They keep separate from the ungodly world as did Noah and many other prophets in the bible. READ John 17:14. Jehovah's Witnesses follow EXACTLY THE BIBLE. They do serve Christ our Lord. Matthew 4:17 is when Jesus started preaching. He taught his disciples to preach in Matthew chapter 10. Matthew 10:14 tells them to go house to house. Matthew 24:14 says this good news of the kingdom will be preached..."
Jesus told his disciples to make disciples at Matt: 28:19,20,"... make disciples..."
Mark 3:29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
How come blaspheme against the Father & Son is forgivable but against the Holy Spirit it is an eternal sin. If the Holy Spirit is just an active force like electricity or fire why would blaspheme against it be eternal yet blaspheme against the Father or Son is forgivable?
Acts 5:2-4 says the Holy Spirit is God. JW's believe the Holy Spirit is Gods active force like electricity or fire. Acts 5:3 says "you have lied to the Holy Spirit". How can you lie to electricity or fire?
Isaiah 63:10Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. How can you grieve electricity or fire?
It is a simple fact that the WTS will be hard pressed to lift this prohibition and admit that it has been a tragic misunderstanding from the start. A great many lives have been lost. Many young and old victims have been hailed as heroes, and the brothers and sisters have gone through so much pain, court cases, fears and losses that there will be an unprecedented outcry among Jehovah’s Witnesses and outsiders if it were suddenly lifted, and yet that is precisely what needs to happen.
@Venn2007 - tell george bush to change his stance on war and quit killing young americans for his evil policies. kids are hailed as heroes for dying in a useless war. duh
Obviously eating and receiving an organ transplant are completely dissimilar just as the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood are in no way connected.
WHY, THEN, DID THEY KEEP THE BAN ON BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS?
@Venn2007 YOU WOULD BE IGNORANT TO THINK THAT AN ORGAN AND BLOOD ARE NOT LINKED AT ALL. ARE YOU SERIOUSE, ORGANS PUMP AND WORK WITH WHAT? WHAT ARE THEY DRENCHED IN WHEN IN THE BODY? WHEN AN ORGAN IS CUT DOES IT NOT BLEED? HOPE THIS ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
@GLUVSR4EVER.....I want to know where did I say that Organ and Blood are not link. I was quoting the Watchtower when they first had their view as to the two NOT link to each other. As as I made aware, it caught up with them and they had to change their views on this new Scientific issue. In sake of argument, I encourage you to copy all that I have written so that you can get a better understanding of what is being written before you decide to call me ignorant.
Would this man in question also be prohibited from using a mouthwash or cough syrup that contained alcohol? Would he be prohibited from using alcohol as a topical antiseptic or in an after shave? The very idea is ridiculous because the purpose is entirely different.
The error of this analogy can be illustrated with a similar one: "Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from meat. Would he be obedient if he quit eating meat, but accepted a kidney transplant?"
For example in the Reasoning book on page 73 an attempt is made to establish this link by analogy:
"Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?" With substances like alcohol and certain drugs it makes no difference how they are administered because the end result, the absorption by the body, is the same.
The inconsistency of retaining the ban on blood transfusions while lifting the ban on organ transplants only shows how the WTS leadership is not base on Scriptures after all. But instead, on rules that can be dangerous to your faith. Who's to say, that they want change their views in the future!
More recently, the connection between the transfusion of blood and the eating of blood has been made in more subtle ways.
Even though this position was obviously unbiblical and illogical, it was at least consistent with the blood prohibition. At that time, it could be argued that: eating a kidney is like having a kidney transplant; eating blood is like having a blood transfusion.
However, when the ban on organ transplants was lifted, this changed: eating a kidney is not like having a kidney transplant; eating blood is like having a blood transfusion.
As we see, the Society knows this. Then why does the leadership keep claiming that a blood transfusion is the same as eating when there is no support whatsoever for this claim, and when it also says it is an organ transplant?
A blood transfusion cannot be an organ transplant and a meal at the same time! Somehow, the WTS prohibited organ transplants between 1967 and 1980, claiming it was cannibalism.
The blood retains its function as blood, and is used as it was used in the donor’s body: to transport nourishment and oxygen to the different parts of the body. A blood transfusion is not nourishing any more than a kidney transplant is.
