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

[Many Miles]

33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

Job was outside the Judaic system, and potentially his life overlapped with Moses.

Elihu is another potential example.

But the most clear-cut example of this is Cornelius.

But biblical text, though following the Abrahamic line, does show God recognize conduct of all peoples, individuals or nations, as to whether these 'feared him and worked righteousness'. For example, God saw what was happening in Nineveh. He always knew who were the men like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius. It didn't matter to him what nation they belonged to. What God looked for were men and woman who feared him and worked righteousness. Of course, he made a special case out of the sons of Israel for something greater to come, which was Jesus.

33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

Can you point me to the most recent incident of the society referring to Cornelius as a proselyte? I'm not finding that.

[Pudgy]

Hmmmm … Cornelius was accepted by God although he was not a Christian OR Jew?

Hmmmm…. considering he was a Roman Soldier, that kinda gives “new legs” to “… render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s ”  … doesn’t it?

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Can you point me to the most recent incident of the society referring to Cornelius as a proselyte? I'm not finding that.

Looks like I confused something in googling. Sorry.

[Pudgy]

You are living in a total fantasy construct Georgie, of ignoring actual historical developments and events that really happened, for irrelevant and immaterial theoretical concerns of things that might have been, and should have been, but didn’t.

Because your entire frame of reference is driven by agenda, and not reality … your entire perspective has little or no relationship with what is real.

[Pudgy]

…

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

I'm not entirely sure about your thoughts here, but it seems that you're suggesting that even if the Jews back then had read the scrolls themselves, they wouldn't have trusted Jesus. If that's the case, I agree with Pudgy's emoji response.

Your previous comment, which prompted my reaction at the time, reminded me of GB member GJ when he stated before the ARC that JWs are so capable of reading the Bible and seeing the difference whether GB is teaching them correctly or not.
It means that ordinary JW people are so spiritually mature and intellectually capable of distinguishing "truth from lies" that they don't really need GB as "channel and source of interpretations" . If the student is able to reason better than the teacher then why all this "theocratic hierarchy" where only a few (elders) are "trained to use the Word correctly"? If, according to GJ, JW members are able to discern some teaching, based on reading the Bible, then that's it.
Oh, it's terrible what JW clergy do with followers.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

22 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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.

In a court of law, it is crucial to acknowledge that the term "blood transfusion" can also refer to fractionated blood. The responsibility of providing clarifications lies with the lawyers, but with the understanding of all parties involved. If an answer is provided without any need for clarification, it implies that no further action was required.

To simplify. Joshua David was not at the Court, but spoke in front of the camera answering questions from journalist. He was speaking to listeners, many of whom were ordinary, averagely educated people. But regardless of their education, they would understand if JD explained to them that "freedom of conscience among JWs" is not unlimited, and that they must obey GBs orders or they will be excommunicated.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

The "Shepherd" book serves as a comprehensive guide, incorporating biblical principles to provide valuable insights for Elders. This distinctive aspect lies in its inclusion of practical scenarios, which can greatly assist Elders in their decision-making process. Likewise, numerous other publications by the Watchtower organization adopt a similar approach, making them accessible to individuals of all ages, be it men, women, or even children who possess a profound understanding and ability to discern scriptural truths.

This publication is confidential. If an elder is deleted  he should turn over this publication  to be destroyed, and any electronic copies in his possession should be deleted.

The book deals with "legal" matters within the religious community. If a citizen of a country wants to know what the "legal" system/procedure of the country in which he lives looks like, he can easily get information.
What reason is there that JWs cannot get information on what the "legal" system/procedure of spiritual Paradise looks like?

[Thinking]

20 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

I hope I didnt offend..I tend to write short and to the point….you and Tom and Juan tend to write long flowing posts with many intellectual words….we Australians just dont see the point in all of that.( I think we are wrong but that’s the truth as I see it ) 

I have tried hard to change but…what the heck….too tired and late to change now.

Brother Splane   was at our 2019 assembly ( the best ever ) and he made a long comment saying….you Australians need to watch how you speak, you come over as blunt and sarcastic…he said more but that’s all I remember ..I wondered what had been said to him by the branch.

I will go over your reply but I dont get your Cornealius point ….as I understand it he was Roman..and never under the Jewish system…therefore a follower of Christ .

[Thinking]

19 hours ago, Many Miles said:

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

Job was outside the Judaic system, and potentially his life overlapped with Moses.

Elihu is another potential example.

But the most clear-cut example of this is Cornelius.

But biblical text, though following the Abrahamic line, does show God recognize conduct of all peoples, individuals or nations, as to whether these 'feared him and worked righteousness'. For example, God saw what was happening in Nineveh. He always knew who were the men like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius. It didn't matter to him what nation they belonged to. What God looked for were men and woman who feared him and worked righteousness. Of course, he made a special case out of the sons of Israel for something greater to come, which was Jesu

Yep I agree with this 

[Thinking]

23 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

 

It doesn’t say anything about carcass already dead… because you will be eating them with blood..I don’t understand  how you don’t get  this ,…..but…I know they eventually did this…..but it wasn’t Jehovahs instructions to do so.

you are reading into it something that isn’t there….

Jehovah gave them all the trees and seed bearing vegetation to eat….I’m happy to be corrected on that……. good to look at and they could eat to their satisfaction..he also had rivers with water which no doubt gave them the minerals they needed..gold and onyx…was mention in the land when talking of the rivers in Eden ….

look if you want to eat carcass..go ahead but I dont see Jehovah condoning that anywhere in Eden……Jehovah gave good healthy living food…….a carcass  starts to rot and purify right at death…but I’m sure this was acceptable quickly after they left eden…as was every other detestable sin that Jehovah never spoke of specifically at the time.

But your argument( which is windy and windy for me )  on this doesn’t hold up for me…..and I cannot say more than I have.

But I enjoy many of your other posts….and I like you

[Thinking]

23 hours 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)

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.

Okay I get that bit now..thanks for the correction and over look any remarks concerning this….and I absolutely respect you and all the work you did within the org for Gods people …..as a side note we always call it a organization…I have never liked that  and I just call us Jehovahs people or family ….