I was recently told by a Jehovah's Witness that blood transfusions were against God's commandment of both the old and new testaments, because of references in Leviticus and Acts. What is the view on this forum?

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Answers

Acts and Genesis do show us that Gentiles are not to eat blood or unslaughtered meat. But they don't say anything about blood transfusions.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Link is almost on target.

There is really nothing wrong with eating blood per se. In M ark 7:19 Jesus declared all foods clean. The passage in Acts 15 represents a concession agreed to by Paul and his companions in exchange for the Gentiles not having to be circumcised.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be God's only channel of communication ... but their record, especially on blood transfusion, is shaky at best. They used to disallow organ transplants and vaccinations as well. Then God apparently changed his mind and made those ok. (Perhaps too many JW's were dying. But God didn't apologize to those who died before he changed his mind!) Now they are allowing blood parts, and leaving it up to members to decide; although the threat of disfellowship is still present.

CG, I disagree that it was a "concession" to the Gentiles, otherwise you would have to also group their admonition to abstain from sexual immorality as a "concession" as well, since it is listed in the four admonitions without any distinction.

Personally, I think Jesus' own principle should be invoked here, something the Watchtower fails to do. Even if we are to "abstain from blood", and even (and this is a BIG stretch) if this also includes transfusions, Jesus said plainly taught that the saving of a life was more important than blindly following the letter of the law. "Then he asked them, 'If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?'" (Luke 14:5).

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

John

You got me on the concession thing...Mia cuplpa!

I still do not think we can call these commands. I will have to re think this.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

The apostles used the word "requirements" in verse 28. What is the difference between a requirement and a commandment? Just musing ...

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

CG,

In Acts 15, we read in the letter that the church sent out that it seemed good to them, and to the Holy Ghost.

I'm not sure which variety of Friends church you go to, but it would seem to me that Acts 15 would be an important passage for Quakers in showing how the church can make decisions. A group met together, and discussed an issue, until they discerned the will of the Holy Ghost. If you don't believe they could discern the will of the Spirit, what does that say about this way of making decisions?

I don't see this chapter as Paul making a concession. In fact, the letter was sent by the apostles, elders and brethren. Paul would have been included among the aposltes. Wouldn't this indicate that Paul endorsed the letter. Paul delivered these letters to the churches, something he could have refrained from doing if he felt the council missed the will of the Spirit.

The decision in Acts 15 is based on the teachings of the Old Testament. Many Jews thought, that to truly be righteous, Gentiles had to become Jews by circumcision, and become joined to Israel, a part of the Jews. There were quite a number of prostelytes. I've read that maybe one out of every 8 people in the empire might have been Jewish. This may have included prostelytes.

Notice the verse that James quotes about the nations. It shows that, in the end times, there would be nations called by the Lord's name- and not just Israel. If all the Gentiles that were righteous were a part of Israel, why would the verse mention nations.

About the blood issue- this decision seems to reflect the covenant made with Noah. As descendants of Noah, Gentiles were under the covenant made with Noah, though not the one made through Moses. When God made a covenant with Noah, he gave Noah all animals to eat, but he told Noah not to eat blood, because the life (soul) of the animal was in it's blood.

The Jews taught 7 Noachide principles. I think this formulation of 7 Noachide principles may have started before Christ and ocntinued on till after the destruction of the temple as Gentiles debated back and forth. I wonder if the council of Jeruslaem influenced Judaism in this regard.

Jewish rabbis extracted 7 principles from the Torah that were incombent on Gentiles. These principles were attributed to the covenant between God and Noah. From reading parts of the Torah we can see that worshipping idols and fornication were sins for Gentiles to commit. God was driving the Gentiles out of the land of Israel for these abominations, and indication that these things were sins for Gentiles as well. I wonder if the rabbis thought that since God made a covenant with Noah, it implied that Noah's descendants were to recognize the Lord as God as well.

Acts 15 doesn't mention 7 Noachide principles. The passage doesn't specifically forbid murder, though God's covenant with Noah dealt with the issue of murder. We all agree that Gentiles are not to murder. This probably wasn't an issue the council needed to address.

Did Paul teach people to eat meat offerred to idols? He taught that idols were really nothing, and that 'the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof' referred to meat offerred to idols. But, imo, reading his letters as a whole indicates that he taught against knowingly eating meat offerred to an idol, not because of the power of the idol, but because of the consciences of others. He described the Corinthian who would sit at meat in an idols temple, emboldening someone with a wak conscience to do the same, as sinning against Christ by causing his brother to stumble.

Paul's teaching about being able to eat all meats should be taken in context of the whole Bible. God gave these meats to Noah to eat, but he forbade him to eat the blood.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2001

Good post, Link. I have always taken the command to abstain from blood to mean not only not eating the blood, but that marital relations should be postponed during certain times. It is a fact that the Jews( the orthodox ones, which observe this aspect)have a much lower rate of cervical cancer. This is commonly chalked up to circumcision, but then they found that other groups of people who were circumcised, had a normal incidence of cervical cancer. The cervix opens somewhat during that time, and is more vunerable to disease at that time. Why else would Acts 15 repeat itself, saying to abstain from blood and things strangled? However, most people I've met do not take the commandment against eating blood- which was set in effect when Noah left the ark- very seriously. Most storebought meat I've seen is sitting in a pool of blood on a plastic tray (gross). This is becasue the method of slaughter used kills the animals in such a way that they don't bleed out thoroghly. There are ways to get the blood out after the fact though.

About Paul saying it was OK to eat food sacrificed to idols, I have a problem with that. If it's OK, then why does the Savior speak against it in Revalations 2:20 ? Why does Paul seem to contradict this by OK ing food such food? Perhaps he refers to food that MAY have been offered to idols at some time. Many oriental countries are still very superstitious about idolatry. How can we know that fruit, spices, or other food imported from such places has not been so deicated or prayed over? We can't. So, bless it and eat it with a clean conscience. As far as actually eating it in a pagan temple, that sounds like idolatry to me.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Link

I think you are persuading me here. Your arguments are quite good. I will respond to Acts 15 re: the Friends Church as soon as I can.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2001

Chamoisee (sp?)

Paul gave an example of someone who knew and idol was nothing eating at meat in an idols temple. Paul didn't say the man was wrong because the meat was evil. The man would be wrong because others, seeing him, might be mboldened to eat meat that they considered defiled.

I can see how you see tension between Revelation and Paul's writings. But Paul didnt' teach people to eat meat offerred to idols. He taught that such meat was included in 'the earth is the Lord's and the fullness their of' and gave good reasoning for not participating in this- the consciences of others.

But in the same epistle, in chapter 10, he tells the Corinthians to flee idolatry and tells them that they cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. Paul didn't want them to have fellowship with demons, so he did see some other problems besides the consciences of others, perhaps. But I thinkt heoverall conclusion we can draw from Corinthians is that Paul did not want people to participate in such things. Apparently, from chapter 8, pagans could go eat meat offered to an idol in a pagan temple. We also know from chapter 11 that DChristians would gather together and eat the Lord's Supper as a meal (rather than tiny memorial portions.) Paul told the Corinthians not to eat at the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils.

I'd imagine Mongolian Christians would have to deal with this type of issue. Paul wrote of the 'cup of devil's. I took a couple of classical literature classes in college, and learned that the Greeks and Romans would spill out a portion of their wine as an offering to a god. Perhaps this was a 'cup of devils' offered to idols in Paul's terminology. In Mongolia, I hear when the women milk cows in the morning, they pour out a portion of it to their Buddha god. A missionary to Mongolia said you always see people pouring out a portion of their drink. I wonder if any Christians wonder if they should drink milk bought in the marketplace. One missionary in a magazine suggested teaching people to pour milk out in Jesus' name as a culturally relavent practice- an idea I find disturbing (hypercontextualization.)

About relations during menstruation- I was thinking of mentioning that in the last post. I'd considered the idea that there might be a relationship between abstaining from blood here and menstruation, but I think there is a more straight forward explanation of the passage: The Gentiles are not to either drink blood (like a big juice goblet full of it) or to eat strangled (and hence unslaughtered) meat.

The reason I thought of whehter or not abstaining from blood had to do with abstaining from relations during menstruation has to do with the Old Testament, and what was considered sin for Gentiles under the Old Covenant. Some homosexuals on the Internet try to gain support for their cause by trying to argue that the Bible doesn't condemn their sin. One thing that some of them point out is that the command not to lie with a man like one lies with a woman is part of the OT Law of Moses. Then they come up with some sophistry about Romans 1, and try to explain away other passages.