This is an unwarranted insertion of a concept that is not scriptural as we have already seen. Ironically, the blood components that the society does allow are taken precisely to sustain ones life.
As already discussed, for blood to become food, it will have to be eaten, to pass the digestive system and be broken down into components that can be used by the body’s cells. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN DURING BLOOD TRANSFUSION.
The Article: W58 9/15 pg.575 'Questions from Readers', When the WTS finally caught up with the previous 60 years of scientific knowledge, in the mid 1960's, and they came to appreciate that blood transfusions are not a "feeding on blood," they were faced with a dilemma. For the last few decades, the WTS has tried to get around this problem by referring to blood transfusions, not as eating blood, but as a sustaining of one's life my means of blood.
However, in times past the WTS would argue that a blood transfusion was objectionable because it constituted the eating of blood. Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden.
Myxyzaccount...... In recent articles of the WTS, it is made mention that: ‘A blood transfusion is an ORGAN TRANSPLANT.’" (Awake! Oct. 22, 1990, p. 9). "So, when doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient's immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it." (How Can Blood Save Your Life, 1990, p. 8;)
i refused blood at the threat of dying in 2001 only later to scripturally understand that it would have been an unforgivable sin if I had failed that test. Jesus blood saves and gives back life to those who obey him as ruler. Disobeying the prohibition given in Acts would amount to trampling the Son of God and esteeming his blood of ordinary value. Obey the Son and know that refusing blood is scriptural obedience to the Christian Law
A JW is made to feel guilty over a blood transfusion at there most peril moment in life and yet the men who enforce this indoctrinated fear blatanlty lie in their publications.
The JW leaders have a history of utter stupidity and medical quackery. I was nearly taken in by this deception as a youth.
This woman does not know she has been deceived yet. Thats the price you pay when you think watchtower research and logic is honest and scholalry. It isn't. It's a fraud.
What JW's don't know is that The watchtower society Lies to them and Deceives them.
It's publications are full of misquotes and deceptive quotes. The Watchtower uses a book by author Arthur Weigell to argue against the trinity. The Watchtower calls him a scholar and yet Weigall is effectively a satanist to them because he claims everything about Jesus is false and taken from paganism including JW beliefs. lol
This is hilarious; these people are like drones. LOL@ accepting a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. If you inject a starving man with blood will he still die of hunger??? morons. I once had a JW tell me that you are more likely to die from accepting a blood transfusion that by not accepting one. That is to say, blood transfusions have >50% failure rate... lol, read a book.
@slippkapone - a 1 percent chance of having complications by accepting blood is not good enough odds for me personally. But I refused blood after my count was at 4.2. Knowing that if I die Christ is the means of receiving life back. disobeying may prolong life for a few years but would result in the scar of knowing you disobeyed Acts 15:20, 29.
Where did you read 1%? post a legitimate source. How do you feel about the WT's stance about accepting blood components? Where in the bible does it instruct which components are acceptable and which are not?
@slippkapone - i don't care what the wt say about components. I don't accept whole blood and only my epogen is made from components. not a big deal. eating red meat has blood fractions. i eat it all day long.
In other words, its OK to break Gods law in a little as long as you dont break it in a lot?
I am no medical doctor, this is why it is of beneficial to consult your doctor as to what I am saying is truthful or not. Who are you going to put your trust in, a leader of a church, or a Medical doctor who knows his practice? In fact, even Jesus gave good advice when he said: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."-Matt.9:12
PART 2: JW's accept transfusions of blood plasma fractions, but none of the JW's will accept a transfusion of any of the primary components of blood such as: red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma. (Note: pg.14 of their brochure)
QUESTION: What about Gods law to abstain fromblood? A fraction of the blood is still a blood substance, isnt it? What makes a blood fraction transfusion any different from whole blood?
So, JW's dont donate blood because they believe it to be a violation of Gods law and yet Witnesses freely use small blood fractions taken from thousands of units of stored blood. If the storage of blood is really against Gods law, why doesnt the Watchtower Society condemn its use for transfusions and injections of blood components?
Simple, Because there would be a lot of dead JW's! And the Society knows that.
In fact, in the June 15, 1985 Watchtower, the Society noted that some 70 million units of concentrated Factor VIII are imported from the United States and are used to treat British haemophiliacs. Each batch of Factor VIII is made from plasma that is pooled from as many as 2,500 blood donors." YES, Blood Donours!!! Who's blood? Certainly not JW's blood, but the general public in order to save JW's lives. Isn't this hypocritical?
