What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Thinking]

14 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Since you asked...

The first article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 ) conflated several topics, but the primary ones of interest here are the subjects of 1) unbled meat of an animal that died of natural cause and 2) donor blood from live humans. 

Whoever sent in the question was drawing a circle around the text of Deut 14:21 because that text was God giving Jews express permission to sell unbled carcasses of animals dead of natural cause to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat, and all of Noah's descendants were bound to abide by what God told Noah after the flood about blood.

This would lead a person to believe if God felt it was appropriate for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause then it must mean that what God said to Noah explicitly of living animals (soulical) was never to be understood to speak to animal carcasses dead of natural cause (non-soulical). Furthermore, a literal reading of Gen 9 also discloses that nowhere does it address the subject of donor blood given by a human to help save the life or health of a fellow human. The society's response says, "Such reasoning might sound valid". But then it goes on to offer commentary on why the society believes that reasoning is not valid. And, therein is found the rub. Here's why:

1) The commentary about why that reasoning would be wrong is constructed entirely on other biblical requirements stated to Jews under Mosaic Law. 

2) The second article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099?q="confirming+of+standards+recognized+prior+to+Moses"&p=par ) is very succinct pointing out that the decree issued by the apostles for Christians was "a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses". That means, appropriately the response in that Questions from Readers article should have focused on standards recognized prior to Moses, but that's not what they did. Their entire case was constructed on stipulations of Mosaic Law, which law never applied to worshipers like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius.

The rub? As a basis for answering the question the society plied the Law of Moses rather than standards recognized prior to Moses. In its response to the question asked, the society plied premises it admits didn't apply to the issue inquired of.

So the question is, what happens when we try to answer the question asked based on standards recognized prior to Moses?

The answer becomes pretty evident because, according to Deut 14:21 God had no problem whatsoever with non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause. To the contrary, the text of Deut 14:21 has God telling Jews they could sell this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for the purpose of eating it.

So those two sources are providing a quite different view on how to view the decree from the apostles to abstain from blood and things strangled. The first article (the Questions From Readers article) would have us look at the question asked purely through the lens of Mosaic Law. The second article tells us we should look at things purely through standards recognized prior to Moses.

Then we have this from Insight:

"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774?q="higher+standard"&p=par )  

Note when this paragraph initially speaks to worshipers is says "who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant". These are the same worshipers spoken of in the last sentence too. What this takes into account is that there were worshipers of God who never came under the Law covenant. Hence, men like Job, Elihu, Noah and Cornelius were never bound to the "higher standard" in respect to blood within Mosaic Law, though they were always bound by the standard recognized prior to Moses.

As it turns out, there is nothing in the provision of Deut 14:21 that conflicts with any standard recognized prior to Moses. Noah was free to eat unbled flesh of animals found dead of natural cause. He always was.

We also learn that no standard recognized prior to Moses remotely suggests that it is wrong to accept transfusion of donor blood, which is blood that another human has willingly donated for purposes of helping preserve the health and/or life of a fellow human.

 

  Jerusalem bible…Instructions given to Noah

Genesis 9:2-4 [2]Be the terror and the dread of all the animals on land and all the birds of heaven, of everything that moves on land and all the fish of the sea; they are placed in your hands. [3]Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, [4]with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it.

Noah was NOT allowed to eat unbled meat..and to my knowledge you cannot bleed a dead animal….needless to say his descendants forgot their God and this law very quickly and I have no doubt drank blood and ate unbled meat.

1) why do you include Cornelius along with ones like Job…he was a new Christian thus come under the abstain and not eating the 

 

2) Not all aliens took up true worship therefore were not under the law..foreigners travelled amongst Gods people..so you have resident aliens ( under the law) and foreigners excepted from the law ( usually traders there for commercial intent so there for not considered to be under the law nor had any desire to be ) So you e got two laws going for two sets of differ t people amongst Gods one peoples….so it gets confusing for some,

 

Sorry I still don’t get what you are trying to say….I think there is plenty to suggest that Jehovah holds the blood as something that belongs to him and him alone .

