30 Jun, 2017, 10:17 PM
[CONTINUA LA EXPOSICION DE REQUIEM]
Vamos al siguiente punto:
TRASPLANTE DE ÓRGANOS
1949 Los trasplantes de órganos fueron considerados originalmente como maravillas de la medicina actual (Despertad! 1949 Diciembre 22 pág 752—754)
Despertad! 1949 Diciembre 22 pág 752—754
752 http://goo.gl/iZL0jx
753 http://goo.gl/43yprT
754 http://goo.gl/n2eX5k
1961 No hay principios bíblicos que considerar sobre los trasplantes por lo que todo queda a conciencia. (La atalaya 1961 página 734)
La atalaya 1961 página 734
w1961+p734.png
1968 – Los Trasplantes fueron prohibidos ya que se consideraba canibalismo y una violación a las leyes de Dios. (Despertad 8 Septiembre 1968)
Despertad 8 Septiembre 1968 página 22:z8u9.png
Página completa: http://goo.gl/KH1dJm
1980 – El cuerpo gobernante vuelve al punto de vista que tenía en 1961 y lanza una nueva luz diciendo que los trasplantes ya están permitidos. (La Atalaya 1980 Marzo 15 p.31)
1qk3.pngFolleto: ¿Cómo puede salvarle la vida la sangre?
Volvemos a hacer otra pausa. La Watchtower prohibió los trasplantes durante 13. En esos 13 años cientos de personas, por no decir miles, debieron haber renegado de una operación de trasplante por que querían ser leales. Quizá algún padre no le donó a su único hijo el órgano que necesitaba para salvar su vida -convirtiéndolo en mártir-, solo para cumplir una orden que sería anulada con la "Nueva Luz"
¿Cómo puede ser que el espíritu santo se manche las manos de sangre al vacilar tanto en cuanto a procedimientos médicos? ¿No es esto una prueba de que el grupo de hombres en la cúpula de los testigos, el Cuerpo Gobernante, no tiene nada de iluminación? ¿Se debería tomar las medidas de expulsión si algún testigo deja de creer en las instrucciones sobre procedimientos médicos tomando en cuenta que siempre han existido cambios?
[CONTINUA EXPOSICION DE requiem]
Vamos a otro punto:
LA SANGRE
1892 El pastor Russell afirma que comer sangre es permitido para los cristianos en una magistral explicación de Hechos 15:28,29
En La atalaya 1892 Noviembre 15 pp.349-352 el pastor Russell hace un recuento de las enseñanzas del capítulo 15 del libro de Hechos de los Apóstoles. Cuando leemos al pastor Russell, nos damos cuenta que los testigos de Jehová perdieron el amor inicial que algún día su fundador intentó inculcarles. Cuando el fundador de la religión mencionada se enfrenta al versículo que los testigos de Jehová usan para prohibir las trasfusiones, él declaró lo siguiente:
(Transcripción del texto original de la Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ Prescence 1892/11/15 p. 352)
The opening and closing words of this letter are noteworthy--verses 23,28,29. The apostles are represented as a class apart from others of the Church, indicating the distinctness of their office. The elder brethren or elders signify those of largest experience and development. Note also that those addressed--viz.,Gentiles--are called brethren, thus indicating Christian fellowship. The statement: "It seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us," etc., indicates that they judged the mind of the Spirit by the special providences manifested in the cases of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, as well as by the expressions of the prophets. It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming stumbling blocks to others.
