Hairyrapunzel:


apostle Paul will accept blood transfusion whether in his own time or now . He wouldn't want to die or let his follower die for a medical condition. Paul will not die because he wants to appease any symbol. Why will Paul heal anybody if life on earth wasn't important?

Wrong,
there are many instances Paul did not heal fellow Christians despite having the power. Do not forget Paul himself had a torn in his flesh that wage war against him, Timothy had stomach issues but was not healed by Paul. Epaphroditus nearly died in the hands of Paul yet he did not heal him e. t. c. Your last question needs reassessment. I am throwing this question back to you once again, will Paul accept blood transfusion in his day or in our time based on '' life was too important to be lost on earth'' or based on '' keep Abstaining from blood''.

achorladey:

Good, can the independent review body really know everything about the manufacturers blueprint? YES/No. That the JWs respond to destructive criticism and tendencies using scriptural backing, is it a sign of being afraid? ACCORDING TO YOUR WORDS( you shouldn't say people should find the truth about your organisation on only its own website), For your mind if someone wants to know about Toyota company he has to check in with Mitsubishi's company as well to find out more. You make me laugh. What is the the difference between an '' organisation'' and a ''brand''. I hope you catch the drift.

Lol again you fail to get my point. Only the manufacturer knows his own blueprint. But only the manufacturer will not use his own product. People will use the product and it's peoples reviews about the product I am talking off.

Example the product is toyota and the toyota manufacturer says you have to read only the reviews of my product on sites I recommend don't go to sites I do not recommend about my product which is toyota, won't you smell something fishy? I am talking about just one product.

Peoples reviews on that particular product I never said you check another company that manufactures similar product eg mitsubishi site for toyatas review.

I never said respond to destructive criticism using scriptural backing I said you can learn from other sources apart from jw.org or sources authourized only by watch tower I thought your organisation encourages research?

Difference between organisation and a brand hmmm. Watchtower is an organisation and the brand is jw.org
You know jw.org contains the truth because jw.org told you jw.org contains the truth. Will jw.org tell you it contains lies before?

Example you say a person should research the truth about the bible by looking at only jw.org but should not look at other websites about the bible. It doesn't look like research to me.

Hairyrapunzel:


Lol again you fail to get my point. Only the manufacturer knows his own blueprint. But only the manufacturer will not use his own product. People will use the product and it's peoples reviews about the product I am talking off.

Example the product is toyota and the toyota manufacturer says you have to read only the reviews of my product on sites I recommend don't go to sites I do not recommend about my product which is toyota, won't you smell something fishy? I am talking about just one product.

Peoples reviews on that particular product I never said you check another company that manufactures similar product eg mitsubishi site for toyatas review.

I never said respond to destructive criticism using scriptural backing I said you can learn from other sources apart from jw.org or sources authourized only by watch tower I thought your organisation encourages research?

Difference between organisation and a brand hmmm. Watchtower is an organisation and the brand is jw.org
You know jw.org contains the truth because jw.org told you jw.org contains the truth. Will jw.org tell you it contains lies before?

Example you say a person should research the truth about the bible by looking at only jw.org but should not look at other websites about the bible. It doesn't look like research to me.

Fine, Simple question to know more about the Organisation where will you go to? As regards the the truth contained in the Bible your free to carryout your research, who is holding you back?

achorladey:

Wrong,
there are many instances Paul did not heal fellow Christians despite having the power. Do not forget Paul himself had a torn in his flesh that wage war against him, Timothy had stomach issues but was not healed by Paul. Epaphroditus nearly died in the hands of Paul yet he did not heal him e. t. c. Your last question needs reassessment. I am throwing this question back to you once again, will Paul accept blood transfusion in his day or in our time based on '' life was too important to be lost on earth'' or based on '' keep Abstaining from blood''.

Yes Paul will accept blood transfusion. God is a merciful God. making his subjects die over a mosaic law which does not mean same thing as a medical procedure doesn't show him as merciful

Philipians 2:25-30 25But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need; 26because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow. 28Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you. 29Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; 30because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me.