I think that with knowledge comes a lot of confusion over something that once was simple to understand,,,,,makes me realize one of the reasons why Jehovah didn’t want Eve to eat that fruit because she DID received certain knowledge that she was not ready for and stuffed everything up.

Genesis 3:6

when the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and DESIRABLE FOR GAINING WISDOM …..and both of their eyes were opened. ( knowing good from evil ) 

I see this amongst ex JWs…mainly those who have web sites and pages…they are extremely knowledgeable about scriptures…..they taught me some good things….but eventually become proud and ever so slowly develop their own teaching thinking their inspired……I guess Eve felt that.

This blood issue just shows me satan still uses the same slimey crafty ways 

Genesis 3:1 

Now the serpent was more crafty than all the wild animals the Lord God had made and he said …Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden…………..you will surely not die.

Hes doing the same thing amongst Gods people now over the blood issue…

Satan : Is it really so…take the blood and it will give you life….

Same  story different time period.

aaaah Miles..I really like you..but your dangerously wrong on this one..

 

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Misinterpreting scripture and articles is not nonsensical, it is a factual error. Many individuals, including you, have proven this by consistently misrepresenting information. Thus, the fallacy resides in the failure to comprehend the true essence of "biblical context" as understood by the vast majority of intellectually engaged individuals.

This claim is completely unfounded. The book by Shepard that you are misinterpreting actually provides guidance that extends beyond legal implications, specifically addressing individuals who are compelled to accept blood transfusions. It focuses specifically on "whole blood" and its fundamental four components, rather than fragmented blood. 

Glossary

Misrepresentation

An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law.

There are three types of misrepresentation:

Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth.

Negligent misrepresentation: a representation made carelessly and in breach of duty owed by Party A to Party B to take reasonable care that the representation is accurate. If no "special relationship" exists, there may be a misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.

Innocent misrepresentation: a representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent.

The remedies for misrepresentation are rescission and/or damages. For fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may claim rescission and damages. For innocent misrepresentation, the court has a discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission; the court cannot award both (see section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967). For more information, see Practice note, Misrepresentation and Practice note, Damages for misrepresentation: an overview.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

 

Public materials that are readily available and visible to any JW or non-JW (WTJWorg's official digital content website) when viewed with prior knowledge of the Organization, exhibit all of these elements listed in the definition of "misrepresentation."

Once again briefly. JW brother Joshua clearly used the term "blood transfusion". He should know about all those blood finesse. So, in my opinion, he deliberately omitted to explain in detail what WTJWorg means by the term "blood transfusion", what is blood and what is not blood according to the GB interpretation.

He had all the time in the world to explain it to reporters and listeners. Since he did not do it in the clear and only correct way (the bare truth), it means that he DECEIVED (intentionally) the public when he spoke about the freedom of decision of JW members about "blood issue". 

JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. 

About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).

 

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you believe, If people in Jesus' time had read the ancient scrolls, they would have undoubtedly realized that the Pharisees were engaging in dishonest practices, regardless of their literacy levels.

GB says to people; read the Bible with the help of our publications and you will see  how Jesus trust us.

 

 

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 …. JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. 

About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).

[Pudgy]

…. um …. the phrase is “theocratic warfare”, where you are allowed to lie if you believe the “enemy” does not need to be told the truth.…. and apparently that includes the Brotherhood when it is deemed we are not entitled to the truth …. the “Shepherding the Flock of God” Elders Handbook being the classic example.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

…. um …. the phrase is “theocratic warfare”, where you are allowed to lie if you believe the “enemy” does not need to be told the truth.…. and apparently that includes the Brotherhood when it is deemed we are not entitled to the truth …. the “Shepherding the Flock of God” Elders Handbook being the classic example.