Traducido diría más o menos:
Las palabras de apertura y cierre de esta carta son dignos de mención - versículos 23,28,29. Los apóstoles se representan como una clase aparte de los demás de la Iglesia, lo que indica la distinción de sus funciones. Los hermanos mayores o ancianos son los de mayor experiencia. Tenga en cuenta también que a los Gentiles se les llama hermanos, lo que indica Compañerismo cristiano. La declaración: "Es parecido bien al Espíritu Santo y a nosotros ", etc, indica que juzgaban la mente del Espíritu por los dones especiales que se manifiestan en los casos de Pedro, Pablo y Bernabé, así como por las expresiones de los profetas. Podemos ver que no se dice nada acerca de mantener en vigor los diez mandamientos, ni ninguna parte de la ley judía. Fue evidente que se da por sentado que habiendo recibido el Espíritu de Cristo la nueva ley del amor sería una norma de carácter general para ellos. Las cosas que se mencionaron (cosas sacrificadas a ídolos, sangre, cosas estranguladas y fornicación)* fueron simplemente para protegerse del tropiezo a sí mismos o llegar a ser piedras de tropiezo para los demás.
*Negritas mías.
Queda claro que Russell consideraba la ley del amor la más importante y vio que la mención de los apóstoles en Hechos 15:28 y 29 sólo fueron en su tiempo para evitar tropiezos y que la voluntad del espíritu santo era abolir la ley por lo que la cuestión de comer sangre ya no aplicaría a los cristianos de su tiempo.
Revista en PDF en inglés: https://ia600404.us.archive.org/9/it...atch_Tower.pdf
1909 El Pastor Russell afirma entender que la sangre representa la vida por lo que la considera sagrada, pero dice que el mandato de Hechos 15:28,29 se dio solo temporalmente para evitar tropiezos. También invita a reflexionar a sus lectores en que los apóstoles mencionan como prohibido en Hechos 15:28 y 29 a tan solo 4 cosas. El pastor indica que esa nueva conclusión iba a leerse en congregaciones donde había división por causa de los gentiles y lanza esta pregunta: ¿Por qué los apóstoles solo enumeran 4 prohibiciones -fornicación, sangre, idolatría y cosas estranguladas?, ¿acaso los gentiles tienen permitido mentir, robar, adulterar, asesinar, etc? Su conclusión lógica es que esas 4 cosas solo eran una breve mención para que todos entendieran que la nueva ley vigente -la del amor- era la que en verdad iba a regir su vida, la que iba a evitar que ellos cometieran cosas malas y no simplemente una lista de preceptos.
La Atalaya 1909 Abril 15 pp.116-117
We have in Vs. 22-29 the decision of the Apostles on the question. They not only wrote it out, but sent it at the hand of two of their trusted brethren, Judas-Barnabas and Silas, with Paul and Barnabas, that they might have the matter in written and in oral testimony. The declaration was that the disquieting teachings had not been authorized by the Apostles at Jerusalem. Then they briefly summed up, not as Law, but as "necessary things," the following:-- (1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols; (2) And from blood; (3) And from things strangled; (4) And from harlotry. It was not intimated that abstinence from these things would make them Christians, for nothing but faith in Christ and consecration to him and endeavor to walk in his steps could constitute them Christians. By these recommended abstentions they declared, "It will be well with you"; you will find these recommendations profitable to you as followers of the Lord. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul has pointed out most forcefully that "Love is the fulfilling of the Law," because love for God would control the life as respects holiness, and love for our neighbor as respects earthly justice. The things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the "Body" composed of Jews and Gentiles of their different education and sentiments. Without discussing whether or not harm could come to the meats sold in the markets, by reason of pagan ceremonies in connection with their killing, the advice was that these be abstained from, because Jews certainly would consider the eating of such meats as participations in the heathen idolatry--even though from the broad standpoint of fact the idol, being nothing but wood or metal or stone, could neither profit nor injure the food. Nevertheless, it was advisable that the Gentile Christians abstain from the use of their liberty in this direction, out of deference to the weaker brethren, Jews and Gentiles, who could not so deeply philosophize and whose