The Blood doctrine - A Medical or Scriptural issue?

by Jourles 33 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • AuldSoul

    Excellent point, skyman! By that reasoning all that is left is to determine who the Society says corresponds to the alien resident...

    *** w03 2/15 pp. 19-20 What Does the Lord’s Evening Meal Mean to You? ***
    10 Especially since 1935 has there been a search for those who come to be “other sheep,” who have faith in the ransom, dedicate themselves to God, and support the anointed “little flock” in Kingdom-preaching activity. (Luke 12:32) These other sheep hope to live on earth forever, but in all other respects, they resemble the present-day remnant of Kingdom heirs. Like ancient Israel’s alien residents who worshiped Jehovah and submitted to the Law, today’s other sheep accept Christian responsibilities, such as preaching the good news along with the members of spiritual Israel. (Galatians 6:16) Just as no alien resident could become Israel’s king or a priest, however, none of these other sheep can as such rule in the heavenly Kingdom or serve as priests.—Deuteronomy 17:15.

    Ta-da! So, why do the modern-day parallels have to subscribe to the dietary restrictions Acts imposes on anointed Christians?

    I'm gonna write a letter! LOL


  • skyman

    The Insight an the scripture anwers you from their own publication. As regards blood the alien did not come under this LOFTYER requirement we are the ALIEN today the same as unless you claim to be of the Anointed class and I know not one JW that claims these. I know other pages of the Watchtower say diferently but not in the Insight Book.

  • Butterfly75

    The last meeting I was in that discussed this. The elder simply said Jehovah Witnesses are not allowed to take whole blood or these components everything else is acceptable.

  • serendipity

    Hi butterfly75, welcome to the forum!

  • AuldSoul

    Welcome, Butterfly75!

    Did he happen to mention why parts of blood are okay and other parts are not? Did he use Scriptures for that or did he talk using opinions of men? (Psalm 146:3)


  • Narkissos

    To the initial question, I'd answer: neither scriptural nor medical in the strictest sense (the WT's blood policy cannot be directly inferred from either); both scriptural and medical in the interpretive sense (the WT needs both misinterpreted Bible texts and some medical notions to build up its blood casuistics); yet thoroughly religious.

    The source of religious ideas, I guess, is indifferent to the law -- whether they were reached through (mis)interpreting an ancient and revered book, modern scientifical data or the dreams and visions of some guru.

    Otoh, a "religious" label doesn't amount to legality. If a cult decided to stone wrongdoers, that would be perfectly scriptural yet definitely against the law of most countries.

  • shadow

    The WT says Christians do not eat animals found dead.

    *** w63 2/1 p. 74 Conduct “Worthy of the Good News” ***

    For the same reason an animal that is found dead as a result of being caught in a trap or being torn by another animal would not be fit for food for a Christian, since it had not been bled at the time of death. Likewise, when one buys meat, either in a market or from a hunter, the Christian should be satisfied that the animal was properly bled so that he does not risk a violation of this law of God.

    The Bible says it could be sold to Gentiles

    (Deuteronomy 14:21) 21 “YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.. . .

    It was a minor matter even for the Jews under the Law

    (Leviticus 11:39-40) 39 “‘Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. 40 And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

    Christains are not under Law anyway.

    (Romans 10:4) . . .For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.

    How serious is imposing dietary restrictions?

    *** w75 5/15 p. 301 ‘Eating and Drinking to God’s Glory’ ***

    The institution of dietary restrictions as a religious duty is not a minor matter. It constitutes rejection of Christian faith and accurate knowledge. It implies that there is something defective in God’s “word,” that it does not reveal the full scope of what people need to do to gain divine approval and that man-made precepts are therefore needed. The importance of God’s “word” is minimized and human regulations are elevated. By thus misunderstanding the only standard for judging truth, the Scriptural standard, the door is opened for other apostate teachings. Accordingly, to command obedience to man-made dietary restrictions as a religious duty dishonors God.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Hello, Jourles

    You write:

    “Ask yourself, why is the WTS allowing the use of a protein such as hemoglobin, but banning the use of the very thin membrane which carries hemoglobin?”

    For sake of razor sharp accuracy, the WTS prohibits Jehovah’s Witnesses from accepting neither hemoglobin nor RBC membranes. That is to say, Jehovah’s Witnesses can accept either or both so long as the two are not taken in the form of RBC.

    Another point often overlooked is that the WTS does not always prohibit Jehovah’s Witnesses from conscientiously accepting transfusion of RBCs. Does anyone here know the published exception for when Jehovah’s Witnesses can accept RBCs without repercussion from the WTS or local elders?

    Marvin Shilmer

  • AuldSoul


    Thank you, dark stranger!

    What danger lurks in the heart of the Governing Body? The Shadow knows! [Muahahahhhahahaaaa!]


    I am at a loss. I did not know there was such a circumstance. Please elaborate?


  • belbab

    I have come to a conclusion to the question:

    Why has the Watchtower entered into the secular medical field to establish their blood doctrine?

    The reason why is that they cannot convincingly prove that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions as all your above comments show.

    So to bolster their inadequate arguments for blood-ban they turn to secular medical data, but even there they can only support their position by misrepresentation and do not even add a disclaimer.

    Furthermore, they endeavour to establish their freedom of religion to include the teaching of lies. For example, Jaratsz in Panorama program says we do not go beyond what is written and that two witnesses are required to prove wrongdoing. This is a Biblical Lie. The Bible does allow one human witness and the second witness which is God himself. It is the same with the blood doctrine, they know the truth of what the Bible says, but they maintain and teach lies because they are caught in a dilemma, or that if they switched to the truth they would stumble the weak ones etc.

    I believe that it was in the Walsh court case in Scotland in the days of Covington where they tried to introduce the argument that even if they teach lies, freedom of religion allows it. I am searching for the transcript of that case. If anyone reading this knows where it can be found, I would appreciate it if you could post the location.

    I am convinced that secular teachings can be separated from religious teachings. I am convinced that the Kerry document has merit and for my part my determination is to establish that merit, if not in the courts then in the court of public opinion.

    belbab, going for the jugular.

Share this