To cure this disease (from Biblical times) you bathe these people daily in human blood?
102539
My guess would be leprosy.
365871
I don't know if it is on paper, but I am sure Fundamental Christians don't agree with blood transfusions at ALL. They feel "God will provide", and I assume, bleed to death. \n*same goes for organ transplants
561843
The most interesting question of the day, so I had to do some research. While I thought it was impossible because of the antigens present in blood types, this article seems to indicate that it can be done. That sure will relieve blood supply issues.
505938
I have found this information for you:\n\nNo doctor's advice, no medicine could overcome or alleviate this disease, An enormous number of ignorant men and women set up as doctors in addition to those who were trained. Either the disease was such that no treatment was possible or the doctors were so ignorant that they did not know what caused it, and consequently could not administer the proper remedy. In any case very few recovered; most people died within about three days of the appearance of the tumours described above, most of them without any fever or other symptoms. During the era of the Black Death, science had not sufficiently progressed to where doctors could understand the plague, its origins or how it spread.  Consequently, people resorted to a variety of treatments and preventative measures.  \n\nBecause the stench of decaying bodies from those who had succumbed to the plague was so noxious, many thought that the plague was spread via the atmosphere and so used pungent scents hoping to keep it away.  Scents such as pine, rosemary were burned like incense or processed into oils in which handkerchief were dipped and placed over the mouth and nose.\n\nChurch bells were chimed in a futile bid to ward off the plague.  Merchants sold charms and spells to ward off the plague.  Rumors that claimed a person had done or worn something particular to survive led to the newest fad to prevent or cure the disease.\n\nPerhaps the most widespread belief of the plague's origins blamed an act of God, which showed his displeasure over humankind's transgressions.  Kings built magnificent cathedrals and monuments dedicated to god's glory, hoping he would allow the plague to pass over their city.\n\nIn central Europe, commoners who could not make such grand and expensive promises often did penance for their sins by beating themselves.  Known as flagellants, they walked in succession through towns bare backed, whipping themselves and those who accompanied them.  Leather whips featured knots or small metal spikes attached at the end that drew blood with virtually every strike as they viciously flogged themselves.  As they marched, flagellants sang and prayed from mercy, believing that if they demonstrated to god that they were truly repentant, he would spare their lives.\n\nI hope that's enough.
121658
Bible has a lot of citations about "possessions by demons", and epileptics. I read about the greek doctors in Jesus time, used "beladona", and opium to relieve it. and if you read the "Thousand and one nights", the Arab stories told by princess Scheherezade, that mental illness were quite common and the affected were arrested and locked as animals.
333974
Maybe we could clone Jesus with the blood from his burial cloth?
138569
Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’\n\nActs 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)\n\nAnimal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood\n\nGen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”\n\nAny animal used for food should be properly bled. One that is strangled or that dies in a trap or that is found after it has died is not suitable for food. (Acts 15:19, 20; compare Leviticus 17:13-16.) Similarly, any food to which whole blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not be eaten.\n\nOnly sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God\n\nLev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)\nEph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.”\n\nHow did those who claimed to be Christians in early centuries C.E. understand the Bible’s commands regarding blood?\n\nTertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, \n\nBlood Transfusions\n\nDoes the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?\n\nYes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.\n\nIs a transfusion really the same as eating blood?\n\nIn a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider 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?\n\nIn the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?\n\nOften simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances.  \n\nAll ty
78459
Thanks Curious1 !!!\nMore specifically the remedy is redemption of sin throught Jesus Christ.\nLook around you, ALL of the worlds' problems are caused by sin.  Even natural disasters are the result of "the curse" caused by SIN!
381251
They use wet wipes for their bodies.  They use rinseless shampoos that hospitals use for people who can't bathe.
538935
How come the Holy spirit doesn't cure everyone?
705923
Great question, one of the best in a while,I know a lot about this topic but your question motivated me to do some research of my own.\nDuring the bubonic plague, the sick and the well were locked up together if they had any contact with one another (e.g. friends, family, visitors) ... sounds crazy right, but they were so desperate to stop the spread. The sick and the well who were locked up were forced to live, slept and eat together, however, not all got sick. It is all because of a remarkable gene found in the DNA called Delta 32 which protects the carrier of excess Delta 32 from some of the most harmful viruses,plagues and diseases. Now what is more exciting is that Delta 32 has been passed down through the generations and is alive and well in people in our modern society protecting them from diseases. Scientist are still searching for a way to use the Delta 32 gene to cure modern day diseases such as aids,leukemia, cancer,and etc. Science is getting closer and we should all do our part to inform one another. Therefore I am more than happy to share what I know!!!!
1177240
Yes I do.   It is in the Word of God.  Also Jesus, the disciples, as well as, the other apostles did it as well.  It was done as a commissioning of service.   I Timothy 4:14 says do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic messsage when the body of olders laid their hands on you.  Over and over in the New Testaments we are given accounts of the 'laying on of hands'.  Some were healed, delivered and set free.  So if the Bible says it, that settles  it for me.    May God Bless
966935
it's a spirital ritual some cultures do. i've heard that japanese people do this to heal the sick. some also believe it cleanses the body internally and externally.  he wasn't doing a bad thing just trying to keep her healthy.
368066
I have never seen any verse in the Bible that suggests that we should not have a blood transfusion. All it says is that the life of the flesh is in the blood. That's the precise reason why we give transfusions. Transfuse away!
209998
That is from the Old Testiment and that doesn't apply now.  The blood of Jesus has washed our sins away.  If you have a personal conviction about this then maybe you should talk to a counselor at your church.
1091706
I would feel that if one wanted to be a true Christian then one should  be willing to give blood to help others live. Children with lukeamia rely on blood tranfusions and this can not only help them live but help them beat the disease. \n\nWould a JW feel in their heart that giving blood to save another is fundamentally a good thing but not do it because of their literal interpretation from their own version of the Bible?
517546
Nah, I think Jesus took care of that.  A Zombie wouldn't have been much of a miracle, eh?  Raise somebody from the dead only to have it eating the whole towns' brains...  People would have been pissed!