consciences might be injured. A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden, and under his covenant it was made a symbol of life--to partake of it would imply responsibility for the life taken. Moreover, in the typical ceremonies of the Law the prohibited blood was used as a symbol representing the sin-offering; for by the blood atonement for sins was effected. To emphasize these typical lessons the Jew had been forbidden to use blood. And there may be other, sanitary, reasons connected with the matter, which are not yet known to us. These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the Church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also. The things strangled meant animals taken in traps, whose blood was not shed or drained out by bleeding to death, as the Jewish Law required of all meats that should be eaten. This restriction was necessary to the harmony between the two branches of spiritual Israel--that which came from Judaism and that which came from the Gentiles. If they did not wish to be contentious and cause divisions in the Church, the Gentile brethren would surely be willing to restrain or sacrifice their liberty respecting these matters. The fourth restriction specified was "fornication," the Greek signifying "harlotry." It is difficult to understand why one moral precept should be thus separated from others and placed on the list with ceremonial requirements. We incline rather to ask, Why not have included profanity, drunkenness, idolatry, adultery, false witness, murder, etc.? Are we to understand that the Gentiles are free to commit all the crimes in the calendar not stipulated by this Conference, and merely counseled respecting meats offered to idols, or that have died by strangulation--and the use of blood and fornication? Surely not. Rather all the requirements of the Law are included in the one law of the New Creation-- Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbor. Love would cover idolatry, profanity, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, but the law of Love would not so thoroughly cover the items enumerated by the Counsel. These were necessary, proper, and we are to recognize the authority of the Apostles to "bind things on earth," and that they were so guided in their public utterances that they bound nothing unnecessarily, nothing contrary to the Divine will. It is our opinion, therefore, that these items thus superadded to the Law of Love should be observed by all spiritual Israelites as representing the Divine will. As a matter of fact nearly all the butchering for our markets is in harmony with the Jewish regulations, although many Jews decline to recognize this and eat only such meats as have been inspected and approved by their rabbis.
Revista en PDF: https://ia600401.us.archive.org/11/i...atch_Tower.pdf
1925 Se encomia a un hombre por haber donado su sangre 45 veces sin cobrar ni un centavo
Golden Age (Despertad) 1925 Julio 29 p.683
45vecesdonarsangre.png
Página completa: http://imageshack.com/a/img43/6540/tkw3.png
1927 – La sangre ya no se puede comer.
La Atalaya 1927 Diciembre p.371
nosangre1927.jpg
Página completa.
1940 Las transfusiones de sangre son aceptables.
Consolación (Despertad) Dic. 1940, pág 19 párrafo 4
“una enfermera, en esta emergencia, dio su sangre para una transfusión y hoy en día la mujer vive feliz y sonriente”
Consolation-1940-Dec-25-p19.JPG
Página completa cortesía de JKH
1945 Las transfusiones de sangre no son aceptables.
La Atalaya 1945 Julio 1 p.198-201
W44_12-1_P362.jpg
Página completa cortesía de JHK
Revista completa en PDF cortesía de JHK
1949 Los antiguos egipcios, los enemigos de Dios, practicaban las transfusiones por lo que hay que rechazarlas.
Despertad septiembre 22 1949
AWAKE49_9-22_COVER.jpg
1954 Los sueros sanguíneos deben tratarse como sangre y están prohibidos.
Despertad! 1954 Enero 8 p.24 -cortesía de JHK-.
p2no.png
Tamaño completo de la página
1958 Los sueros de sangre y fracciones sí son aceptables.
La Atalaya 1958 Septiembre 15 p.575
"Los sueros de sangre son aceptados como asunto de conciencia. Importante sentencia sobre sueros sanguíneos, como la antitoxina diftérica y los estados de gamma globulina, hacen que estos puedan ser utilizados como una cuestión de criterio personal"
Véase el WTlibrary en inglés que contiene la revista completa.
1959 El almacenamiento de la propia sangre no es aceptable. La sangre debe ser derramada, por lo tanto, sería un error extraer la propia sangre, almacenarla y después volverla a transfundir.
