Just trying to gather info as a reasoning point to donate blood or get a transfusion. Why can witnesses have some blood parts, if they stuck to the belief of what the scrip says, never said anything about parts!?? And why can they eat pork, of it's health concern was that the pig is dirty.
Blood transfusion and eating pork
by Sittingstraight1212 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
wasblind
Ain't nothin' wrong in eatin' pig feet
wash 'em off good, throw 'em in a pot, and throw down
It's suckin' on a womans foot that God don't like. That can lead to unapproved sex acts
by Jehovah's People
.
-
problemaddict
I'm not sure what you are going for. JW's believe the command to "abstain" from blood is universal and is restated after the mosaic law, so it therefore carries into the congregation.
They believe a christian could decide that the fractions they have deemed conscience matters may be separated, and mixed, and messed around with so much that a person may no longer consider it really like regular blood.
Its as clear as mud.
If you are looking for something simple, ask them how the fractions that were forbidden and the ones that were allowed were determined? Who came up with this? Technically after all, they are all fractions of whole blood.
A good example is that white blood cells are forbidden under threat of judicial action and they make up less than 1% of your blood volume. Albumin is "for the Christian to decide", and maes up double of more of the volume white cells do. So how is that one approved, and the other one not?
They wanted to back out of it, but too embarrasing to back out of it all the way. i think they took this approach when they did, because there would be less casualties, and they could save face and not really ditch their doctrine which is probably one of the top 5 they are known for.
I used to argue in defence of the JW drug policy in lots of ways. i feel silly for every trying to do that.
-
Finkelstein
The Blood doctrine of the JWS is just but one example of the culpable ignorance these men immersed themselves with
playing (THE) only true spiritual seers to god and bible interpreters.
They wrongly extrapolated a dietary law from which was a Hebraic law concerning blood and its perceived sacredness.
-
TD
Why can witnesses have some blood parts, if they stuck to the belief of what the scrip says, never said anything about parts!??
Jehovah's Witnesses believe fractionation reaches a point where the material in question is no longer blood.
And why can they eat pork, of it's health concern was that the pig is dirty.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe the prohibition on eating blood predated the Law
-
adamah
The command against eating flesh with blood was given by God in Genesis 9:5-6, immediately after the Flood (in what is called the Noahide Covenant). Hence the "no blood" rule applies to ALL mankind (i.e. all descendents of Noah), and is described as "everlasting, for all time".
Later Mosaic law (found in Exodus) simply repeats the prohibition against eating flesh with blood that was given to all mankind almost 1,000 yrs earlier.
Mosaic law also adds the dietary restrictions against eating pork, but JWs believe the New Covenant replaced Mosaic law, and hence they can eat pork.
I explain how JWs mistranslate AND misunderstand the Flood account in Genesis to end up with their flawed "no blood" policy:
Adam
-
J. Hofer
you can eat albumin sausages, blood plasma sausages, but no black pudding, duh!
-
Watkins
Acts 10:9-13 The next day as the three travelers were approaching the town, Peter went out on the balcony to pray. It was about noon. Peter got hungry and started thinking about lunch. While lunch was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the skies open up. Something that looked like a huge blanket lowered by ropes at its four corners settled on the ground. Every kind of animal and reptile and bird you could think of was on it. Then a voice came: “Go to it, Peter—kill and eat.”
14 Peter said, “Oh, no, Lord. I’ve never so much as tasted food that was not kosher.”
15 The voice came a second time: “If God says it’s okay, it’s okay.” [msg]
Jews do not accept the New Testament, so to them, pork is still not 'kosher'. But they have no religious regulations about blood transfusions. The wt gets it's regulations from Acts 15 where they have added their own twist. The Greek words translated as "to be abstaining from" "of blood" imho, means murder, to keep oneself free of 'blood guilt'. Keeping free of 'things strangled' is about bleeding out meat, so that's already been covered. And these edicts were to promote respect and peace between the Jewish converts and the Gentile converts. It has absolutely nothing to do with blood transfusions.
If the wt took seriously the no-blood ban, then even fractions wouldn't be allowed. Do they ever stop and think about how much blood it takes to extract those fractions? LOTS.
Ugh... dangerously stupid wt.
W
-
TD
Watkins,
The Greek words translated as "to be abstaining from" "of blood" imho, means murder, to keep oneself free of 'blood guilt'.
I guess there's room for plurality of thought here, and that was actually an interpretation in one of the early church traditions, but to me, it renders Acts 21 almost completley nonsensical.
When Paul returns to Jerusalem, James observes:
"You behold how many thousands of Jews have believed and all of them are zealous for the Law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do?"
This was a real and legitimate concern because Judaism at the time was extremely fixated on circumcision and even taught that the angels were circumcised. Paul and James both in fact eventually lost their lives as a direct result of the civil unrest generated by charges of apostasy.
So James tells Paul to participate in a custom at the time were men with means defrayed the expenses of poor people who had taken the Nazarite vow and then adds, "And as for the Gentiles, we have written them our decision" and then repeats the Apostolic Decree word for word.
In James mind, (At least) the Apostolic Decree is directly tied to placating Jewish sensibilities over observance of the Law. Murder just doesn't fit here. It's not something a Gentile might inadvertently do to offend a Jew, since murder was not acceptable in either culture. Eathing improperly bled meat on the other hand is something a Gentile could easily have done that would have been offensive. In Jerusalem, normal, everyday Jews at the time were practically vegetarians for much of the year. Meat was for special occaisons and was scrupulously bled.
"απεκεσθαι...και αιματος" is not how a prohibition against murder would normally have been composed in Ancient Greek. This is an infinitive use of the middle voice and carries the flavor of voluntarily restraining yourself from something that some part of you might actually want to do or even crave. Food, sex and alcohol are the three most common things along those lines, just as with our English word, "Abstain."
-
adamah
TD said-
I guess there's room for plurality of thought here, and that was actually an interpretation in one of the early church traditions, but to me, it renders Acts 21 almost completley nonsensical.
Yeah, I agree. Acts 21 is discussing behaviors and practices which, although perfectly legal within secular law, may give rise to offense and 'stumble' Jewish Xians, who still believed that some God-given commands of the Torah were still in effect (eg the eternal prohibition against eating blood with flesh, found in Genesis 9).
In contrast, the practice of circumcision stems from the Abrahamic Covenant found in Genesis 17, applicable to ALL descendents of Abraham where circumcision served as the 'covenant marker', a visible sign to remind parties of their obligation under the covenant (just like the rainbow served as a visible marker, AKA a sign, of the Noahide Covenant, which both God and humans could see to remind themselves of the contract).
Of course, circumcision also appears in the later Mosaic Covenant, entered atop Mt Sinai (in Exodus), which Xians believe was replaced (rendered obsolete) by a New Covenant entered into with God, with Jesus appearing in the role of the sacrificial lamb.
It's easy to see why confusion would exist in Acts 21, since it's largely a matter of overlapping contract law.