1 Timothy 5:22- 23 22Do not be too quick in the laying on of hands and thereby share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. 23Stop drinking only water and use a little wine instead, because of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

For Epaphroditus God graciously healed him. God had mercy on him the word there is mercy
For Timothy Paul gave him an advise. So Paul knows not everything was about healing a little lifestyle change or medical treatment can make you ok in some instances. Paul will ok a medical procedure like blood transfusion if it will make the person ok

At the end of the day they were alright. And the bible never said they refused anything Paul offered to make them well because they held on to one law. God's mercy and an advise took place in the healing of these two people

achorladey:

Fine, Simple question to know more about the Organisation where will you go to? As regards the the truth contained in the Bible your free to carryout your research, who is holding you back?

Fine simple question where will you go to learn about the bible?

To learn about the organisation Google. Read its own story from itself and read stories of it from others. Check inconsistencies if present and compare. Check facts most especially. it is called research it can never be one sided if it is one sided then it is bullshit

Hairyrapunzel:


Fine simple question where will you go to learn about the bible?

If I were to reason along your lines of reasoning, I should consult the Holy Quran. Looooool.

Hairyrapunzel:


Yes Paul will accept blood transfusion. God is a merciful God. making his subjects die over a mosaic law which does not mean same thing as a medical procedure doesn't show him as merciful

Philipians 2:25-30 25But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need; 26because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow. 28Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you. 29Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; 30because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me.

1 Timothy 5:22- 23 22Do not be too quick in the laying on of hands and thereby share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. 23Stop drinking only water and use a little wine instead, because of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

For Epaphroditus God graciously healed him. God had mercy on him the word there is mercy
For Timothy Paul gave him an advise. So Paul knows not everything was about healing a little lifestyle change or medical treatment can make you ok in some instances. Paul will ok a medical procedure like blood transfusion if it will make the person ok

At the end of the day they were alright. And the bible never said they refused anything Paul offered to make them well because they held on to one law. God's mercy and an advise took place in the healing of these two people

Yes they(Timothy and others) did not reject what Paul administered because it was all within the confirms of God's laws and principles. Now will Paul had accepted blood transfusion in relation to Acts 15:29. Knowing fully what blood was meant to be used for for according to the Mosaic Law.

achorladey:

If I were to reason along your lines of reasoning, I should consult the Holy Quran. Looooool.

Cosult the holy quran for bible truth hmmmmmmmmmm. Well I am not suprised watchtower teaches you to reason that way. You need the holy spirit to guide you to understand and know the bible very well. You need the holy spirit to learn about the bible

Hairyrapunzel:




Cosult the holy quran for bible truth hmmmmmmmmmm. Well I am not suprised watchtower teaches you to reason that way. You need the holy spirit to guide you to understand and know the bible very well. You need the holy spirit to learn about the bible

Not at all, I am only making use of your reasoning skills. Shikena.

achorladey:

Yes they(Timothy and others) did not reject what Paul administered because it was all within the confirms of God's laws and principles. Now will Paul had accepted blood transfusion in relation to Acts 15:29. Knowing fully what blood was meant to be used for for according to the Mosaic Law.

Lol Rotflmao. Paul will accept the blood transfusion if it is meant to save life. Where is the mercy you talk about abi there is nothing called mercy in your organisation? Then the Russians are right you people are extremists. You don't need only guns to kill people.

Nathan knorr in 1945 banned blood transfusion. IS nathan knorr that will have a problem with blood transfusion not Paul. Nathan knorr doesn't know anything about mercy he refused to accept a medical procedure not Paul.

Paul never said die or let your child die to uphold any mosaic law

Hairyrapunzel:


Lol Rotflmao. Paul will accept the blood transfusion if it is meant to save life. Where is the mercy you talk about abi there is nothing called mercy in your organisation? Then the Russians are right you people are extremists. You don't need only guns to kill people.

Nathan knorr in 1945 banned blood transfusion. IS nathan knorr that will have a problem with blood transfusion not Paul. Nathan knorr doesn't know anything about mercy he refused to accept a medical procedure not Paul.

Paul never said die or let your child die to uphold any mosaic law

Do you know the Israelites will duly die if it is because of upholding the Mosaic laws and Principles. Ask Prophet Daniel and the three Hebrews they will tell you more.

achorladey:

Not at all, I am only making use of your reasoning skills. Shikena.

Your reasoning skills has made you think koran. The product here is the bible another product is koran. You cant go reading one product reviews on another products reviews

Hairyrapunzel:


Lol Rotflmao. Paul will accept the blood transfusion if it is meant to save life. Where is the mercy you talk about abi there is nothing called mercy in your organisation? Then the Russians are right you people are extremists. You don't need only guns to kill people.