La Atalaya 1959 Octubre 15 p.640
Desde el WT library en inglés:
*** w59 10/15 p. 640 Questions From Readers ***
● Although it is unscriptural for a Christian to accept another person’s blood in transfusion, would it be allowable for a dedicated Christian to have some of his own blood removed and then put back into his body during an operation?—W. D., U.S.A.
According to the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out on the ground as water and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; 15:23; 1 Chron. 11:18, 19) This is because life is in the blood and such shed blood is held sacred before Jehovah God. The covenant regarding the sanctity of blood stated after the Flood is still binding today, and it covers both animal and human blood, whether one’s own or another’s. Consequently, the removal of one’s blood, storing it and later putting it back into the same person would be a violation of the Scriptural principles that govern the handling of blood.—Gen. 9:4-6.
If, however, hemorrhaging should occur at the time of an operation and by some means the blood is immediately channeled back into the body, this would be allowable. The use of some device whereby the blood is diverted and a certain area or organ is temporarily bypassed during surgery would be Biblically permissible, for the blood would be flowing from one’s body through the apparatus and right back into the body again. On the other hand, if the blood were stored, even for a brief period of time, this would be a violation of the Scriptures.
The use of another person’s blood to “prime” any device employed in surgery is objectionable. In this case the blood would circulate through the system of the patient, becoming mixed with his own. Again, if one’s own blood would have to be withdrawn at intervals and stored until a sufficient amount had accumulated to set a machine in operation, this too would fall under Scriptural prohibition. The ones involved in the matter are in the best position to ascertain just how the blood would be handled and must bear responsibility before Jehovah for seeing that it is not handled unscripturally.
1961 Los componentes de la sangre no son aceptables. (La Atalaya 1961 Septiembre 1 p.564)
Se volvió a recalcar esto en la Atalaya de febrero de 1962 p. 95
No+usar+componetes.png
Página completa cortesía de Beth-Sarim
Vamos al siguiente punto:
TRASPLANTE DE ÓRGANOS
1949 Los trasplantes de órganos fueron considerados originalmente como maravillas de la medicina actual (Despertad! 1949 Diciembre 22 pág 752—754)
Despertad! 1949 Diciembre 22 pág 752—754
752 http://goo.gl/iZL0jx
753 http://goo.gl/43yprT
754 http://goo.gl/n2eX5k
1961 No hay principios bíblicos que considerar sobre los trasplantes por lo que todo queda a conciencia. (La atalaya 1961 página 734)
La atalaya 1961 página 734
w1961+p734.png
1968 – Los Trasplantes fueron prohibidos ya que se consideraba canibalismo y una violación a las leyes de Dios. (Despertad 8 Septiembre 1968)
Despertad 8 Septiembre 1968 página 22:z8u9.png
Página completa: http://goo.gl/KH1dJm
1980 – El cuerpo gobernante vuelve al punto de vista que tenía en 1961 y lanza una nueva luz diciendo que los trasplantes ya están permitidos. (La Atalaya 1980 Marzo 15 p.31)
1qk3.pngFolleto: ¿Cómo puede salvarle la vida la sangre?
Volvemos a hacer otra pausa. La Watchtower prohibió los trasplantes durante 13. En esos 13 años cientos de personas, por no decir miles, debieron haber renegado de una operación de trasplante por que querían ser leales. Quizá algún padre no le donó a su único hijo el órgano que necesitaba para salvar su vida -convirtiéndolo en mártir-, solo para cumplir una orden que sería anulada con la "Nueva Luz"
¿Cómo puede ser que el espíritu santo se manche las manos de sangre al vacilar tanto en cuanto a procedimientos médicos? ¿No es esto una prueba de que el grupo de hombres en la cúpula de los testigos, el Cuerpo Gobernante, no tiene nada de iluminación? ¿Se debería tomar las medidas de expulsión si algún testigo deja de creer en las instrucciones sobre procedimientos médicos tomando en cuenta que siempre han existido cambios?
