Chat over coffee with an elder from JWs

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Indeed and it must be noted - as careful as they are about blood transfusions - that are not consumed to begin with - they still eat meat - that even though being cooked has a lot of blood in it still.


Leviticus 7:26

Pretty much - offerings - the blood couldnt be drunk.
No one does such offerings now.

They take things to an extreme.

Well, the ancient Jews actually didn't drink blood at all. They were forbidden it, and they had to prepare their food to make certain that they avoided it. In the New Testament book of Acts, the Council of Jerusalem forbade the early Christians from eating blood and "things strangled", essentially animals that were strangled so that they would have blood left in their bodies, which was considered a delicacy at the time. This was a temporary provision that was intended to help Jews in their conversion to Christianity, but you wouldn't know that solely from the standpoint of sola scriptura. Tertullian wrote that Christians (at least in his part of the world) still apparently avoided sausage with blood in it during his time. I will repeat, though, that this is not something binding on Catholics now, because of the risk that some people could get scrupulous about this and think that it was my opinion and likely to be inaccurate; the Haydock Bible Commentary puts it quite well:

The use of these things [blood and the meat of strangled animals], though of their own nature indifferent, were here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches. (Challoner)

At any rate, though, you're right that the Jewish dietary law is held now to exclude most types of meat that you would get from a supermarket. Although the amount of blood in the meat is relatively low (the red stuff you see is generally myoglobin and sarcoplasm; muscle cell components), and what is there probably cooks out pretty well, observant Jews purchase kosher meats, which have had the blood removed from them more carefully than is usual (there are other reasons, too). Jehovah's Witnesses have a less strict view of this, obviously, believing that the typical means used to remove blood from an animal are sufficient. They would probably just avoid obvious things, like blood pudding (which I can't believe is a food, honestly, but there's nothing religiously wrong with it).

To my knowledge, however, Orthodox Jews and Hasidim accept blood transfusions. There may be exceptions, because Judaism has quite a bit of variety. To my knowledge, though, most Jews will accept that sort of medical procedure.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I figured that was the view they hold. It's common among the sort of Protestant movements that the Jehovah's Witnesses grew out of, and they believe that the Mosaic law prohibiting the consumption of blood is still in effect (to the extreme extent that they refuse blood transfusions), so I didn't think that they would believe that they were drinking the blood of Christ in any literal sense.

Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood in any form which means blood transfusions as well as blood in the diet. They are scrupulous about it in ways that are similar to the ways in which Jews are scrupulous about blood in the diet.

The Jerusalem Council's letter to believers along with the passages from the Old testament that you mentioned form the basis for Jehovah's witnesses stand on blood,

HAVE YOU WONDERED?

You may have heard that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions. Have you ever wondered why?

This Scriptural stand is often misunderstood. Sometimes people assume that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse all medical treatment or that they simply do not value life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jehovah’s Witnesses seek the best medical care available to them and their family members. However, they seek nonblood medical management. Why?

Their stand is based on a fundamental law that God gave to mankind. Just after the Flood of Noah’s day, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat the flesh of animals. God imposed this one restriction: They were not to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) All humans of all races descended from Noah, so this law is binding on all of mankind. It was never rescinded. Over eight centuries later, God reaffirmed that law to the nation of Israel, explaining that blood is sacred, representing the soul, or life itself. (Leviticus 17:14) Over 1,500 years later, the Christian apostles commanded all Christians to “keep abstaining . . . from blood.”—Acts 15:29.

To Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is clearly impossible to abstain from blood while taking it into the body in a transfusion. They therefore insist on alternative treatments. That Scriptural stand often results in an even higher standard of medical care. No doubt that is why many people who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses also request bloodless medical -- Watchtower Magazine 2008 October 1st; page. 31 How My Faith Helped Me to Face Tragedies​

Few Christians would agree with the way Jehovah's witnesses deal with these passages and, as far as I know, nobody but Jehovah's witnesses teach that any of the passages mentioned in the Watchtower Magazine quote above is applicable to blood transfusions.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood in any form which means blood transfusions as well as blood in the diet. They are scrupulous about it in ways that are similar to the ways in which Jews are scrupulous about blood in the diet.