...is more like a "transplant" situation, than it is EATING blood for nourishment?
ALSO, do hemophiliacs who are Jehovahs Witnesses take hemophiliac preparations of Factor VIII made from BLOOD PLASMA? And what about other fractions of blood—such as immune globulin, albumin, and fibrinogen? Do Jehovahs Witnesses take these? YES!!!
(The Watchtower, June 1, 1990, pp. 30)
DOES THIS NOT GO AGAINST Leviticus 17:13? Storing of Blood? JW's seem not to be consistent with their own rules.
Doesnt the Watchtower Society allow organ transplants? And what about tissue transplants? Dont JW's take these? YES! Pg. 28 on their Blood Brochure says so. Now look at what they say on pg. 8:
When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipients immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant.
QUESTION: Since JW's agrees that blood is a tissue of the body, isnt it basically admitting that a blood transfusion, ..
...retains its original composition as it mixes with the rest of the blood in body. Can you see why there is a big difference between a blood transfusion which merely replenishes the blood supply, and blood which is physically eaten through the mouth and digested by the body?
After all, doesnt the Watchtower Society admit that blood is an organ of the body and as such a blood transfusion is essentially an organ transplant (See: pg. 31, August 22, 1999 Awake!)
But, what about blood? When blood is transfused into the veins of the body, does the body feed off of the blood by breaking it down for nourishment?
NO! Instead, transfused blood is still blood. It does not get digested in the veins of the body.
Then how can a "blood transfusion" be the same as eating blood?
Unlike nutritional substances which are broken down and metabolized by the body; blood, on the other hand, when it enters the body through the veins, ..
This of course is a doctrine created by the Watchtower, which in medical terms have no grounds.
What JW's needs to ask themselves is, when a substance such as alcohol or a "nutritional" substance is infused into the veins of the body, what happens to the substance? Does the substance retain its original composition or does it get broken down, and in a sense, digested by the body through the process of metabolism? Well, it gets broken down and metabolized by the body.
The Bible at Acts 15:29, says: abstain fromblood. Yet, according to JW's: "if a person cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed [intravenously]. JW's also asks, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to keep abstaining fromblood?"
THEY point out, if a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?
Were all of the baptisms in the bible null and void because they didnt go over the questions with 3 elders? - LOL
I can see Jesus approaching John the Baptizer and John saying "well, Jesus that is commendable. Let me get three of my disciples together and we can go over the questions." Once that is done, your father in the heavens can send his spirit down and say "this is my son the beloved whom I, along with the other 3 have approved"
No where, this is why their Baptism is different. Upon getting baptised, is ask the following:
"Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization? (The Watchtower, April 1st 2006, pages 21-25)
Not in the "name of the Holy Spirit", but rather in the "name" of the "organization", Watchtower Society! Which is not Biblical
It is incredible (and shocking) that such a formula can be proclaimed when one considers Jesus' words to baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at Matthew 28:19 and to blatantly go against this.
This inclusion of the organisation is in line with the wider emphasis and allegiance that JW give to the cult in many other areas of their lives too.
They keep separate from the ungodly world as did Noah and many other prophets in the bible. READ John 17:14. Jehovah's Witnesses follow EXACTLY THE BIBLE. They do serve Christ our Lord. Matthew 4:17 is when Jesus started preaching. He taught his disciples to preach in Matthew chapter 10. Matthew 10:14 tells them to go house to house. Matthew 24:14 says this good news of the kingdom will be preached..."
Jesus told his disciples to make disciples at Matt: 28:19,20,"... make disciples..."
eternityandforever 10 months ago
JEHOVAH WITNESS' ARE NOTHING MORE THEN braIN WASHED CULTISM IDIOTS!
lanier2k5 10 months ago
Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
ArboriusOwns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mark 3:29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
How come blaspheme against the Father & Son is forgivable but against the Holy Spirit it is an eternal sin. If the Holy Spirit is just an active force like electricity or fire why would blaspheme against it be eternal yet blaspheme against the Father or Son is forgivable?
ArboriusOwns 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Acts 5:2-4 says the Holy Spirit is God. JW's believe the Holy Spirit is Gods active force like electricity or fire. Acts 5:3 says "you have lied to the Holy Spirit". How can you lie to electricity or fire?
