter through holy spirit."

  (Remember how they explain why David and Bathsheba were not put to death for adultery as the Law said they should have been and the WTS explanation for that)

  ***

  w94 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

  Were the soldiers of King Saul deliberately breaking the Law? Were they showing absolute disregard for the divine law on blood?—Compare Numbers 15:30.

  We need not conclude so. The record says that they were ‘slaughtering the animals on the earth and eating along with the blood.’ So they may have been making some attempt to drain the blood. (Deuteronomy 15:23) Yet, in their exhausted, famished state, they did not hang up the slaughtered carcasses and allow adequate time for normal blood drainage. They slaughtered the sheep and cattle "on the earth," which could retard drainage. And they quickly cut meat from carcasses that might have been lying in blood. Hence, even if they had in mind obeying God’s law, they did not follow through in proper ways nor to an adequate extent.
• 

  Abaddon

  blondie

  That's new to me as coming from the year 1 AIL (after I left, LOL)

  So even the WT contradicts itself over the cattle killed by Saul's soldiers.

  They create a 'let-out' option by claiming it wasn't absolute disregard, yet fail to realise similar latitude today would put all talk of punishment for a medicinal use of blood out the window.

  A shame (on them) that they cannot see how a let-off for hungry soldiers who could have easily complied properly with Mosiac code, even though to do so would have resulted in no harm would translate as latitude for a true life threatening emergency.

  One could argue using their exact logic that as long as you don't use whole blood (i.e. equivalency to slaughter on the earth without hanging to bleed, or buchering a carcass in a pool of blood on the ground) you'd be free of punishment as you would not be showing absolute disregard. Packed RBC's or plasma would be fine.