Nathan knorr in 1945 banned blood transfusion. IS nathan knorr that will have a problem with blood transfusion not Paul. Nathan knorr doesn't know anything about mercy he refused to accept a medical procedure not Paul.

Paul never said die or let your child die to uphold any mosaic law

Its easy to say: '' I cover my family with the blood of Jesus '', those kind of blood don't save life? YES/NO.

Hairyrapunzel:


Your reasoning skills has made you think koran. The product here is the bible another product is koran. You cant go reading one product reviews on another products reviews

Contact an Islamic scholar on that. They will tell you more.

achorladey:

Do you know the Israelites will duly die if it is because of upholding the Mosaic laws and Principles. Ask Prophet Daniel and the three Hebrews they will tell you more.

Jesus and Paul never told anybody to die or let the child die upholding a mosaic law.
2 cor 3:12- 18. 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. I cannot kill myself or let my child die over any mosaic law.
Paul never said abstain from blood transfusion Nathan knorr said so and said it in 1945.

God is not petty or sadistic.

Hairyrapunzel:


Jesus and Paul never told anybody to die or let the child die upholding a mosaic law.
2 cor 3:12- 18. 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom. I cannot kill myself or let my child die over any mosaic law.
Paul never said abstain from blood transfusion Nathan knorr said so and said it in 1945.

God is not petty or sadistic.

I can guarantee you the freedom Jesus gives does not allow for recklessness that overrides what the principles contained in God's law regarding blood usage(Abstain).

achorladey:

Contact an Islamic scholar on that. They will tell you more.

Lol Rotflmao. An Islamic scholar is not a bible scholar. Koran and the bible are different products. Koran is not a review of the bible. Lol

achorladey:

I can guarantee you the freedom Jesus gives does not allow for recklessness that overrides what the principles contained in God's law regarding blood usage(Abstain).

God's commands are not burdensome. The mosaic law is to abstain from eating blood of animals killed for food or sacrifice.
Blood transfusion is not animal blood. The human doesn't die and the blood is not eaten

The freedom Jesus gives is ultimate it over rides every mosaic law. Nobody should be held captive for things that don't matter to Jesus. Jesus is merciful. Except your God is not merciful mine is.

Hairyrapunzel:



Lol Rotflmao. An Islamic scholar is not a bible scholar. Koran and the bible are different products. Koran is not a review of the bible. Lol

But jw.org and jwfacts and the likes are same brand/products from the same manufacturer abi ? The review contained in the Holy Quran concerning the Bible is not worthy of research as well. I hope you catch the drift now.

Hairyrapunzel:


God's commands are not burdensome. The mosaic law is to abstain from eating blood of animals killed for food or sacrifice.
Blood transfusion is not animal blood. The human doesn't die and the blood is not eaten

The freedom Jesus gives is ultimate it over rides every mosaic law. Nobody should be held captive for things that don't matter to Jesus. Jesus is merciful. Except your God is not merciful mine is.

Go back and read your Leviticus chapter 17 if it's usage and eating were restricted to animal blood alone.

Hairyrapunzel:


God's commands are not burdensome. The mosaic law is to abstain from eating blood of animals killed for food or sacrifice.
Blood transfusion is not animal blood. The human doesn't die and the blood is not eaten

The freedom Jesus gives is ultimate it over rides every mosaic law. Nobody should be held captive for things that don't matter to Jesus. Jesus is merciful. Except your God is not merciful mine is.

Oga learn to appreciate the principles contained in God's word. The freedom Christ gives does not permit fornication, adultery, idolatry etc. Same reason while the principle contained Acts 15:29 applies to blood transfusion as well.

achorladey:

But jw.org and jwfacts and the likes are same brand/products from the same manufacturer abi ? The review contained in the Holy Quran concerning the Bible is not worthy of research as well. I hope you catch the drift now.

Rotflmao You still don't get. witness doctrine from the bible is the product. The reviews on the doctrines are by eg jw.org, jwfacts.com etc the manufacturer is watchtower. Watchtower the manufacturer says check only jw.org don't check other sites. Here is one product both talk about. This is called deception. If watchtower is not hiding anything then they shouldn't be afraid of other sites talking about their doctrines.

JW. Org, jwfacts.com and the likes are talking about the same product. They are not separate brands/organisation

achorladey:

Oga learn to appreciate the principles contained in God's word. The freedom Christ gives does not permit fornication, adultery, idolatry etc. Same reason while the principle contained Acts 15:29 applies to blood transfusion as well.