Well, at least one of these passages which forbids a man lying with a man as one does with a woman says that because the variaious Gentile (Cannanite) tries did this and other abominations, God was driving them out of the land. So these behaviors were sins even for Canaanite Gentiles in ages past, and not only for the Jews who had received the Law.

This list of sins contains a list of various sexual perversions, types of incest, a command against lying with animals sexually. But one thing in the list that stood out as something contraversial was lying with a woman during menstration. It seemed out of place in the list of other sins that the Gentiles could commit.

If later Jewish rabbis extracted the 7 Noachide principles from the whole of the Torah, examining the Torah to see what God expeced of Gentiles, then perhaps they arrived at the principle forbidding fornication from this passage, which shows that it was an abomination for Gentiles to do such sexual sins. I haven't looked up what the Talmud has to say about this. It would be interesting to know, just to get some cultural background on Acts 15. (Not that I consider rabbinical writings to be scripture or anything like that.)

Something this man pointed out was that when Paul was A friend of mine who know goes to that Charismatic Church of Christ Messianic Jewish synagogue in Jerusalem (wow what a mix!) seems to knwo a lot about this stuff. He said that the Jews have influenced slaughterhouse practices in the US, and most meat there is slaughtered.

I've read just bits and pieces of Tertullian's _Apology_. Tertullian wrote in the 300's. He is the only one of the 'church fathers' authors who wrote against infant baptism that i know of. In his later days, he was a Montanist.

Tertullian's Apology has some really interesting stuff in it. He told about Christians casting demons out of people. THe pagans considered these demons to be 'gods' and Tertullian used that as an argument against paganism.

He also dealt with the rumor that Christians were supposed cannibles. He said that Christians didn't even eat animal blood. Why would people think they killed babies? I think this rumor initially started about the Jews. Also, he said that pagans tried to tempt Christians with blood sausages. Apparently early Christians took the prohibition to eating blood very seriously.

My wife is Batak. Northern Batak clans in Sunatra profess Christianity. Most are 'Protestan' which is related to Reformed or Lutheran here. About 10 years ago, a number of Pentecostal chruches started growing among the Batak.

For their cultural festivals, the Batak kill a water buffalo or a pig. Traditionally, the Batak mix in blood with the meat.

The Lutheran Batak at my wife's family gathering ate meat with blood mixed in the sauce. They made some without blood for the Pentecostals. When I said I wanted to eat meat without blood, someone said I must be Pentecostal.

This is kind of ironic to me, since I would think Lutherans would be more into reading patristic writings than Pentecostals, and yet it is the Lutherans rather than the Pentecostals that eat blood among the Batak. Pentecostals in the US don't usually pay any attention to the issue of eating blood.

CG White,

I learned a lot about it from that misssionary friend of mine I mentioned earlier. Some of the Jewish Christians in the Messianic movement consider it appropriate to keep kosher, though they don't believe they are saved through ritual purity. It may be a good witness for their people.

My fried pointed something out about the book of galatians- the people being circumcised were Gentiles. The Jews before Christ had circumcised Gentiles to make them a part of the Jews so they could be under the covenant. These Gentiles who were being circumcised were putting their trust in the Law.

But notice that Paul went along with the counsel of the jeruslaem elders when they asked him to go do certain things in the temple to quell rumors that, among other things, that he taught Jews not to circumcise their children. He went along with their advice.

Notice that Paul circumcised the son of a Jewish woman Timothy. But he did not circumcise Titus (a Gentile, I suppose,) and pointed out that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised in Jerusalem. Paul said for him that was called in circumcision not to seek to be uncircumcised. Could this be implying that those in circumcision should still continue living as Jews?

One custom that was then the practice of Jews which Paul reject was the practice of Jews refusing to eat with Gentiles. This type of practice could cause division in the Lord's Supper and visible disunity in the congregation.

Even in Justin Martyr's day, there were still some Christians who kept ceremonial laws from the Torah. Justin fellowshipped with them. Maybe these were Jews who kept kosher.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

CG,

When I heard that explanation it cleared things up for me a bit as well.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

Link,

Could blood transfusions actually be considered "eating" blood, since basically that's what it is?

John,

As for "Abstaining" that seems to be a requirement, maybe not specific "command," however in todays and even more so in the past abstaining has many benifits. I say that, because of recent developments in my family. My father-n-law has had two open heart surgeries in which the one where he recieved no blood he recored quickly, Yet the one he recieved two pints, it took him longer.

And a few weekd ago my mother-n-law went thru the same procedure, recieving 5 pints and still is having problems, simply because of the shock to her body the blood caused.

So to say, the Witness's have killed more seems to rank up there with other "Christains" in times past preforming blood transfusions with cow's blood. Or even before known differences using himan blood that later has become known is not compatible with some.

Now I know these were not "God commandments" as you pointed out. But, it does seem by post above than even in Paul's day things changed as understanding was given. No less life or death, imho.

As Link said, blood seems to be equated with life(soul) so what value, in Biblical terms, does it put on "abstaining?"

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

"Could blood transfusions actually be considered "eating" blood, since basically that's what it is?" How do you get that a transfusion, putting human blood into the human bloodstream, is the same as the comsumption and digestion of blood? That's a bit of a leap.

The plain truth (apologies to the WWCoG) is that blood transfusions have done far, far more good than harm, despite your anecdotal "evidence." In fact, most of the so-called "evidence" against blood transfusions given by the JWs and other groups is just that, anecdotal. Anecdotal exceptions do not disprove the years of hard cold scientific and practical evidence to the contrary. Its like when someone says you'll get cancer if you smoke too much, and responding, "but my mother smoked for years and she never got cancer!"

"... even in Paul's day things changed as understanding was given." The problem is that the Watchtower has claimed to be God's sole channel of communication, that they are being directed by Jesus Christ personally, who has returned invisibly, and have even claimed that they are a prophet like Ezekiel, getting their words by angelic direction directly from the mouth of God himself. I choose not to believe in a god who cannot make his damn mind up.

(And that wasn't frivolous swearing. I mean exactly what I said, as C.S. Lewis would have said. Any god who is as vascillating on his opinions as the Jehovah's Witnesses god is, about blood transfusions or vaccinations or Armageddon or anything else, is no god at all but a damned being from the pit of hell -- no more, no less.)

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

;Abstain from things strangled.' is a command in English grammar. What is supposed to be the difference between a 'requirement' and a 'command.' I don't see it. The apostles, elders, and brethren sure seemed to think that they had discerned what seemed good to the Holy Ghost.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2001

CG,

Capital punishment finds its roots in the Noachide covenant as well. The 'avenger of blood' is also mentioned in the Law.

Should Gentile nations allow the nearest of kin to go kill a murderer?

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

NNo, Link...

Capital punishment was SUPERSEDED at the cross. Jesus paid the death sentance for everyone. It is inconsistent with believing in the cross to be in favor of captial punishment.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

CG,

If Jesus paid the penalty at the cross for the death sentence, then do people have to believe or respond in any way to be saved, iyo? Do you believe in universalism.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

I am coming late to this discussion with a question:

I re-post to ask:

Acts and Genesis do show us that Gentiles are not to eat blood or unslaughtered meat. But they don't say anything about blood transfusions.

-- Link Hudson (LinkH@bigfoot.com), May 09, 2001.

'Unslaughtered meat'?

Are you making a differentiation between 'slaughtered' (which I think means 'killed') and 'strangled'?

How can one eat unkilled meat?

I don't think the English word means just 'butchered'.

I haven't studied this, so know very little about it.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

As awful as it sounds, there actually are those who eat unslaughtered meat, even in this country. Ever hear of Rocky Mountain oysters? I won't even go in to detail about the custom of sawing off the monkey's head and eating the live animal's brains-that's in some Asian country. Eating the 'limb of the living' is forbidden both by the Noachide commandments and in Judaism. Here's a link about the Noachide commanments for those interested.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2120/

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Ugh!!!

I have heard of African women and children in certain tribes (because the women and children have the responsibility of preparing dead bodies for disposal) eating the brains of dead people. It results in something with the name 'Jacob-Creutzfeldt disease or some such, which causes a living brain to deteriorate. It is related to some other disease, like mad-cow disease. I don't have all of the facts at hand, so hope I don't have to 'eat' these words! I'm already sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

When I was young, my father did eat 'brains and eggs' (he could never get us to try them) but they were fully cooked.