The use of the "theocratic war" method falls under the INSTRUCTION that comes from the GB. The decision as to whether to use it is not a suggestion left to so called individual "conscience". 

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Jerusalem bible…Instructions given to Noah

Genesis 9:2-4 [2]Be the terror and the dread of all the animals on land and all the birds of heaven, of everything that moves on land and all the fish of the sea; they are placed in your hands. [3]Every living thing that moves will be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, [4]with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it.

Noah was NOT allowed to eat unbled meat..and to my knowledge you cannot bleed a dead animal….needless to say his descendants forgot their God and this law very quickly and I have no doubt drank blood and ate unbled meat.

Let's start simple, beginning with the text you quoted:

- Where in that text does it say anything whatsoever about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause?

- For that matter, even prior to this, when had anything been said about carcasses of animals that had died of natural cause? (This could be a tricky one since prior to this the biblical record does say something about dead carcasses)

Then ask yourself these questions:

- Prior to the flood had God issued a prohibition against more than one edible?

- Was permission given in Eden to eat vegetation a prohibition against eating minerals of the earth, like salt?

- What is a body made of but minerals of the earth?

- If you have a lifeless body (non-soulical) what is that if not just formed elements of earth?

Then ask yourself what you can learn from the natural created world (Ps 19; Rom 1:20):

- In  the natural order of things we see around us in creation, what is the the process by which dead carcasses are made one with the earth again? Who or what does this?

Finally, from a logical perspective:

- Is the absence of permission evidence of a prohibition when there is no presence of a need for permission?

Get back with me after you think through these as base underpinnings for discussion. If you can think of additional base underpinnings please include those too.

 

[Pudgy]

…

 

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

1) why do you include Cornelius along with ones like Job…he was a new Christian thus come under the abstain and not eating the 

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.

There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)

A person that was not a Jew did not have to convert to Judaism in order to worship God, unless they opted to do so.

Cornelius was not an adherent to Judaism (he was a true Gentile) yet he was a worshiper of God, and God recognized his worship aside from Judaism. God also recognized Cornelius' worship aside from Christianity. God acknowledged the acceptability of his worship even prior to baptism. (Acts 19)

All worshipers of God since the flood (which would include men like Cornelius) would have been obligated to keep the decree issued to Noah regarding blood. Yet, other than Jews, God did not require anyone to abstain from eating the unbled dead carcass of an animal found dead, such as is depicted at Deut 14:21. Non-Jewish worshipers could have literally purchased such meat from Jews, and specifically to eat it. Cornelius likely used such flesh as food at one point or another during his life. Whether he did or didn't does not even matter. What matters is that he could have if he wanted to because he was never prohibited from it. Such flesh is as edible as any other flesh or vegetation, so long as it's not become too contaminated with dangerous pathogens.

[Many Miles]

double post deleted

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

aaaah Miles..I really like you..but your dangerously wrong on this one..

Thinking, I didn't want you to think I overlooked this conclusion you shared. It's obvious we disagree. Just to be clear, I'm not offended by that, not that that should matter to you. If I'm wrong, as you suggest, I want to know it. But I want to know it for sure. This is why I pursued the discussion as I did in my post above. Insofar as I can read, there are some underpinnings of this subject I'm not convinced you've thought through. But, should you opt to pursue the discussion, we'll find out. Either way, thanks for the discussion.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.

There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)

Today, for the first time, I saw the true meaning of this passage from Acts. All the time I was a JW I thought that line, probably due to the influence of WTJWorg, meant that God is impartial in the context of accepting people to Christianity regardless of background. However, there was something hidden here that you have brilliantly revealed. Cornelius or any other individual outside of Judaism could have been accepted by God outside of the religio-legal system given through Moses.

However, we have one problem regarding Cornelius. WTJWorg refers to him as a "Jewish Proselyte" in its publications. Some other sources say that he was not a proselyte. That detail would be important to more easily determine its/his position with regard to the diet we are talking about.