The principles of God never said acts 15:29 applied to blood transfusion. Nathan knorr said so.

achorladey:

Go back and read your Leviticus chapter 17 if it's usage and eating were restricted to animal blood alone.

It was 100% restricted to blood of animals alone

Levecticus 17
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: ‘This is what the Lord has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox,[a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord—that person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; they have shed blood and must be cut off from their people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the Lord the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the Lord, at the entrance to the tent of meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. 6 The priest is to splash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols[b] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.’

8 “Say to them: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the Lord must be cut off from the people of Israel.

10 “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[c] 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”

13 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”

15 “‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean. 16 But if they do not wash their clothes and bathe themselves, they will be held responsible.’”

Referral to animals was specific

Hairyrapunzel:


Rotflmao You still don't get. witness doctrine from the bible is the product. The reviews on the doctrines are by eg jw.org, jwfacts.com etc the manufacturer is watchtower. Watchtower the manufacturer says check only jw.org don't check other sites. Here is one product both talk about. This is called deception. If watchtower is not hiding anything then they shouldn't be afraid of other sites talking about their doctrines.

JW. Org, jwfacts.com and the likes are talking about the same product. They are not separate brands/organisation

You say the Watchtower is afraid of about other sites, for what!!! For destructive criticism that do not convey properly what their main website conveys. Please have they placed embargo on such websites? If an organisation see the reviews of their products from another as suspicious they don't have right to warn intending would be subscribers bah. Smh.

Hairyrapunzel:


It was 100% restricted to blood of animals alone

Levecticus 17
The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: ‘This is what the Lord has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox,[a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord—that person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; they have shed blood and must be cut off from their people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the Lord the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the Lord, at the entrance to the tent of meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. 6 The priest is to splash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols[b] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.’

8 “Say to them: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the Lord must be cut off from the people of Israel.

10 “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[c] 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”

13 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”

15 “‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean. 16 But if they do not wash their clothes and bathe themselves, they will be held responsible.’”

Referral to animals was specific

Concentrate on verse 11 and 14 and see the principles behind those laws may be you will get the drift.

achorladey:

Concentrate on verse 11 and 14 and see the principles behind those laws may be you will get the drift.

You cannot concentrate on just only those verses there are verses preceding and following those verses talking about the same thing. The topic was on animals for sacrifice. They were not meant to kill humans in the first place so where will you see human blood in the first place. Don't give any excuse for the deaths caused by blood transfusion ban established in 1945.

Only two verses in a chapter of 16 verses to support death of millions caused by humans. Don't justify killings of children and adults by blood transfusion ban.

Russell taze and Rutherford didn't believe in blood transfusion ban that means they died in error. In thesame way nathan knorr banned vaccination and organ transplant for 13 and 30 years respectively. These acts would have led to people's death and people who died then died in error due to always changing doctrine. Who knows they might completely change the doctrine in the future so if you die before they change it you died in error too.

You accept autologous blood transfusion and blood fractions from blood donated by other people but yet you say blood transfusion is bad. Why the double standards?

You kill yourself cause a human being in 1879 promised you paradise on earth. Sucide bombers kill them themselves because of virgins promised to them. Yet you say they are bad what is the difference between you and them?

Hairyrapunzel:


You cannot concentrate on just only those verses there are verses preceding and following those verses talking about the same thing. The topic was on animals for sacrifice. They were not meant to kill humans in the first place so where will you see human blood in the first place. Don't give any excuse for the deaths caused by blood transfusion ban established in 1945.

Only two verses in a chapter of 16 verses to support death of millions caused by humans. Don't justify killings of children and adults by blood transfusion ban.

Russell taze and Rutherford didn't believe in blood transfusion ban that means they died in error. In thesame way nathan knorr banned vaccination and organ transplant for 13 and 30 years respectively. These acts would have led to people's death and people who died then died in error due to always changing doctrine. Who knows they might completely change the doctrine in the future so if you die before they change it you died in error too.

You accept autologous blood transfusion and blood fractions from blood donated by other people but yet you say blood transfusion is bad. Why the double standards?

You kill yourself cause a human being in 1879 promised you paradise on earth. Sucide bombers kill them themselves because of virgins promised to them. Yet you say they are bad what is the difference between you and them?