Interesting.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

No, Link, I do not believe in universalism. And I believe that the state has the right to execute. But I think for A Christian to approve of it undermines what we say about the cross.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Connie,

By slaughtered I mean you take the animal, and for most land animals, you slit it's throat and drain the blood out. that is the way slaughterhouses do it.

In some Asian countries, like KOrea or Indonesia (in North Sumatra,) if they want to eat dog, they beat it to death so the blood will favorthe meat. I hear in Korea they cover its head with a cloth, hang it by it's neck, and then beat it.

I heard Koreans eat dog, and even considered tasting it. That was before I knew how they killed them. I was in the market ine doay in Korea, though, and saw the little store that sold dog. They had cut off dog legs in front of the shop, fur still on it, and you could see the really dark meat. I could somehow, perhaps from my mind, smell that doggy smell, and I could almost hear the sound of a dog whining. Later I found out how they killed them and I didn't want any. Some of my co-workers asked me how I felt about eating dog meat. I said it didn't appeal to me.

One night, they invited me out for ginseng chicken soup, Sam Kye Tang, which is really good. They brought me a bowl of chicken, and everyone else ate dog. it was a doggy restaurant. I ate chicken out of a dog soup bowl.

I came here to Indonesia and found out that the batak who still eat dog don't slaughter them either.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2001

Thank you, Chamoisee, for that site.

It is very interesting.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2001

John,

I have to ask why do we “eat” if not to replentish our bodies of expended nutrients? When someone receives a transfusion, of any kind, the body is being replentished – albeit not through the mouth. If someone is in a comma they can’t eat. They may receive “food” thru the veins via plasma or whatever. When someone has heart surgery and elects that bloods ok, and something goes wrong (such as with my mother-in-law and several other that same week) “blood”, not whole blood, but the divided part containing red blood cells and platelets is given to build up the body’s ability to clot. So, another operation can be preformed and the patient will not bleed to death. This process of building up is a quicker way to “feed” the body rather that allowing it to produce it’s own. Which in my mother-in- law’s case was unnecessary since they had to wait over the weekend anyway. This undue measure did cause stress to her body, taking her longer to recover. Whether or not you or I judge that to “Anecdotal” or not. It happened. It happens regularly. Doctors are still human and make mistakes. And there is much documentation today to back-up either side – medically.

I’m sure either of us could give “proof” to one side or the other, If we looked hard enough :>).

I’m not wanting to “debate” that. I just wanted to know how other’s viewed “abstaining” from blood form a Biblical viewpoint? If I say it’s allright to abstain from it, unless, it’s life threatening, what’s the point? I think that may be a borderline lack of faith. I’m curiouds to know where that border would be broken, and you make a good point with showing “Jesus’ love.”

However, since the reference is associated with even fornication, does that mean a woman (or man) has the right – in The God’s eyes – to become a prostitute if there are no other jobs and her family is starving to death, even though a lot of passages in both Old and New say otherwise? I would tend to think not. So I’m trying to understand the justification or those who believe it’s ok.

As Link, I also do not see a difference in “requirement” and a “commandment.” So it's sort of confusing to put that emphasis on it.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

C;

The difference is that human blood is, by medical definition, an organ of the body. Just as the heart, lungs or even the skin is. It is just an organ which happens to be in a semi-fluid state.

When blood is taken into the mouth and eaten, it is broken down into its components by digestion as nutrients. It is not fulfilling its proper bodily function in this case; it is merely food. However, when it is transfused, this is the same as giving an organ transplant. The blood is not a nutrient in this case, it is fulfilling its bodily function as an organ of the body, carrying oxygen and nutrients to the body and carrying away waste.

-- Anonymous, May 20, 2001

John,

Where did you get your definition?

-- Anonymous, May 23, 2001

Ninth grade biology. But ask any doctor or consult any medical textbook.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

The following is an excerpt from an article I found on the Web regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion, which makes the same point I made. ________________________________

When the Jehovah's Witnesses' ban on blood transfusions was first established, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society argued that a blood transfusion was the same as eating blood. In those days, when they also prohibited vaccinations and serums, it established the rhetoric that is still used today:

"Many say receiving a transfusion is not like eating blood. Is this view sound?

A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital’s own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one’s system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins." (The Watchtower, July 1, 1951, p. 415)

Present day reasoning remains the same: a blood transfusion is eating through veins. On this argument rests the entire blood prohibition. Is the argument valid?

As seen earlier, the Watchtower has appealed to certain doctors to support their ideas that a blood transfusion is eating:

"It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: ‘In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary - that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes.’" (The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1961, p. 558)

What the Watchtower does not tell its readers, is that this doctor, Jean Baptiste Denys, lived in the 17th century! ! Medical science long ago abandoned this idea. Later, the Watchtower tried to appeal to another authority, the Dane Thomas Bartholin, but now they at least admit he also lived in the 17th century. Why has the Watchtower found no support for this peculiar idea among more recent medical experts? Because there are none. Not even the medical doctors who are themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses will ruin their reputation by supporting this claim.

The simple fact is that a blood transfusion is an organ transplant, not nutrition!

This fact is indeed admitted by the Watchtower:

"As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: ‘A blood transfusion is an organ transplant.’" (Awake! Oct. 22, 1990, p. 9)

"When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient's immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant." (How Can Blood Save Your Life, 1990, p. 8; emphasis in original)

It is a simple fact that to become food, blood 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 a blood transfusion. 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.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

1) FYI, research found for "Blood as an organ":

For the statement “blood is an organ” may be a possibility in extrapolating the definition or it depends on each situation. I can’t say what your 9th grade biology says and I don’t remember much about my 9th grade. I was at school when I’d rather had been at home with my dad on the farm. So, I have asked several doctors, nurses, researchers, educators, etc. However, it seems most don’t view it in those terms. Some have agreed partially with your statement but most have not in a medical or legal sense. So it seems there is much division amongst some. As far as medical books, most only classify blood as a tissue, at least the ones I have and looked at (which is not an extensive).

John, your definition is only partially true and only in a sense, and not absolute as it seems you presented. Such as the umbilical “cord blood”, which has properties that fits in your definition, and is why many doctors now are trying to save and store it because it’s more “potent” with more disease fighting capabilities, especially certain cancers.

These are some of the responses I received:

“Blood is not an organ.” – Trans web Org.com-all about transplantation and donation

“It is not considered an organ for insurance payment purposes. However, from a medical standpoint, it is a subcategory or subclass of connective tissue therefore could be argued that it is an organ. From a legal point of view- it varies based on the arguments.” - Archbold Medical Center

The FDA defines blood as a “biological product”, or a tissue, falling under their jurisdiction. A “product” being something that is produced.

“We define blood and organ as different things. We use the term 'organ' generally to refer to solid masses of tissue within the body (eg heat, kidney etc) that perform particular functions. Being a liquid, blood doesn't fit this definition of an organ. Blood and organs are also treated differently in respect to donation as they have different properties.“ - (NSW) Organ Donation Network NSW/ACT (an operating division of the Australian Red Cross Blood Service).

“Blood is traditionally not considered to be an organ...

ORGAN: In biology, a **group of tissues** in a living organism that have been adapted to perform a specific function. In higher animals, organs are grouped into organ systems; e.g., the esophagus, stomach, and liver are organs of the digestive system. In the more advanced animals, there are usually 10 organ systems: integumentary, skeletal, muscular, nervous, endocrine (hormonal), digestive, respiratory, circulatory, excretory, and reproductive.

BLOOD: **fluid** in multicellular animals that transports oxygen and nutrients to the cells and carries away waste products. In many species it also conveys hormones and disease-fighting substances.”

The Franklin Institute Science Museum (emphasis ** original)

“Blood is a fluid tissue that circulates through the heart, arteries, capillaries and veins. It is vital in our body system because it carries nourishment to all the tissues and organs of the body. When there is not enough blood or when its circulation stops, THE TISSUES DIE OF STARVATION. However, the body is capable of producing enormous quantities of fresh blood as required.”- http://www.hain.org/aidsaction7/aids74.html

(emphasis mine)

“Blood is a highly specialized tissue which maintains communication between different parts of the body. It is a fluid connective tissue composed of formed elements (cells and platelets) and plasma, which can be separated by centrifugation.