[CONTINUA EXPOSICION DE requiem]
Vamos a otro punto:
LA SANGRE
1892 El pastor Russell afirma que comer sangre es permitido para los cristianos en una magistral explicación de Hechos 15:28,29
En La atalaya 1892 Noviembre 15 pp.349-352 el pastor Russell hace un recuento de las enseñanzas del capítulo 15 del libro de Hechos de los Apóstoles. Cuando leemos al pastor Russell, nos damos cuenta que los testigos de Jehová perdieron el amor inicial que algún día su fundador intentó inculcarles. Cuando el fundador de la religión mencionada se enfrenta al versículo que los testigos de Jehová usan para prohibir las trasfusiones, él declaró lo siguiente:
(Transcripción del texto original de la Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ Prescence 1892/11/15 p. 352)
The opening and closing words of this letter are noteworthy--verses 23,28,29. The apostles are represented as a class apart from others of the Church, indicating the distinctness of their office. The elder brethren or elders signify those of largest experience and development. Note also that those addressed--viz.,Gentiles--are called brethren, thus indicating Christian fellowship. The statement: "It seemed good to the holy Spirit and to us," etc., indicates that they judged the mind of the Spirit by the special providences manifested in the cases of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, as well as by the expressions of the prophets. It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming stumbling blocks to others.
Traducido diría más o menos:
Las palabras de apertura y cierre de esta carta son dignos de mención - versículos 23,28,29. Los apóstoles se representan como una clase aparte de los demás de la Iglesia, lo que indica la distinción de sus funciones. Los hermanos mayores o ancianos son los de mayor experiencia. Tenga en cuenta también que a los Gentiles se les llama hermanos, lo que indica Compañerismo cristiano. La declaración: "Es parecido bien al Espíritu Santo y a nosotros ", etc, indica que juzgaban la mente del Espíritu por los dones especiales que se manifiestan en los casos de Pedro, Pablo y Bernabé, así como por las expresiones de los profetas. Podemos ver que no se dice nada acerca de mantener en vigor los diez mandamientos, ni ninguna parte de la ley judía. Fue evidente que se da por sentado que habiendo recibido el Espíritu de Cristo la nueva ley del amor sería una norma de carácter general para ellos. Las cosas que se mencionaron (cosas sacrificadas a ídolos, sangre, cosas estranguladas y fornicación)* fueron simplemente para protegerse del tropiezo a sí mismos o llegar a ser piedras de tropiezo para los demás.
*Negritas mías.
Queda claro que Russell consideraba la ley del amor la más importante y vio que la mención de los apóstoles en Hechos 15:28 y 29 sólo fueron en su tiempo para evitar tropiezos y que la voluntad del espíritu santo era abolir la ley por lo que la cuestión de comer sangre ya no aplicaría a los cristianos de su tiempo.
Revista en PDF en inglés: https://ia600404.us.archive.org/9/it...atch_Tower.pdf
1909 El Pastor Russell afirma entender que la sangre representa la vida por lo que la considera sagrada, pero dice que el mandato de Hechos 15:28,29 se dio solo temporalmente para evitar tropiezos. También invita a reflexionar a sus lectores en que los apóstoles mencionan como prohibido en Hechos 15:28 y 29 a tan solo 4 cosas. El pastor indica que esa nueva conclusión iba a leerse en congregaciones donde había división por causa de los gentiles y lanza esta pregunta: ¿Por qué los apóstoles solo enumeran 4 prohibiciones -fornicación, sangre, idolatría y cosas estranguladas?, ¿acaso los gentiles tienen permitido mentir, robar, adulterar, asesinar, etc? Su conclusión lógica es que esas 4 cosas solo eran una breve mención para que todos entendieran que la nueva ley vigente -la del amor- era la que en verdad iba a regir su vida, la que iba a evitar que ellos cometieran cosas malas y no simplemente una lista de preceptos.