Few Christians would agree with the way Jehovah's witnesses deal with these passages and, as far as I know, nobody but Jehovah's witnesses teach that any of the passages mentioned in the Watchtower Magazine quote above is applicable to blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Winesses rightfully claim that eating blood can be a profane act; treating something sacred as vulgar or common. I put forth that a transfusion is not profane, but in line with the proper use of bloood. If the life is in the blood, it can also be said that there is no greater love than this that a man lay down his life for his friends. A transfusion gives another a chance at life and is an act of love. Would we call that profane?

The funny thing is that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses favors repeal of the ban on blood transfusions, much as they repealled the ban on transplanted organs, but they do not have the two thirds majority required to repeal the ban

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jehovah's Winesses rightfully claim that eating blood can be a profane act; treating something sacred as vulgar or common. I put forth that a transfusion is not profane, but in line with the proper use of bloood. If the life is in the blood, it can also be said that there is no greater love than this that a man lay down his life for his friends. A transfusion gives another a chance at life and is an act of love. Would we call that profane?

The funny thing is that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses favors repeal of the ban on blood transfusions, much as they repealled the ban on transplanted organs, but they do not have the two thirds majority required to repeal the ban

I do not think that the church teaches that there is a prohibition on eating blood based foods, such as blood sausage or black pudding. What the JWs teach is a matter for their leadership, but I am sure that JW teaching does not conform to Catholic teaching on many matters.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I do not think that the church teaches that there is a prohibition on eating blood based foods, such as blood sausage or black pudding. What the JWs teach is a matter for their leadership, but I am sure that JW teaching does not conform to Catholic teaching on many matters.

They do ban "blood foods". Which I don't understand, cuz it's not like it's human blood or it's used in a sacrifice. I was told by my JW friends not to eat any meat that was "too bloody". How you measure that, I don't know.

Here's a quote from an article that is close to what my friends used to say:
As for meat, if it is bleed and then cooked very well, the meat is usually drained of all the blood. Although it is impossible to not eat any blood, taking it in intentionally and in large amounts is highly disrespectful of the Bible's standards. think of if you lose a tooth or get a cut in your mouth, there is blood, and anything that enters your mouth, atleast in part goes down your throat, so you've always got something. the outirght and intentional act of putting blood into your body in excessive amounts (transfused, drinking, very bloody meat and possibly raw) are definitely frowned upon not only by the congregation, but by the Bible's author, Jehovah God.
LINK:http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/blood-1.htm

 

[MoreCoffee]

They do ban "blood foods". Which I don't understand, cuz it's not like it's human blood or it's used in a sacrifice. I was told by my JW friends not to eat any meat that was "too bloody". How you measure that, I don't know.

Here's a quote from an article that is close to what my friends used to say:
As for meat, if it is bleed and then cooked very well, the meat is usually drained of all the blood. Although it is impossible to not eat any blood, taking it in intentionally and in large amounts is highly disrespectful of the Bible's standards. think of if you lose a tooth or get a cut in your mouth, there is blood, and anything that enters your mouth, atleast in part goes down your throat, so you've always got something. the outirght and intentional act of putting blood into your body in excessive amounts (transfused, drinking, very bloody meat and possibly raw) are definitely frowned upon not only by the congregation, but by the Bible's author, Jehovah God.
LINK:Jehovah`s Witness: blood, bloody meat, relitive

If they wanted to be scrupulous about avoiding blood they'd be vegetarians. Evidently cooked blood in meat is okay. Makes one wonder why cooked blood in a blood sausage (which is mostly meat and cereals) is banned while a good cut of beef is not. But I guess when one is inventing a religion being consistent becomes difficult after a while.

 

[Chrystal-J]

But I guess when one is inventing a religion being consistent becomes difficult after a while.

Exactly. When you're making it up as you go along, it's hard to keep track of everything.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I recall years back they [JW's] allowed Plasma to be transfused. Which is a key component to blood.
So ensued the discussion about blood transfusions.

Essentially - as i tried to discuss in another forum previously - the Apostles werent talking about transfusions because there was no such thing in their time.
Transfusions are not eating it anyway.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jehovah's witnesses change their medical advice from time to time but they seem to be keen to keep the blood prohibition. Perhaps they will eventually change their stand.