Plasma accounts for about 54% of the total volume of normal blood. In addition to water, electrolytes, and nutrients, plasma contains 3 major proteins: albumin, which helps maintain the osmotic balance in capillaries, immunoglobulins (antibodies), and fibrinogen, which is important in the clotting process. Several types of cells are evident in this peripheral blood smear stained with Wright's stain. The predominant cell is the erythrocyte, or red blood cell, which accounts for about 45% of total blood volume. Two types of leukocytes (white blood cells) are also visible: two neutrophils and a lymphocyte. Platelets are also seen, which are involved in clotting.” - http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/histo/blood/bloodintro.html

“Blood is in fact considered living tissue but is not usually considered in the same family of organ nomenclature” – one response from Stanford Medical School Blood Center Stanford University

“I have seen no official definition where blood is considered an organ. Your question, "when it is transfused, this is the same as giving an organ transplant" would not be considered correct. We sometimes refer to difficult transfusion matches as being as complex as organ transplantation. Indeed blood transfusion is essentially transplantation of living tissue from one biologically unique individual to another.” - another response from Stanford Medical School Blood Center Stanford University

"Blood is not an organ, but rather is considered a tissue, specifically connective tissue. Tissues are defined as groups of similar cells acting together (such as nerve tissue or muscle tissue) to perform a function. Organs are more complex structurally and are defined as different kinds of tissues acting together to perform a function (for example, the heart is an organ which contains nerve tissue, muscle tissue, and other types of tissue acting together)." ArcMesa Educators

One Doctor I emailed said that is definitely NOT an organ.

In Gray’s medical dictionary it list blood as a “nutritive fluid.”

So it may be said the “circulatory system” is an organ, but blood would just be a component (ie: tissue/fluid) of that organ. Or the “skin” is an organ, but the skin tissues are just a component. Etc, etc, etc. Much like the quote you have above which says there is a difference in viewing blood as an organ or, say, a heart, etc. It more supports those I’ve asked, that the blood is viewed as tissues and not an organ.

Needless to say, the medical profession seems to be more confused than we are and it depends on who you talk with and why. Of course they are human and not always correct. And, it wouldn’t affect a decision in using it from a Biblical stand point as it being defined as an organ or not, imho. It says “don’t eat” in the OT, but it say’s “abstain” in the NT. The Bible seems to view blood to be much more than just an “organ.” To say it is not nutrition though is very limiting. It is nutrition. The digestive system may process food, but without blood there is now way for it to get anywhere. And, while transfusions may not be “eating” they are feeding, which is very closely related. Blood is the “nutritive fluid” as Gray’s says, so it does feed the body.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

2) the web site you quote from (if any body else is interested in reading - http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml)

Some Jehovah's Witnesses believe that a blood transfusion is a liquid tissue or organ transplant, not a meal, and hence does not violate the biblical admonition to "abstain from [eating] blood." The Watchtower Society attempts to deny these members a free choice in their medical care by means of controls and sanctions - namely enforced shunning by JW family members and friends. Notice these AJWRB’s have added “eating” to the Bible at Acts. Why? It changes the meaning to their view, imho, as they are claiming others have done.

Also I noticed the sites use of the word “church” when referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is a term never used by them about themselves. I to grew up near a group of Witnesses, though I’d never have anything to do with them back then. They do use it when refereeing to other denominations. So I now question to truthfulness of these even being actual members as they say.

On a side note, for your “quoting” others, as I found when researching Catholics all sites that are “anti-Catholic” are just that and any “dirt” can be found to “prove” any point. Most of it I researched proved to be just twisted, misquotes, outright-falsehoods, etc. And I am not nor will never be a Catholic, so I don’t agree with them on many issues. And there are dangers of mis-information regarding such sites and not researching it, imho.

I especially like this quote from AJWRB (grin) when speaking of their analysis of the Bible and blood and defending their reasoning:

“We have by no means endeavored to be exhaustive.”

Really I asked? However, this is a very extensive site. I agree it’s not conclusive though.

I really did like this one:

“For those interested in more in-depth scriptural analysis, we provide the following research works for your consideration. These will address the scriptural arguments regarding blood in great detail. You are invited to critically examine these works and draw your own conclusions. “

I agree with this “in depth study” and “your own conclusions.” For this is truly why I asked. Not to get anti-this and anti-those.

These articles were also good: http://www.ajwrb.org/jme/jmec.shtml http://www.ajwrb.org/physicians/doyle-faq.html

Does the excerpt fall into that category of quoting to “prove a point”? The quote, so any who reads it can come their own conclusions:

“This fact is indeed admitted by the Watchtower: "As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: ‘A blood transfusion is an organ transplant.’" (Awake! Oct. 22, 1990, p. 9) “”

The part left out:

“Denton Cooley notes: “A blood transfusion is an organ transplant. . . . I think that there are certain incompatibilities in almost all blood transfusions.””

The title of the article: “Gift of Life or Kiss of Death? “

So, is the Awake saying blood is an organ or is quoting a doctor questioning the safety of blood as presented by many in the medical community? You decide. I wish I could find what was in between “….”. It’s a very interesting article, imho.

Then, the excerpt has a quote, that rightly so, says the WT does not say the French physician was from the 17th century – it says “early researcher” which is indeed vague. What the comment does not say is that a “modern” doctor agrees with him, 300+ years later. So what the point I would ask? It further agrees with Gray’s dictionary today of what blood is – a nutritive fluid.

The quote from 1951 is also interesting. I will agree when you put sugar into the veins it is absorbed, therefore this is a weak argument. However, when blood is put into the system through the veins it is supplying nutrients, oxygen, platelets, etc whether its literal “eating” or not.

“1994 - "Youths Who Put God First" - Article about Witness youths who have died as a result of the blood prohibition. (Awake 5/22/94, p.3- 15)”

Some of this is sad no matter what can be said in some of the cases presented and I hope I’m never faced with such. And we all die. But, there are many non-Witnesses and Witnesses who can say they “lived” because of not receiving blood. Yet, they don’t quote these, why?

Here is one excerpt from this story:

” Then two doctors and a lawyer came, told Lenae’s parents that they wanted to talk to her alone, and asked the parents to leave, which they did. Through all this discussion, the doctors had been very considerate and kind and were impressed with Lenae’s articulate way of speaking and her deep conviction. When alone with her, they told her that she was dying of leukemia and said: “But blood transfusions will prolong your life. If you refuse blood, you will die in a few days.” “If I take blood,” Lenae asked, “how long will that prolong my life?” “About three to six months,” they answered. “What can I do in six months?” she asked.

Sad, but the 12 year old girl, Lenae Martinez, would have died anyway – according to the doctors. It’s an impressive story of how a “young” girl can understand life!

Another one, same article:

Crystal Moore “…the doctors at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center said that if she didn’t get transfused on June 15, she would be dead on June 16 and that if she resisted the transfusion, she would be tied down with wrist and leg restraints.”

She had a inflammatory bowel disease. Her operation didn’t even require blood, she hardly lost any during it. This was about a court case and the doctor’s over ruling the patients rights. AND, She lived anyway! With no blood transfused.

One more:

Lisa Kosack “Lisa had acute myeloid leukemia, a condition usually fatal, although the doctors testified that the rate of cure was 30 percent.”

Yes she died. Yet, the cure rate was only 30% with blood. Not good odds, to say the least. But read about the 12 years faith – it is impressive. This about a patient and parents rights again through a battle with the doctors and the courts. If you want to leave the decision in a judge’s hand, then do so. I had to sit in court cases involving a custody battle and it was rather troublesome the arrogance and how misinformed judges can get.

Yet if you believe some part of you “goes to heaven” when you die why should you be sad? So, why even bring it up or worry about it? Remember Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe this and from the above accounts one girl had no such hope when told this by one doctor. She had another hope?

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

2a) Some other excerpts from your site:

“Now honestly, is it reasonable to refer to a group of hungry soldiers as an "emergency", or is this a flimsy attempt to associate the account with modern medical emergencies requiring blood transfusions. Who of us would equate a life or death medical crisis to a band of hungry warriors?”

Do you agree with this? I sure don’t! I doubt seriously any military person you ask would either. Maybe the solders of the North and South loved to go hungry before battles (sarcasm)? I doubt the soldiers at Batan, the Battle of the Bulge, etc in WW2 would agree that not being able to eat was not an emergency, a case of life and death. Or maybe ex-POW’s of Vietnam? I ask a friend who is ex-army, went thru intense survival school, can make destructive devises out of many things, etc, and he said they were REQUIRED to eat bugs and worms to even graduate from the course. So does any think that “a band of hungry warriors” wouldn’t consider starvation an “emergency?”

