Discuss The Truth

I wish to make it clear that what I am about to say is not meant to ridicule Jehovah's Witnesses.

One thing that Jehovah's Witnesses are known for is their policy with regards to BLOOD. They refrain from taking a blood transfusion, yet they consider it to be acceptable to take BLOOD FRACTIONS. Which, I must admit, leaves me terribly confused! I honestly cannot understand how a person can take blood fractions and at the same time be "abstaining from blood".

Acts 15:28, 29
28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

I would sincerely appreciate it if someone could help me understand how a person "abstaining from blood" can receive fractions of blood and be CONSISTANT. I welcome anyone who can assist me with the complexity of this issue, and I especially would like to hear from one of Jehovah's Witnesses if their happens to be one reading this thread. Please know that I too want to obey God and to do whatever He wills, but in order to do so I must first be able to understand it.

Hi Sevenz and welcome to the forum.

In connection with your question ('how is "abstaining from blood" and receiving blood fractions compatible?') I'm going to try to provide a direct answer. But I would also say that the WT teaching on the matter makes for some further complexity to the issue.

First, as a direct answer, you might consider these scriptures: Mt 5:21, 22, 27, 28. (Just hover over the verses to see what they say.) These scriptures are part of the Sermon on the Mount. As such, they make up part of, what might be called, the basic tenets of Christianity.

In each of these passages Jesus makes the point that if one wants to avoid the big sin (murder, adultery) one has to also avoid the small things (hatred, looking amorously) that go into making the big sin.

One might also reason, If stealing a car is wrong, what about if I just took some small part of it? Are there minor parts of someone else's car that I can take (without permission) that do not qualify as stealing? And what if some religious authority says that it is up to me to decide if the small part that I want constitutes stealing or not? Would that really change anything?

The issue is a bit more difficult to reason on because the WT classifies blood as having major and minor fractions. According to WT teaching, major fractions are forbidden outright, but minor fractions are your choice according to your conscience.

The fact is though, the Bible says nothing about blood fractions in any form. Not one word.

At this point I will leave this particular topic for you to reason on based on how you see things. What I said above is premised on the idea that "abstain from blood" applies to the medical use of it.

***********************************

If you are willing to explore the topic a little further, you might consider something else: Why couldn't Jesus just donate a pint of his perfect blood for the ransoming of mankind? Or why couldn't an Israelite under the Law just drain a pint of his best bull's blood and take it to the altar for offering? Why did Jesus and the bull have to first die?

The answer can be found by reasoning on Gen 9:4. The blood only represents life when the life is taken. When humans were given permission to kill for food, God wanted humans to recognize that He was the provider of that life. They were instructed to recognize God as the provider of life by not eating the blood. Pouring the blood out was a way of recognizing that God was the owner of that life. When the animal was killed the blood represented the life that was taken.

By way of illustration, a wedding ring sitting in a jewelry store does not symbolize your marriage. Only when you purchase the ring and give it to your wife does it then represent your marriage. In the same way, blood only represents life when the life it came from is taken.

Can you see why Jesus and our hypothetical bull from a few of paragraphs above had to die? If they were not killed, then, their blood would not represent their life.

So, what does that have to do with the medical use of blood? Well, let me ask you this: When a person receives a transfusion, who died to provide it?

Is this to say that I am promoting the medical use of blood? Not at all. That is a personal decision. But by reasoning on the matter one can begin to see whether the use of blood in medicine is wrong or not.

On the topic of "abstaining from blood," you might consider the several posts starting from here, and the next few that follow.

There is a lot more that can/could be said on this topic, but I will leave it at this for now. (Here is a web site (operated by Jehovah's Witnesses, some formerly from the HLC) that discusses and disagrees with WT's teachings on medical use of blood.)


Bobcat

Hi Sevenz and welcome

Non blood medical management is the most effective treatment. No JW clinicians (who I know personally) acknowledge this. Regarding blood fractions - we all wondered this. I remember an elder stating from the platform that it depended on how a person viewed the blood fraction - he compared it to a clove and an apple pie. If an apple pie has cloves but you extract the cloves, have you extracted apple pie?

This explanation did not satisfy everyone and most people scratched their heads and made their own decisions. Filling in the Non Blood Cards that year took longer than normal.

Hi Sevenz and welcome from me too

Regardless your view on blood for medical treatment, and whether a Christian is allowed to use it, it is good to consider the following verses:
1 Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Nowhere it says that if you use or eat blood, you will not inherit the Kingdom of God. There is no reference to blood at all.

Gal. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

These words in Galatians 5 look similar to the ones in 1 Cor. Again, use of blood is not mentioned.

More:
Eph 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

In summary, the WT treats the words in Acts 15 as committing a sin that will block you from the Kingdom of God. In that way, they go beyond what is written (not uncommon , by the way, one should apply the same principle here regarding birthdays. Is it a sin that will remove your access to the Kingdom as WT wants you to believe?).
Therefore, It is a personal choice. If you believe these words in Acts mean you should not accept blood in anyway, that is your personal choice. If you believe you can accept blood, it is again your personal choice.