Paradise on earth was promised to all faithful mankind not by any man in 1879. If you cannot see the difference between someone voluntarily 'kills' himself as you would say, and someone who deliberately blows up others, then there isn't much you can discern.

Hairyrapunzel:


You cannot concentrate on just only those verses there are verses preceding and following those verses talking about the same thing. The topic was on animals for sacrifice. They were not meant to kill humans in the first place so where will you see human blood in the first place. Don't give any excuse for the deaths caused by blood transfusion ban established in 1945.

Only two verses in a chapter of 16 verses to support death of millions caused by humans. Don't justify killings of children and adults by blood transfusion ban.

Russell taze and Rutherford didn't believe in blood transfusion ban that means they died in error. In thesame way nathan knorr banned vaccination and organ transplant for 13 and 30 years respectively. These acts would have led to people's death and people who died then died in error due to always changing doctrine. Who knows they might completely change the doctrine in the future so if you die before they change it you died in error too.

You accept autologous blood transfusion and blood fractions from blood donated by other people but yet you say blood transfusion is bad. Why the double standards?

You kill yourself cause a human being in 1879 promised you paradise on earth. Sucide bombers kill them themselves because of virgins promised to them. Yet you say they are bad what is the difference between you and them?

If you had taken your time to think deep and hard on the relationship between '' usage of blood'' and the principles behind '' abstaining from blood'' you would have seen the reason behind David's refusal to drink the water recorded in 2 Samuel 23:17. Despite emphasis may have been stressed on blood of animals in Leviticus 17, David still took the little note of '' blood of any sort of flesh'' or blood of no kind of flesh'' in verse 10,14. No one need to tell David that '' blood of humans'' were not mentioned in Leviticus 17, he simply embraced the principle behind the law and applied it in his case. Same thing the JWs are doing today. They simply want to embrace the principles behind what blood is meant for from God's standpoint(atonement for sins).
Finally do you know the stance of the JWs concerning blood fractions as well? When you need answers about an organisation you go to through the direct channel not the critics that are bent on destructive reasonings.

Hairyrapunzel:


You cannot concentrate on just only those verses there are verses preceding and following those verses talking about the same thing. The topic was on animals for sacrifice. They were not meant to kill humans in the first place so where will you see human blood in the first place. Don't give any excuse for the deaths caused by blood transfusion ban established in 1945.

Only two verses in a chapter of 16 verses to support death of millions caused by humans. Don't justify killings of children and adults by blood transfusion ban.

Russell taze and Rutherford didn't believe in blood transfusion ban that means they died in error. In thesame way nathan knorr banned vaccination and organ transplant for 13 and 30 years respectively. These acts would have led to people's death and people who died then died in error due to always changing doctrine. Who knows they might completely change the doctrine in the future so if you die before they change it you died in error too.

You accept autologous blood transfusion and blood fractions from blood donated by other people but yet you say blood transfusion is bad. Why the double standards?

You kill yourself cause a human being in 1879 promised you paradise on earth. Sucide bombers kill them themselves because of virgins promised to them. Yet you say they are bad what is the difference between you and them?

As regards dying in error, I am wondering what happened to the people of the nations that had become Christians but had died and were not aware this same blood issues during the time of Paul and the likes but unknownily ate flesh of animals alongside its blood before it was resolved by the older men in Jerusalem. Please do you know what might have happened to them as well? Have they too died in error? You emphasized dying in error as if it is Nathan Knorr own final assessments that determines their resurrection hope.

rabzy:


Paradise on earth was promised to all faithful mankind not by any man in 1879. If you cannot see the difference between someone voluntarily 'kills' himself as you would say, and someone who deliberately blows up others, then there isn't much you can discern.

When you refuse blood transfusion even in the face of imminent death you are voluntarily killing yourself. The person that blooms up others due to his religious beliefs is still voluntarily killing himself. They are thesame thing with thesame principles

achorladey:

As regards dying in error, I am wondering what happened to the people of the nations that had become Christians but had died and were not aware this same blood issues during the time of Paul and the likes but unknownily ate flesh of animals alongside its blood before it was resolved by the older men in Jerusalem. Please do you know what might have happened to them as well? Have they too died in error? You emphasized dying in error as if it is Nathan Knorr own final assessments that determines their resurrection hope.

So for 66 years you are saying God allowed the wrong things to be preached. Hmmmmmm. Since it was nathan knorr that made the law by his own assessment the others died in error. Thank God you said eating animal flesh with its own blood not blood transfusion.