Another:

“Before you do that, however, it is helpful to compare Acts 15:29 with 1 Corinthians 8:4 in the Kingdom Interlinear translation. You will note that both use the identical Greek expression (eudolothutos) literally " (things) sacrificed to idols." Yet interestingly the NWT, which bills itself as a literal word for word translation, chooses to translate these phrases differently in another attempt to support the WTS's blood policy. At Acts 15:29 it reads "things sacrificed to idols" and at 1 Cor. 8:4 it reads "food offered to idols." We believe this to be a very significant point. Even the New King James Version consistently renders this Greek expression as " things offered to idols."

This simply isn’t true. A Lexicon of the KJV of eudolothutos says “meat offered to” in both cases, indicating food. And even part of the verse is left unquoted because of this reference in some KV influenced Bible translations. The NASB, new NIV, Jewish Bible, NJB, and even some newer translations of the King James all agree with the NWT.

There are several other ‘errors’ on this site. I’ll let who wants to read the whole thing. It does question, imho, the validity of those writing these in-exhaustive pages. It does strengthen their note to “decide for yourselves”. It is interesting and does have some good points.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

3) blood transfusions and their being “anecdotal”

These are some comments from blood transfusion studies done, posted FYI only. I think they are valuable insights to those who might want/need to know. Due to time and space constraints I have only posted “introductions” to reports that I have found interesting. Full site addresses are posted for any who want to investigate further. Which, I recommend for knowledge sake. However if any have a problem with Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t go any further, they have been given much credit to some of the research done on bloodless surgeries. (note these are just “introductions” as such, not “proof text”):

The initial search used “blood transfusions” to locate the articles if anyone wants to go that far. I forewarn you though, if you have a problem with Jehovah’s Witness’s, they are mention frequently. Even one article gave them credit for initiating research to find alternatives to blood. I was even surprised to learn that the first bloodless open heart surgery was performed in 1962 on one of them. And since then that particular doctor has preformed well over a 1000 more and had only positive things to say about it, so it’s seems far from being anecdotal.

Impact of Blood Transfusions on Inflammatory Mediator Release in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery(*). Author/s: Erik Fransen Issue: Nov, 1999

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0984/5_116/57892897/p6/article.jhtml ?term=blood+t ransfusions

“Concluding Remarks The findings of the present study are important for several reasons. This study shows for the first time that intraoperatively transfused units of packed red cells affect the perioperative release of inflammatory mediators in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. These transfusions affect the well-known systemic inflammatory response to cardiac surgery both by enhancing part of the response and by direct transfusion of bioactive substances into the circulation. Thus, our data suggest that the findings of previous studies on the release of inflammatory mediators in response to cardiac surgery and/or the CPB procedure that did not take the intraoperative administration of packed red cell transfusions into account need to be reconsidered.”

Perioperative Blood Transfusions(*). Author/s: Janice G. Mcfarland Issue: May, 1999 “Indications and Options A re-evaluation of the indications for and alternatives to transfusion of allogeneic blood was precipitated by transfusion- induced HIV. The transfusion trigger has shifted from an optimal hemoglobin level and hematoerit (10/30) to that level of hemoglobin necessary to meet the patient's tissue oxygen demands. This critical level can best be determined by physiologic measurements. A number of autologous blood options can reduce the patient's allogeneic blood needs. Pharmacologic measures to increase hemoglobin levels (erythropoietin) and to decrease blood loss at surgery are discussed as are the potential contributions of blood substitutes to transfusion support of the surgical patient. (CHEST 1999; 115:113S- 121S) In the last 15 years, the perception of transfusion of allogeneic blood in the surgical setting has moved from a benign intervention, sometimes life-saving, to an outcome to be avoided. Whereas the transfusion of blood products in the surgical patient was once an uncomplicated aspect of the procedure, the recognition in the early 1980s that blood transfusions carried a risk of HIV infection forced a reevaluation of the indications for transfusing the surgical patient. Since then, an extensive literature has developed on the indications for, risks of, and alternatives to transfusion of allogeneic blood.”

Autologous blood transfusion (for hip surgery)

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band31/b31-5.html

Results 1992 Cohort Patients receiving autologous plus allogenic transfusions (n = 30) spent significantly longer in hospital (mean 15 days) than those receiving only autologous or no transfusion (mean 9 days). Each incremental unit of allogenic blood transfused increased the length of hospital stay. Autologous transfusion of up to 5 units did not increase hospital stay. Total mean charges for autologous plus allogenic recipients were $26,000, significantly greater than for those receiving only autologous or no transfusion ($19,000). Extra costs arose from haematology, chemistry and blood gas tests, and extra charges from blood banking and pharmacy.

Transfusion-free Surgery is a Treatment Plan for All Patients. Author/s: Tricia Trovarelli Issue: Nov, 1998 http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0FSL/1998_Nov/53268419/p1/article.jh tml?term=blood+transfusions

The growing challenge surrounding the practice of blood transfusions is a major health issue that physicians, and especially surgeons, face in today's medical arena. Due to the increasing public awareness regarding tainted blood, many people are reluctant to receive blood transfusions and will not accept the use of donated blood products.

Some people continue to view blood transfusion as a life-saving treatment, and in rare instances it is; however, physicians are becoming more aware that blood transfusions are not without risk. Each year, thousands of people are notified of their possible exposure to some form of hepatitis or other bloodborne disease.(2) Patients receiving allogenic transfusion face a three in 10,000 risk of contracting a serious or fatal disease. Immune suppression is a growing concern, as patients who are most ill receive blood transfusions, which depresses their immune systems for weeks afterward. Most health care providers will admit that the long-term consequences of blood transfusions are just beginning to be recognized.

I even read where there is A blood substitute, as it’s called “false blood”, that can deliver more oxygen to the body when needed. It has been researched since the 60’s because of the military and, yes, the Witnesses. Isn’t that an irony? Military and ‘conscientious objectors’ wanting the same goal.

Whether it’s viewed “because of” or “in spite of” the Jehovah Witness’s, there are some very valid reasons to avoid blood in addition to Biblical reasons, imho. And it seems that they are not merely anecdotal.

There is even a hospital in Jacksonville, FL that is considered “bloodless”. A doctor there said that in the near future using blood transfusion will be “taboo” simply because of the cost, dangers and how many patients react to it. And, with techniques that can be used there will no longer be a need to.

Of course to each his own and I’m sure there is more than just the briefs found to support the other side. I found conflicting “evidence”, one saying blood has “saved many lives” and then the one above saying it’s in “rare cases.” And, I learned that while writing an architectural thesis anyone can “prove” any point they wish too. And quote partial sources from whomever to give it the meaning they want.

But, more and better information helps us all and that’s why this was posted. Just a heads up, as it were. So we all can make better, informed decisions, medically at least, if we know both sides.

BTW, As far as my mother-in-law is concerned, she has had to have her lungs drained of fluid twice in the past several weeks. Guess what tends to cause this reaction after heart operations? Several factors, age, length of operation time, type of heart problems, and having to receive and the amount of blood transfusions. Anecdotal?, no it’s because blood changes when it’s stored and therefore the immune systems is weakened and can’t keep the fluid from building in the lungs.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

4)

As far as The God “changing” His mind, I’m rather glad. Being a Gentile, I glad I don’t have to face the “requirement” of being circumcised later in life as Peter promoted. Wonder how many where turned away because of that before he was corrected ? (grin) And, I rather like pork, catfish and shrimp. Jews and Muslims are missing out, imho.

Being a former member of the Presbyterian faith, I don’t do not see the Witnesses claim being no less different as “being guided” by Jehovah that other so-called Christian organizations claiming the same thing, along with the many well known individuals claiming such. Yet many of those have been and are guilty of much more and much worse, imho. I do admit, being The God’s “only” channel is a massive claim. Though the having a “direct” line seems to be more a misunderstanding or maybe it is a “change” as you say.