Isaiah 63:10Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. How can you grieve electricity or fire?
ArboriusOwns 1 year ago
James 1:19 says: "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to HEAR, slow to SPEAK, slow to WRATH:"
Venn2007 1 year ago
It is a simple fact that the WTS will be hard pressed to lift this prohibition and admit that it has been a tragic misunderstanding from the start. A great many lives have been lost. Many young and old victims have been hailed as heroes, and the brothers and sisters have gone through so much pain, court cases, fears and losses that there will be an unprecedented outcry among Jehovah’s Witnesses and outsiders if it were suddenly lifted, and yet that is precisely what needs to happen.
Venn2007 1 year ago
@Venn2007 - tell george bush to change his stance on war and quit killing young americans for his evil policies. kids are hailed as heroes for dying in a useless war. duh
myxyzaccount 1 year ago
Obviously eating and receiving an organ transplant are completely dissimilar just as the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood are in no way connected.
WHY, THEN, DID THEY KEEP THE BAN ON BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS?
Venn2007 1 year ago
@Venn2007 YOU WOULD BE IGNORANT TO THINK THAT AN ORGAN AND BLOOD ARE NOT LINKED AT ALL. ARE YOU SERIOUSE, ORGANS PUMP AND WORK WITH WHAT? WHAT ARE THEY DRENCHED IN WHEN IN THE BODY? WHEN AN ORGAN IS CUT DOES IT NOT BLEED? HOPE THIS ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
GLUVSR4EVER 1 year ago
@GLUVSR4EVER.....I want to know where did I say that Organ and Blood are not link. I was quoting the Watchtower when they first had their view as to the two NOT link to each other. As as I made aware, it caught up with them and they had to change their views on this new Scientific issue. In sake of argument, I encourage you to copy all that I have written so that you can get a better understanding of what is being written before you decide to call me ignorant.
Thank you!
Venn2007 1 year ago
Would this man in question also be prohibited from using a mouthwash or cough syrup that contained alcohol? Would he be prohibited from using alcohol as a topical antiseptic or in an after shave? The very idea is ridiculous because the purpose is entirely different.
The error of this analogy can be illustrated with a similar one: "Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from meat. Would he be obedient if he quit eating meat, but accepted a kidney transplant?"
Venn2007 1 year ago
For example in the Reasoning book on page 73 an attempt is made to establish this link by analogy:
"Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?" With substances like alcohol and certain drugs it makes no difference how they are administered because the end result, the absorption by the body, is the same.
However what if the end result was not the same?
Venn2007 1 year ago
The inconsistency of retaining the ban on blood transfusions while lifting the ban on organ transplants only shows how the WTS leadership is not base on Scriptures after all. But instead, on rules that can be dangerous to your faith. Who's to say, that they want change their views in the future!
More recently, the connection between the transfusion of blood and the eating of blood has been made in more subtle ways.
Venn2007 1 year ago
Even though this position was obviously unbiblical and illogical, it was at least consistent with the blood prohibition. At that time, it could be argued that: eating a kidney is like having a kidney transplant; eating blood is like having a blood transfusion.
However, when the ban on organ transplants was lifted, this changed: eating a kidney is not like having a kidney transplant; eating blood is like having a blood transfusion.
Venn2007 1 year ago
As we see, the Society knows this. Then why does the leadership keep claiming that a blood transfusion is the same as eating when there is no support whatsoever for this claim, and when it also says it is an organ transplant?
A blood transfusion cannot be an organ transplant and a meal at the same time! Somehow, the WTS prohibited organ transplants between 1967 and 1980, claiming it was cannibalism.
Venn2007 1 year ago
The blood retains its function as blood, and is used as it was used in the donor’s body: to transport nourishment and oxygen to the different parts of the body. A blood transfusion is not nourishing any more than a kidney transplant is.
Venn2007 1 year ago
This is an unwarranted insertion of a concept that is not scriptural as we have already seen. Ironically, the blood components that the society does allow are taken precisely to sustain ones life.
As already discussed, for blood to become food, it will have to be eaten, to pass the digestive system and be broken down into components that can be used by the body’s cells. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN DURING BLOOD TRANSFUSION.