I believe Bobcat made it clear that the "fractions" approach is, well, very peculiar.

You must not eat blood, that was the Law and this principle was reiterated by the Apostles.

Lev 17:4 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Acts 15:28, 29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

However, regarding the use of blood fractions, even the 4 main components RED, WHITE, PLASMA and PLATLETS.
This is a conscience issue and each individual must use their own judgment and decide for themselves.

The Witnesses teach that the 4 main components of blood are off limits, but the fractions of these 4 components are for consideration???

Points to note.
WHITE blood cells are in breast milk - google it.
Having a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood, an analogy the Witnesses like to use, it is but a cellular transplant and does not nourish the body like food when put into the vein.
In this day an age, a blood transfusion is never of whole blood and usually consists of one of the 4 main components RED, WHITE, PLASMA or PLATLETS, usually packed RED blood cells are used in transfusion.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have become master over peoples faith, dictating in matters they should not, sitting themselves in the seat of Moses.
The lives that have been lost and damaged over the decades - due to the Witnesses playing the master over other peoples faith - is reprehensible.

Rev 18:4, 5 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “ ‘Come out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.

Kind Regards

Kerry

interestingly, Charles Russel had a different view of the medical use of blood than does the current WT Society: Here. The linked article discusses the evolution of WT's teaching on blood. It is quite an interesting read.


Bobcat

[interestingly, Charles Russel had a different view of the medical use of blood than does the current WT Society: Here. The linked article discusses the evolution of WT's teaching on blood. It is quite an interesting read.

Thanks everyone, I'm still at work trying to examine and digest what you all have posted.

And thanks for that link, Bobcat. I found this statement to be particularly interesting:

In February AJWRB publishes a new diagram which illustrates the revised Watchtower policy which in essence permits 100% of blood to be used in fractionated from.

That is amazing!

Sevenz even if Watchtower permits 100% use of blood to be used in fractioned form, prepare to be perplexed by Watchtower's use of the term 100%.
In part I am joking but it really is how they carry on. They mess with semantics all the time.

Greetings Sevenz and welcome to the forum.

I would respectfully suggest that there are MANY things about the JW organization that will soon be much less perplexing to yourself and ANYONE who truly and actually begins paying more attention to the scriptures themselves than the seemingly endless dogma of organized religion, REGARDLESS of what particular denomination we might be considering. Admittedly this is easier said than done when we (like myself) have experienced several decades of being programmed to UNDERSTAND the scriptures in a particular manner.

Among the things I began to glean from the scriptures after experiencing an anointing is that the last foretold complete apostasy of Jehovah's people before the ushering in of the Millennial Reign would have occurred sometime in or near 1972. I say "people" because when it comes to the anointed shepherding fold or otherwise what was "typified" by ancient Judea as opposed to Samaria, (the anointed "shepherd" as opposed to its "flock"), what I am seeing is a complete apostasy identified in the scriptures right around the same year it was publicly announced by one or two members of the International Bible Students association. (Zec 11:14-17) The scriptures are directing my attention specifically to 1912 in this case. Did you ever wonder why there never seemed to be any more great scriptural revelations with EITHER of these organizations after the early 1900s?

All of this will likely begin making even MORE sense when we realize that when it comes to this 7th foretold manifestation of Jehovah's authority and power on the earth in the setting of the "appointed times of the nations," the shepherding facet was foretold all along to exist in a favorable standing with Jehovah merely for a period of time identified as within "one hour." (Re 11:11-13)

I have no intention or desire (Sevenz) to single out any specific religious organization to attack or oppose. Nevertheless I hope and pray that you will continue moving forward in "catching sight" of the fact that a broken kingdom covenant has one again resulted in a very "disgusting thing" occupying what WAS Jehovah's earthly "sanctuary"/"temple" or "holy place" and that correspondingly you will also begin learning to obey the commensurate command to "flee to the mountains." (Mt 24:15, 16) (Da 11:30-32) Compare (1 Cor 3:16, 17) (2 Th 2:1-4) I am more than happy to do all I can help you with any and all questions you might have in this regard.

Agape love;
Sol

Sevenz wrote: ↑

6 days ago

Thanks everyone, I'm still at work trying to examine and digest what you all have posted.

Hello Sevenz,

Welcome to this blessed forum, it is quite the constellation (assemblage of brilliant people), and I love them every one.

Once you get through digesting the portion before you, you'll be ready for another meal. Kerry had a good post with some fine information you would do well to hold fast to.

I'm not one of Jehovah's Witnesses but even if I were, what could I tell you? "Don't eat the Blood"?

What exactly are you wanting to hear? "Go ahead and take the Blood if you need to?" Like Menrov said, that's your choice and it's a choice you'll have to make in a life or death situation. Do you want to die for the JW's or do you want to live for Christ?



Stranger, (Gen 4:10)