Their doctrinal issues can, and have, been much debated, but, their ability to change “their mind” is parallel to that of any here who doesn’t believe that Catholic’s have the only claim to the phone line, as it were, to God. If there were no “changes”, we’d all still be Catholic. But, I’m glad no indulgence money is required any more. Or fighting those ”eeevvvilll Muslims” in crusades (in which ironically the “Christians” lost, so much for god being on their side) at least from my position, some do. We also follow the Old Testament, believe it’s inspired, at least I do, and much is not in a favorable light to “God’s organization” yet many hold to it’s core beliefs of The Father’s actions towards His creature’s. And, for good reason!

In other word’s it’s a two way street, both sides have many good value’s to learn from I think.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

C,

Are you a follower of Russell as well?

I refer to those people who call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" as Russellights (followers of Russell) as I do not believe they ARE "Jehovah's" witnesses.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

I follow no man. And Russell is dead, kinda hard to follow a dead man (smile). Yes, I have read some of his writings. No I do not believe all of what I have read. Some thoughts are incomplete, as he explained in the text.

Your calling Jehovah’s Witness’s, “Russellights,” would be incorrect. The Russellight term applies to the group who broke away in the 20’s and today retained the label of “Bible Students.” They still follow the original 6 volumes “Studies in the Scriptures” that Russell wrote. Much like the “Roman” Catholics or the “Protestants” though, they may accept the term you give but not with the negative character you’d probably confer it.

The two groups do not believe the exact same things.

I try (for I am human) to follow Jesus Christ for I believe He is alive, though not a man any longer.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

C,

Thanks for your reply.

I do not know that calling a person a "Russellight" is in itself "negative". Nonetheless, to follow his teachings I would consider a fault in discernment. Many of those who claim to be "Jehovah's Witnesses" believe that Jesus returned in 1914, that the Watchtower is God's mouthpiece, that there are different "classes" of believers, there is no Godhead (Trinity), Jesus rose spiritually not physically, and the list goes on… all of which stems from Russell's teachings. To say that present day "JW's" are not followers of Russell's teachings is not completely correct. The Gospel taught by Russellism and practiced today by "JW's" is not authentic Christianity.

For me the whole matter is settled when they rewrote the Holy Scriptures. Any group who tampers with the Holy Scriptures as to change the meaning and make it say what they want, is unquestionably anti-Christ.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Please understand this is an honest question, where do you get your understanding for your above comments?

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

And just out of curiosity, what do you say the “good news” is?

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

C,

Please, I hope you do not misunderstand me. I am not anti-anybody and my comments have only arisen due to the flow of conversation. In fact over the years I have had a few friends/associates who were "Russellites". Overall I think these are decent folks, but very misled. There is, however, one point that disturbs me about them and that is there "strong arm" approach in solicitation.

To answer your question, I was able to gain a very clear picture of this religion from a book I read a while ago by a lifetime member of the group who actually sat on their governing body for 10 years! The "Governing Body" is the group that directs and controls the organization. He had very unique insight into the religion and after reading the book knew more about the organization than perhaps 95% of the adherents.

I am a little frustrated at the moment for not having more information to share, but a year or so ago I loaned the book to a friend at work who was very interested in reading it for himself and he never returned it, and has since left the company. I have yet to buy another one as it has not been on the bookshelf of any stores I have visited - I will probably have to special order it as I had to do with my first copy. However, I have been hoping to contact George to get my original book back as I had quite a bit of personal notes I had written into the margins. Any info I would share now would be from memory and may not be 100% accurate.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

This is pretty simple to answer. Since Paul spelled it out in just so many words.

"Now, brothers and sisters, I want you to remember the Good News I brought to you. You received this Good News and continue strong in it. And you are being saved by it if you continue believing what I told you. If you do not, then you believed for nothing.

"I passed on to you what I received, of which this was most important: that Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures say; that he was buried and was raised to life on the third day as the Scriptures say." (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001

Barry,

If the book you are referring is the one by Franz, I would question any truth to it. I can’t remember without looking it up, but there were two of the Franz’. One was the nephew and I read he did spend many years on the “body.” He was also the one on the “writing committee” that forwarded a lot f the 1975 panic, I’m told, which he also helped twist all out of proportion by his ‘talks’.

I have read his book and was not impressed. One thing that sticks in my mind is that he believed that Matthias was not one of the 12, because he had been selected by “gambling” – drawing of straws. And, that Paul was the rightful 12th. Franz had several other bizarre theories. And, if that is the basis for the above, like I said I would seriously question it. But, I’d rather not get into all that, simply because I “been there” with several Catholics.

As far as his 95% adherents, everybody who followed him and did not “repent” were removed (and there were hundreds), which left the main body intact. This included his uncle,Franz, who later became president of the Organization till his death a few years ago. And this left Franz with no place to go, but “against” his former “employer” to make a living, imho.

I would say, that living next to someone or reading a book about them, written by one who had been asked to leave, is not a good overall view. I too lived near many Witness’s growing up and was even visited by a few. My parents even started a study with one of the sisters, which didn’t last long. My mother was steeped in the King James. At the time I wouldn’t even stay in house and would jump on my motorcycle and leave when they drove up. I’ve read several publications in the “cult” section of the “Christian” bookstores and have found many half and un-truth’s, and out right lies. Even met one lady through the net who sent me a “packet” from Canada, which contained much of the same info.

From appoint of view, there is no difference between the concept of today’s Catholic and Protestant practice of having a “priest” class and a “layman” class. Except it is used to define the next “world.” And it is not new. There were other who thought the same. And, it is no different that the Israelite bases of ruler-ship. Where did this idea of having priest and bishops come from if not based on some Biblical idea, which I believe for the most part is dangerous (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, which has happened many times in the past 2000 years).

I do find it interesting that the Jehovah’s Witness’s are critized for believing that The God has an “anointed slave class” who “feeds” them, yet others can seemingly read this or that writer and pick and choose from things written to back up, or even base beliefs on, yet these men wouldn’t even be considered as inspired. For example, the Catholics have the pope, which clearly, at least to me, is unscriptural. Yet a billion people believe it, and other even claim they are Christian. I have nothing against the pope himself, actually I believe him to be basically a good person. He is also a good writer. But, many of the CC teachings are unscriptural, imho.

Or the Baptist whom consider each particular church autonomous and answering to no one “but Christ”. And, when one dominate person gets mad with another, they’ll split and form another “church.” And then I believe it was Presbytery the other year, had to “vote” whether of not to allow gay marriages. That shouldn’t even have been considered much less voted on. We can remember how The God felt about such at Sodom and Gomorra.

All groups are led by humans, but only a few will admit mistakes. I believe many are trying to do the best with the understanding they are given.

What do you mean by “strong arm?”

But, as I told several Catholics a few years back, I’m not here to prove one thing or another about them, if you want real, true information about Jehovah’s Witnesses go to your local Kingdom Hall and ask them. Prove ‘your’ beliefs right to them or strengthen your own position.

John, I read the other post when I asked the original “good news” question, which I agree your view and the Bible. Although I fully believe this I still think this is a partial explanation. I do believe that part of it, but it’s still only part. There is more to it according to what I’ve read. I just wanted other view’s that’s all.

Barry,

What is your view to the original question, abstaining from blood?

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001

C,

I am not a doctor, and I realize all the evidence that has been posted in regard to this issue on both sides of the argument. However, when I see the statements in the Scriptures not to eat blood, IMHO, this has nothing to do with blood transfusions.

The injunction not to eat blood, although tied to the fact that God views as sacred, does so because it is that which gives life to the flesh. The practice of eating/drinking blood apart from the method of killing animals was also due to the idol worship of that day.

So, there are a number of things to look at.

The sacredness of blood. Why was/is it sacred? For a few reasons.

1) It gives life to the flesh. 2) God is using this to show the great importance of the blood of Christ. 3) Certain diseases can be caused by drinking blood.

In the area of not drinking blood due to the potential disease factor would guide us in the way we slaughter animals and how well we cook our food. In the area of the sacredness of Blood, it was Jesus' blood that atones for our sin, where all the sacrifices only temporarily stayed sin, Christ's blood cleanses for all time. Lastly, God is the giver of life and being that blood sustains life we should not take it lightly.

Now, the point I want to make is this. As God is the giver of life, He has not commanded that we not have blood transfusions as this in many cases sustains life. It would be a paradox for God to give life and then command us not to attempt to sustain the life He has given us.

A very good friend of ours has a daughter who just had a baby 6 weeks ago. After the delivery she started bleeding internally and the doctors could not find out where. Over the course of several hours she lost 13 pints of blood! I believe the average amount of blood in our bodies at one time is 6 pints! Without a blood transfusion she would have died twice over. To say that God has told us not to eat blood means allowing this new mother and wife to die does not even come close to being reasonable to my thinking.