Venn2007 1 year ago
The Article: W58 9/15 pg.575 'Questions from Readers', When the WTS finally caught up with the previous 60 years of scientific knowledge, in the mid 1960's, and they came to appreciate that blood transfusions are not a "feeding on blood," they were faced with a dilemma. For the last few decades, the WTS has tried to get around this problem by referring to blood transfusions, not as eating blood, but as a sustaining of one's life my means of blood.
Venn2007 1 year ago
However, in times past the WTS would argue that a blood transfusion was objectionable because it constituted the eating of blood. Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden.
Venn2007 1 year ago
Myxyzaccount...... In recent articles of the WTS, it is made mention that: ‘A blood transfusion is an ORGAN TRANSPLANT.’" (Awake! Oct. 22, 1990, p. 9). "So, when doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient's immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it." (How Can Blood Save Your Life, 1990, p. 8;)
Venn2007 1 year ago
i refused blood at the threat of dying in 2001 only later to scripturally understand that it would have been an unforgivable sin if I had failed that test. Jesus blood saves and gives back life to those who obey him as ruler. Disobeying the prohibition given in Acts would amount to trampling the Son of God and esteeming his blood of ordinary value. Obey the Son and know that refusing blood is scriptural obedience to the Christian Law
myxyzaccount 1 year ago
A JW is made to feel guilty over a blood transfusion at there most peril moment in life and yet the men who enforce this indoctrinated fear blatanlty lie in their publications.
The JW leaders have a history of utter stupidity and medical quackery. I was nearly taken in by this deception as a youth.
This woman does not know she has been deceived yet. Thats the price you pay when you think watchtower research and logic is honest and scholalry. It isn't. It's a fraud.
ElderJoseph 1 year ago
What JW's don't know is that The watchtower society Lies to them and Deceives them.
It's publications are full of misquotes and deceptive quotes. The Watchtower uses a book by author Arthur Weigell to argue against the trinity. The Watchtower calls him a scholar and yet Weigall is effectively a satanist to them because he claims everything about Jesus is false and taken from paganism including JW beliefs. lol
ElderJoseph 1 year ago
This is hilarious; these people are like drones. LOL@ accepting a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. If you inject a starving man with blood will he still die of hunger??? morons. I once had a JW tell me that you are more likely to die from accepting a blood transfusion that by not accepting one. That is to say, blood transfusions have >50% failure rate... lol, read a book.
slippkapone 1 year ago
@slippkapone - a 1 percent chance of having complications by accepting blood is not good enough odds for me personally. But I refused blood after my count was at 4.2. Knowing that if I die Christ is the means of receiving life back. disobeying may prolong life for a few years but would result in the scar of knowing you disobeyed Acts 15:20, 29.
myxyzaccount 1 year ago
@myxyzaccount
Where did you read 1%? post a legitimate source. How do you feel about the WT's stance about accepting blood components? Where in the bible does it instruct which components are acceptable and which are not?
slippkapone 1 year ago
@slippkapone - i don't care what the wt say about components. I don't accept whole blood and only my epogen is made from components. not a big deal. eating red meat has blood fractions. i eat it all day long.
myxyzaccount 1 year ago
In other words, its OK to break Gods law in a little as long as you dont break it in a lot?
I am no medical doctor, this is why it is of beneficial to consult your doctor as to what I am saying is truthful or not. Who are you going to put your trust in, a leader of a church, or a Medical doctor who knows his practice? In fact, even Jesus gave good advice when he said: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."-Matt.9:12
jvitne 2 years ago
PART 2: JW's accept transfusions of blood plasma fractions, but none of the JW's will accept a transfusion of any of the primary components of blood such as: red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma. (Note: pg.14 of their brochure)
QUESTION: What about Gods law to abstain fromblood? A fraction of the blood is still a blood substance, isnt it? What makes a blood fraction transfusion any different from whole blood?
jvitne 2 years ago
@jvitne - there is blood is red meat. fractions. you should know that.
myxyzaccount 1 year ago
So, JW's dont donate blood because they believe it to be a violation of Gods law and yet Witnesses freely use small blood fractions taken from thousands of units of stored blood. If the storage of blood is really against Gods law, why doesnt the Watchtower Society condemn its use for transfusions and injections of blood components?