La Atalaya 1909 Abril 15 pp.116-117
We have in Vs. 22-29 the decision of the Apostles on the question. They not only wrote it out, but sent it at the hand of two of their trusted brethren, Judas-Barnabas and Silas, with Paul and Barnabas, that they might have the matter in written and in oral testimony. The declaration was that the disquieting teachings had not been authorized by the Apostles at Jerusalem. Then they briefly summed up, not as Law, but as "necessary things," the following:-- (1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols; (2) And from blood; (3) And from things strangled; (4) And from harlotry. It was not intimated that abstinence from these things would make them Christians, for nothing but faith in Christ and consecration to him and endeavor to walk in his steps could constitute them Christians. By these recommended abstentions they declared, "It will be well with you"; you will find these recommendations profitable to you as followers of the Lord. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul has pointed out most forcefully that "Love is the fulfilling of the Law," because love for God would control the life as respects holiness, and love for our neighbor as respects earthly justice. The things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the "Body" composed of Jews and Gentiles of their different education and sentiments. Without discussing whether or not harm could come to the meats sold in the markets, by reason of pagan ceremonies in connection with their killing, the advice was that these be abstained from, because Jews certainly would consider the eating of such meats as participations in the heathen idolatry--even though from the broad standpoint of fact the idol, being nothing but wood or metal or stone, could neither profit nor injure the food. Nevertheless, it was advisable that the Gentile Christians abstain from the use of their liberty in this direction, out of deference to the weaker brethren, Jews and Gentiles, who could not so deeply philosophize and whose consciences might be injured. A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden, and under his covenant it was made a symbol of life--to partake of it would imply responsibility for the life taken. Moreover, in the typical ceremonies of the Law the prohibited blood was used as a symbol representing the sin-offering; for by the blood atonement for sins was effected. To emphasize these typical lessons the Jew had been forbidden to use blood. And there may be other, sanitary, reasons connected with the matter, which are not yet known to us. These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the Church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also. The things strangled meant animals taken in traps, whose blood was not shed or drained out by bleeding to death, as the Jewish Law required of all meats that should be eaten. This restriction was necessary to the harmony between the two branches of spiritual Israel--that which came from Judaism and that which came from the Gentiles. If they did not wish to be contentious and cause divisions in the Church, the Gentile brethren would surely be willing to restrain or sacrifice their liberty respecting these matters. The fourth restriction specified was "fornication," the Greek signifying "harlotry." It is difficult to understand why one moral precept should be thus separated from others and placed on the list with ceremonial requirements. We incline rather to ask, Why not have included profanity, drunkenness, idolatry, adultery, false witness, murder, etc.? Are we to understand that the Gentiles are free to commit all the crimes in the calendar not stipulated by this Conference, and merely counseled respecting meats offered to idols, or that have died by strangulation--and the use of blood and fornication? Surely not. Rather all the requirements of the Law are included in the one law of the New Creation-- Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbor. Love would cover idolatry, profanity, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, but the law of Love would not so thoroughly cover the items enumerated by the Counsel. These were necessary, proper, and we are to recognize the authority of the Apostles to "bind things on earth," and that they were so guided in their public utterances that they bound nothing unnecessarily, nothing contrary to the Divine will. It is our opinion, therefore, that these items thus superadded to the Law of Love should be observed by all spiritual Israelites as representing the Divine will. As a matter of fact nearly all the butchering for our markets is in harmony with the Jewish regulations, although many Jews decline to recognize this and eat only such meats as have been inspected and approved by their rabbis.
Revista en PDF: https://ia600401.us.archive.org/11/i...atch_Tower.pdf
1925 Se encomia a un hombre por haber donado su sangre 45 veces sin cobrar ni un centavo
Golden Age (Despertad) 1925 Julio 29 p.683
45vecesdonarsangre.png
Página completa: http://imageshack.com/a/img43/6540/tkw3.png
1927 – La sangre ya no se puede comer.