Today she is in health and has a completely new outlook on life. Praise the Lord!

This whole discussion reminds me of a similar conversation Jesus had one time regarding the law in eating food, Mark 7:15…

"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."

I see this as a general principle. The reasons for God to give the command to not eat blood do not encompass the reasons for having a blood transfusion. The followers of Russell have perverted this as a control mechanism over their followers. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say not to have blood transfusions, and to tell someone they will not make "paradise" if they participate is, IMHO, diabolical.

On a final note you did say…

"All groups are led by humans, but only a few will admit mistakes. I believe many are trying to do the best with the understanding they are given."

Unfortunately, the followers of Russell claim to have direct guidance from God, being his mouthpiece, they have absolute authority. Anyone who questions this is disfellowshipped. In the instances where they have been completely wrong they either deny they ever said it, redefine what they had originally stated, claim that God has changed His mind on the issue, or that they were misunderstood, because if they are who they claim they would have to be 100% correct 100% of the time. A very scary place to be indeed.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

I think Christ's principle of the saving of a life being more important than the keeping of the letter of the law should and does apply to blood transfusion. Jesus told the Pharisees who condemned him when he healed someone on the Sabbath, which was technically against the Law, "If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?" If someone needs a blood transfusion, if it will save their life, are we to refuse it and allow them to die on the grounds that we are not to "eat" blood? Obviously Jesus would find issue with that kind of narrow pharisaical interpretation of Scripture, and so should we.

-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001

Barry,

In your reponse about "Russel", does that not fall into the same catagory of any Protestant denomination going against the Catholics? We all have followed Luther, in the sense of breaking with the CC. Yet, he was not considered inspired was he?

The Jews claim to be led by The God, yet they were wrong on many occasions (ie David, Solomon, etc)? Are they invalid?

So I have to ask again, with all the diffrent sect, which one is right and by which baptism is just? If I'm baptised "Baptist", Presbyterian, etc, which is correct? All use the same verse while sprinkling or submerging. But, all can't be correct, can they?

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

C,

I understand what you are saying (I think) in regards to different groups claiming divine guidance. I think the difference I see in regards to the examples you cite and that of the Watchtower organization is what I have mentioned already. Whereas these other groups would admit, when presented with evidence, that they have erred, the Watchtower refuses to do so.

For instance, did Christ return in 1914? This is what Russell taught.

What very few followers of Russell know, however, is that date changed several times and when brought to task they either deny this outright or (for those who know) make excuses for it without ever admitting error.

Furthermore, it was taught that after His return the millennial reign would begin and the world would progressively get better.

The questions begs to be asked, is any of this true? Did Christ return in 1914? Has the millennial reign begun? And has the world become progressively better?

This is what the watchtower taught for many years. Many followers sold everything they had in the later months of 1913 and through 1914 because of this teaching. When 1915 rolled around and it was obvious Christ had not returned, did the Watchtower apologize for being wrong? No, they redefined what they had been saying to mean that He made an "invisible" return.

This is but one example, in the book I have read many, many examples are given of complete inconsistencies - and never once have they apologized for being wrong. What is sad is that many lives have suffered for these errors.

It is not that other organizations claim divine guidance but that they will for the most part admit to human error. The Watchtower is replete with error yet you will never hear a committed follower acknowledge this fact. Sad.

Next, you ask a question about baptism…

"So I have to ask again, with all the different sects, which one is right and by which baptism is just? If I'm baptized "Baptist", Presbyterian, etc, which is correct? All use the same verse while sprinkling or submerging. But, all can't be correct, can they?"

First, I think you have a flawed concept regarding the "Body of Christ" or the "Church of Jesus Christ."

Because man has built fences around their "pet doctrines" does not mean that these are the same distinctions made by God. God does not view man as "Presbyterian" or "Baptist" - He views them either as belonging to Him or not belonging to Him. There is only one Body of Christ and it is comprised of Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals, Apostolic, Anglican, Orthodox, Non-denominational, or any other name that teaches the basic gospel. Therefore, in reply to your question, But, all can't be correct, can they? In short, Yes.

Jesus did not bequeath the truth only to Peter, but to 500 people at His ascension and He then returned in the presence of the Holy Spirit to be with us and lead us. The Holy Spirit will lead all who call upon Him and submit to His guidance. This happens on a very personal level with each individual. This is not to say that we should not be a part of a local congregation, we should, and we should determine which congregation most closely teaches the Bible.

In regards to the different denominations set up by different men over time, although we as men cannot see eye to eye many times - the essential components of the Gospel cannot be compromised, namely, the Godhead, the virgin birth - incarnation, the death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus, and redemption in Christ alone. These truths are held by the vast majority of Christendom.

I hope this helps.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

C,

I am sorry, I did not address your initial question about the difference between what Russell has said and what Luther had said in the context of the Roman Catholic Church.

The difference would be that Luther had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church, he simply wanted to bring some reformation to current practices that he believed did not line up with Scripture. These practices basically pertain to tradition and not the essential teachings of the Gospel. Whereas, Russell has come up with a completely different gospel than what Jesus Himself has given us.

The most glaring difference would have to be determined on a personal level, that being was Luther inspired? Was Russell inspired?

I personally believe that Luther was inspired to bring some reformation while Russell was not, as I said this is a personal conclusion. Yet the conclusion one makes has eternal consequences as the two have given completely different messages. One will lead to life and the other to damnation.

I hope this answers your question.

In Christ's love,

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

Russell (and the Watchtower after him) taught that true Christianity had been lost for the past 2000 years and Russell had rediscovered it. Russell taught that he was "God's Mouthpiece," and the Watchtower subsequently taught that as an organization they were a prophet just as Ezekiel was.

This is the arrogant hubris of the Watchtower. Their doctrines have changed innumerable times, and every single one of their prophetic predictions for the coming of Christ or of Armageddon have failed. And they teach a false gospel of another Jesus, a Jesus who was merely a man and unable to save to the uttermost, lowering him from his rightful place on the Throne. Therefore they have failed the most basic biblical tests, as outlined by none other than Moses himself.

You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

If a prophet ... appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder ... and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

A prophet only gets one chance to get it right. There is no room for error or "mistakes." And a true prophet will not teach false doctrine one day, and then say they have "more light" the next. The Watchtower is a non-prophet organization.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

Barry,

I agree that The God Jehovah will “sort out” those who are his true followers and teach them truth from whatever/wherever beginning they come from. However, I will respectfully disagree will “all” being right just because of teaching “correct” basic doctrine.

For example, the Presbytery has now voted on to allow gays to preach, because they say gay’s make up 35-30% of their base. That is wrong, according the Bible, no matter how it’s viewed. Clearly the ruling part of the Presbytery is teaching WRONG doctrines, no matter what “basics” they teach. Sodom and Gomorra was destroyed for such. So apparently it is not all right to belong there, even Lot was told to leave. I believe the same holds true today. The same apply’s to the Catholics history since ca 300 CE, imho.

The above was the last “straw” in my decision to remove my name from the Presbyterian roles several month’s ago.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

John,

In reference to your post, do you believe the Catholic version of “mass” in which the sacraments of the bread and wine are miraculously turned into the actual “body and blood” of Christ?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

C;

No, of course not. For several reasons.

1) I am not Catholic. (Something that really irks me when talking to Jehovah's Witnesses is they always try to lump everyone in with the Catholics. The Catholics are the perfect Straw Man.)

2) The Catholic Mass sacrifices Jesus again and again, when Jesus Himself said "It is finished" and the book of Hebrews says He made the sacrifice for sins once, then sat down. (Just like he rested on the seventh day.)

3) Jesus made it very plain that He was speaking metaphorically, that it was to be done as a memorial. Jesus no more meant that the bread and water was literally His flesh and blood than He meant that Peter was literally a small stone. (Some people really need to have a clue.) Besides, when he passed out that first memorial supper, He was still alive, His body still intact and He in it.

As far as leaving the Presbyterian church goes, I applaud the courage of your convictions in taking a stand against their descent into liberalism. But don't jump out of the frying pan and into the fires of Hell by joining up with the Watchtower!