Simple, Because there would be a lot of dead JW's! And the Society knows that.
jvitne 2 years ago
In fact, in the June 15, 1985 Watchtower, the Society noted that some 70 million units of concentrated Factor VIII are imported from the United States and are used to treat British haemophiliacs. Each batch of Factor VIII is made from plasma that is pooled from as many as 2,500 blood donors." YES, Blood Donours!!! Who's blood? Certainly not JW's blood, but the general public in order to save JW's lives. Isn't this hypocritical?
jvitne 2 years ago
...is more like a "transplant" situation, than it is EATING blood for nourishment?
ALSO, do hemophiliacs who are Jehovahs Witnesses take hemophiliac preparations of Factor VIII made from BLOOD PLASMA? And what about other fractions of blood—such as immune globulin, albumin, and fibrinogen? Do Jehovahs Witnesses take these? YES!!!
(The Watchtower, June 1, 1990, pp. 30)
DOES THIS NOT GO AGAINST Leviticus 17:13? Storing of Blood? JW's seem not to be consistent with their own rules.
jvitne 2 years ago
Doesnt the Watchtower Society allow organ transplants? And what about tissue transplants? Dont JW's take these? YES! Pg. 28 on their Blood Brochure says so. Now look at what they say on pg. 8:
When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipients immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant.
QUESTION: Since JW's agrees that blood is a tissue of the body, isnt it basically admitting that a blood transfusion, ..
jvitne 2 years ago
...retains its original composition as it mixes with the rest of the blood in body. Can you see why there is a big difference between a blood transfusion which merely replenishes the blood supply, and blood which is physically eaten through the mouth and digested by the body?
After all, doesnt the Watchtower Society admit that blood is an organ of the body and as such a blood transfusion is essentially an organ transplant (See: pg. 31, August 22, 1999 Awake!)
jvitne 2 years ago
But, what about blood? When blood is transfused into the veins of the body, does the body feed off of the blood by breaking it down for nourishment?
NO! Instead, transfused blood is still blood. It does not get digested in the veins of the body.
Then how can a "blood transfusion" be the same as eating blood?
Unlike nutritional substances which are broken down and metabolized by the body; blood, on the other hand, when it enters the body through the veins, ..
jvitne 2 years ago
This of course is a doctrine created by the Watchtower, which in medical terms have no grounds.
What JW's needs to ask themselves is, when a substance such as alcohol or a "nutritional" substance is infused into the veins of the body, what happens to the substance? Does the substance retain its original composition or does it get broken down, and in a sense, digested by the body through the process of metabolism? Well, it gets broken down and metabolized by the body.
What about Blood?
jvitne 2 years ago
The Bible at Acts 15:29, says: abstain fromblood. Yet, according to JW's: "if a person cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed [intravenously]. JW's also asks, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to keep abstaining fromblood?"
THEY point out, if a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?
jvitne 2 years ago
Were all of the baptisms in the bible null and void because they didnt go over the questions with 3 elders? - LOL
I can see Jesus approaching John the Baptizer and John saying "well, Jesus that is commendable. Let me get three of my disciples together and we can go over the questions." Once that is done, your father in the heavens can send his spirit down and say "this is my son the beloved whom I, along with the other 3 have approved"
jvitne 2 years ago
Where does the Bible say that a person must be a member of the Watchtower Organization to have Salvation?... That's what the JW's teach, right?
VAIO294 2 years ago
No where, this is why their Baptism is different. Upon getting baptised, is ask the following:
"Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization? (The Watchtower, April 1st 2006, pages 21-25)
Not in the "name of the Holy Spirit", but rather in the "name" of the "organization", Watchtower Society! Which is not Biblical
jvitne 2 years ago
It is incredible (and shocking) that such a formula can be proclaimed when one considers Jesus' words to baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at Matthew 28:19 and to blatantly go against this.
This inclusion of the organisation is in line with the wider emphasis and allegiance that JW give to the cult in many other areas of their lives too.
jvitne 2 years ago
No Blood? I've seen people die because there religion. To me thats Murder!
MyDeroscha 2 years ago 2
Pls predict again!!
DEU: 18:22
morons witnesses
m4lover 2 years ago
read John 5 v29
MrPipspip 2 years ago
Where in the bible does it say you would not have a resurrection for eating blood or a blood transfusion?
The penalty for eating blood=read Leviticus 17 v15-16
MrPipspip 2 years ago
Comment removed
tonyschmoeredux 2 years ago