La Atalaya 1927 Diciembre p.371
nosangre1927.jpg
Página completa.
1940 Las transfusiones de sangre son aceptables.
Consolación (Despertad) Dic. 1940, pág 19 párrafo 4
“una enfermera, en esta emergencia, dio su sangre para una transfusión y hoy en día la mujer vive feliz y sonriente”
Consolation-1940-Dec-25-p19.JPG
Página completa cortesía de JKH
1945 Las transfusiones de sangre no son aceptables.
La Atalaya 1945 Julio 1 p.198-201
W44_12-1_P362.jpg
Página completa cortesía de JHK
Revista completa en PDF cortesía de JHK
1949 Los antiguos egipcios, los enemigos de Dios, practicaban las transfusiones por lo que hay que rechazarlas.
Despertad septiembre 22 1949
AWAKE49_9-22_COVER.jpg
1954 Los sueros sanguíneos deben tratarse como sangre y están prohibidos.
Despertad! 1954 Enero 8 p.24 -cortesía de JHK-.
p2no.png
Tamaño completo de la página
1958 Los sueros de sangre y fracciones sí son aceptables.
La Atalaya 1958 Septiembre 15 p.575
"Los sueros de sangre son aceptados como asunto de conciencia. Importante sentencia sobre sueros sanguíneos, como la antitoxina diftérica y los estados de gamma globulina, hacen que estos puedan ser utilizados como una cuestión de criterio personal"
Véase el WTlibrary en inglés que contiene la revista completa.
1959 El almacenamiento de la propia sangre no es aceptable. La sangre debe ser derramada, por lo tanto, sería un error extraer la propia sangre, almacenarla y después volverla a transfundir.
La Atalaya 1959 Octubre 15 p.640
Desde el WT library en inglés:
*** w59 10/15 p. 640 Questions From Readers ***
● Although it is unscriptural for a Christian to accept another person’s blood in transfusion, would it be allowable for a dedicated Christian to have some of his own blood removed and then put back into his body during an operation?—W. D., U.S.A.
According to the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out on the ground as water and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; 15:23; 1 Chron. 11:18, 19) This is because life is in the blood and such shed blood is held sacred before Jehovah God. The covenant regarding the sanctity of blood stated after the Flood is still binding today, and it covers both animal and human blood, whether one’s own or another’s. Consequently, the removal of one’s blood, storing it and later putting it back into the same person would be a violation of the Scriptural principles that govern the handling of blood.—Gen. 9:4-6.
If, however, hemorrhaging should occur at the time of an operation and by some means the blood is immediately channeled back into the body, this would be allowable. The use of some device whereby the blood is diverted and a certain area or organ is temporarily bypassed during surgery would be Biblically permissible, for the blood would be flowing from one’s body through the apparatus and right back into the body again. On the other hand, if the blood were stored, even for a brief period of time, this would be a violation of the Scriptures.
The use of another person’s blood to “prime” any device employed in surgery is objectionable. In this case the blood would circulate through the system of the patient, becoming mixed with his own. Again, if one’s own blood would have to be withdrawn at intervals and stored until a sufficient amount had accumulated to set a machine in operation, this too would fall under Scriptural prohibition. The ones involved in the matter are in the best position to ascertain just how the blood would be handled and must bear responsibility before Jehovah for seeing that it is not handled unscripturally.
1961 Los componentes de la sangre no son aceptables. (La Atalaya 1961 Septiembre 1 p.564)
Se volvió a recalcar esto en la Atalaya de febrero de 1962 p. 95
No+usar+componetes.png
Página completa cortesía de Beth-Sarim
Si Lucifer fue capaz de incitar una rebelión en el cielo, eso significa celos, envidia y violencia en el cielo pese a prometerte un paraíso perfecto
![[Imagen: 312554928-8634900413188542-2070329703511938974-n.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/SPkLKLR/312554928-8634900413188542-2070329703511938974-n.jpg)