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

C,

Thank you for your respectful reply. I agree with you concerning this issue regarding the Presbyterian Church. I think however a distinction needs to be upheld between what a group considers fundamental to the Gospel and what would be, say, tradition. If there are decisions made that are blatantly anti-Scriptural then I question their veracity as a "Christian" denomination. I believe I provided a quick list of fundamental teachings that if not followed change the Gospel message distinctly. A person attending that local congregation can find truth even if the traditions differ from other denominations.

In the context of Russell and his followers, they have a completely different Bible that what has long been. In fact, before the NWT they used the KJV, but too many followers were leaving based upon the discrepancies pointed out to them. They were forced to make some changes to the Holy Scriptures in order to keep members.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

John,

I agree with the Protestant beliefs on “mass” and the points you made about it.

However, the point is, when accusing the Jehovah Witness’s of “changing” where does the line need to be drawn of “false doctrines” when deciding what is correct in your own beliefs and what is not? And, how far to go with investigations to find Truth – what to ignore, what to accept? To you follow men who claim nothing and are wrong on some points, but agree with them on points you agree with?

You, I and many other’s disagree with “mass” (and I’m sure several other’s, ie pope, concept of Mary being “ever virgin”, forgiveness of sins by walking thru “Peter’s” door- which was closed last December, etc), yet history shows this Catholic ‘mass’ doctrine is several hundred years older than the Reformation. Transubstantion being defined by one of the most blood thirsty pope’s (Leo, I believe) in Catholic history. Killing entire populations of those who held “different” doctrines (ie: Walden’s “laymen” preaching door-to- door, the pope, etc)

So where do “you” draw the boundary’s of “mistakes” that were made the “Church” to which many are indebted for the understanding of what has been called basics or fundamental teachings (which I assume was meant trinity, heaven, hell, etc, which doesn’t fit many of the Jewish histories understanding). Mistakes the CC will not admit to? You accept the Catholic “base” doctrines, yet call Catholics “straw men.” Confusing I'd say.

And, I don’t know how you perceive Luther’s teachings, but from what I’ve read, the longer he lived the further he degenerated, imho, what of his teachings that do conflict? He believed in purgatory at one time, did he change or did God change? Did God suddenly say ca 1500, “hey “my” Church has been teaching this not quiet right doctrine”? And it seems hard for Protestants to define the “next life” without using some form of “purgatory.” I’ve read here several explanations of the next life and all seem to be just some form of a place to sit and wait or be punished (ie: Greek hades), which is basically what Catholic “purgatory” is. The only difference Protestants can’t make any money as Catholics can to “buy” people out. All disagree with what the Bible says “sheol” is.

Catholic purgatory is very well defined, integrated with Greek hades, rearrangement of the Bible and it well agrees with their doctrines. However from a Biblical standpoint, I totally disagree with it because I agree with the Bible and Jesus’ word’s of death as “sleep” for it is not a “loving” act to bring someone back from the dead if their in some part of Heaven already.

Further, Peter himself taught a “false” or a mis-application of a belief, call it a “tradition” if you like, yet he was corrected and the congregation grew. Do we not accept anything taught by him after this?

Barry mentioned that a prophet does not teach “false doctrine” one day and “new light” the next, yet this is exactly what the CC and the Protestants have done. The CC taught false things in the beginning of their history which many were not “corrected” till Luther’s day. Yet, many hold to some of their beliefs which are clearly not Biblical, and not just Catholics. Seems to be a double standard. A circular argument if you will. My decesion to study the Jehovah Witnesses has nothing to do with “jumping from a frying pan” except from your view. Simply because I have not believed in “hell burning” for a very long time, because it doesn’t fit with the concept of “God is love.” Torturing a creation that has inherited sin before allowing him to really know Truth, is what can only be defined as a barbaric, sadistic meaning of “hell,” and invalidate the resurection. Even the Catholics have “clarified” that hell is not a “place” of fire. For even heaven is to be "burned up."

Barry,

in reference to response the Watchtower doesn’t admit it’s mistakes, is not true. Rutherford himself admitted, in print, that he had made “an ass of himself” in reference to saying he thought the “saints” would return in 1925. And the whole legal case of false charges, ca: 1919, brought against them. Many of the “governing body” were locked up and this forced the to “re-analyze” their positions on the direction of the body.

Granted one has to “dig” to find info. And your correct many Witnesses don’t know about some things. But that’s true with all. I would bet that 80% of the Presbyterian Church I grew up in doesn’t know of the latest vote, which I consider a death blow to Presbytery – unless they correct it in the very near future. And if they did there would be some serious repercussions. This was the same blow to the UUA, imho.

In general, saying one group has started a “new” doctrine because most “orthodox” doesn’t teach it isn’t a complete reasoning. For example, just as the trinity concept permeates cultures thousands of years before Christianity, many still accept it for Christianity, yet the Jewish people never taught it (Did The God just not mention it or change). (yes John, I have read your essay on the subject and your comment on the other thread, which I would still like to know how you fit “God as angel” into the trinity?

In saying that Russell, came up with something “new” is disregarding or overlooking the chain of study/events presented, imho. So far as I’ve found nothing presented is “new.” Whether one believes it or not is another issue. One group or another of “Christians”, that existed aside from or along side of the CC (even though they deny, exiled or killed them off -Similar to what is happening now in Russia where the “Orthodox” Greek Church is preaching Christ on one hand and beating people and burning down houses of those whom they disagree. Christian? Doubtful), have in one form or another the teachings he presented.

This is to say that, one group may have taught one thing, another group some other part, still another some other time on many (not all) of the issues taught by the Witnesses. This occurs in a majority of things printed. Much in the same way Augustine ‘borrowed’ from the Greeks to help in explaining aspects of the trinity, hades, etc. Not all of Augustine (or Origen(sp), etc) writing/thoughts are considered “orthodox” either. Yet he is considered a “church father.” And from what I’ve read of him, many of his “books” where written before he actually ‘converted.’ Catholics love to quote him, yet from what I’ve read he totally opposed the “ever Virgin Mary” doctrine.

And even emperor Constantine, was a pagan up until his death bed “faith”, yet he is credited with convening the bishops to decide issues which is still being debated. And he was baptized by a “former” Arian bishop at his own request. I find that very interesting.

A point being, all the issues I’ve seen raised, including those here, have been repeated over and over for at least a 15-20+ year period. All to be found in “different” books by “different” authors saying the same things. And all to be found in the “cult” section of “Christian” book stores. Which is very odd because of the discussion on the other thread about the thief. I bought a lexicon and Strong’s from one of these stores in the “Christian” section and neither agree with many of today’s Christian sects, but does agree with the Jehovah Witnesses on the thief issues.

Further, when saying the NWT is a “completely different Bible” is like using water as an explanation of the trinity, it is only partial and not totally accurate.

The general point being, we all “pick-n-choose” this or that based on understandings, experiences, etc. that each have. Is like saying "abstain" means one thing at one instance, but is not absolute in another based an individual understanding of loving action. Yet, the same one would believe in eternal torture? Not to be disrespectful but I find it highly questionable.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

C

I follow you on most of your message.

I did have a question about what you said ….

"Further, when saying the NWT is a "completely different Bible" is like using water as an explanation of the trinity, it is only partial and not totally accurate."

What do you mean?

Also, what would you call Jesus on the cross? Was it not torture? What would be the purpose of Jesus suffering that torture? If we have no consequences for our actions eternally, why be tortured on a cross in our stead? It makes no sense to me.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001

Barry,

I try to more fully respond later on the NW.

As for Jesus' death, who was he was tortured by, God or man?

When the Hebrews sacrificed for their sins as required by the Law, did they have to make sure the animals "suffered" and where equally "punished" for a particualr sin in the sacrifice?

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001

Technically, He was tortured by Himself. Since He said that it was for that very purpose that He had come, to die, since He said that no one had the power to take his life from Him, that He gave it up willingly, and also had the power to take it up again. He could have easily walked off that cross at any moment, or sent for ten legions of angels to stop it. But He had set the whole thing up from the foundation of the world. So technically, He did it to Himself. Why? To show just how much we needed saving. To show that it was that kind of punishment that we all deserved, and were doomed to suffer, but that He was willing to go there in our stead. You talk about a loving God. This is the awesome depth of God's love, that He would save us from such a fate as this, even to suffer it Himself, before us, so that we might witness how great His love is for us.

-- Anonymous, July 12, 2001

"Tortured Himself"? ok, riiigggghhhht...

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2001

John, do you have children?

-- Anonymous, July 16, 2001