Created Sat. Oct. 15, 2005,         1st uploaded Sunday, July 27, 2008

 Blood, Fat, Atonement


Sub-headings:

It Begins with Noah
Blood Becomes Salvation
A Likely Future Scenario
A Wicked Lie From Imposters
Blood Gives Us Choice

Jesus Was Flesh
The Ultimate Symbolism
Sacred Symbol Reaffirmed
Blood Transfusions
Show Me the Facts
What Science Really Says

Skeletons in the Closet
Blood Products?
Ever Changing Boundaries
Fat in the Bible
Fat You Can Eat

Related Articles

I have a lot of ambition with this article. I intend to accomplish many things with it. The issue of blood is actually one of the most important issues in the Bible. Did you know that? Oddly, I find most Christian religions don't give it a whole lot of thought or attention. But I will point out that the Biblical restriction on blood is not just a part of the law. It was given in the time of Noah and unanimously confirmed by the Apostles. So this law is way above most others in importance.

The real importance of blood is in its symbolic nature as the scriptures we cover will make clear. After all, it was blood, specifically the innocent righteous blood of God's only son, that was to be poured out, offered as a sacrifice, in our behalf, that we might be rightfully allowed 1 good chance at atonement and salvation from the inherited sin and condemned death sentence passed on to us from Adam.

And atonement and salvation are important issues to be discussed in great detail. I think there are many Christians who do not really understand the sacrifice of Jesus and the salvation that results. And it revolves around this symbolic representation of blood.

In order to make the symbolism more prominent in our minds, God gave blood special attention and significance by limiting and regulating what we can do with it. By giving it a special status, God made it all the more clear to us that it was blood, a special kind of blood, the blood of an innocent, that could pay for or redeem the tainted blood of a sinful man and redeem his soul from eventual certain death.

This understanding and treatment of blood is very important. While many of the laws of Moses were not to be useful any longer, as Christians no longer had their own nations to govern as Israel, and later, Judah, had; 4 of the most important and prominent laws to be observed were repeated by the Apostles and older men in Acts 15. So lets give attention to this subject and give it the due respect granted it by our God, Jehovah.

And later in the article, I will address fat, which has some significance in the law, but does not retain that in the new covenant of Christ. It gives us an interesting contrast in comparison with blood. Now back to blood.



It Begins with Noah
Back to Top

Well, as far as we are told, it begins with Noah. Given that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, it is likely that God began the symbolism with them. And given that Cain went on to kill Abel, we have yet another aspect of blood revealed as we shall soon read. But in addition, we see how humans can look at other humans with jealousy and envy, leading the lesser ones to hate and kill the more favored ones, favored because they chose to obey God and therefore received His blessing. Those who love God have always been despised by those who don't. It started off like this right at the beginning.

Here in Genesis 9, Noah and his sons had recently gotten off the ark and God repeated much of what He had first said to Adam, here to Noah. The big scriptures here are verses 3 and 4.

Genesis 9:
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons. And He said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And your fear and your dread shall be on all the animals of the earth, and on every bird of the heavens, on all that moves on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hands. 3 Every creeping thing which is alive shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green plant.
4 But you shall not eat flesh in its life, its blood. 5 And surely the blood of your lives I will demand. At the hand of every animal I will demand it, and at the hand of man. I will demand the life of man at the hand of every man's brother. 6 Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood shall be shed by man. For He made man in the image of God.
7 And you, be fruitful and multiply. Swarm over the earth and multiply in it.

God gives every nearly everything from animals to green plants for man to eat. He holds very little back. But He does hold one thing back in verse 4. Blood! Blood is compared to life. Well, after all, blood, with its continual circulation and delivery of oxygen is what keeps us alive so it is a proper symbol for our lives.

Then in 5 & 6, God reinforces an incident that happened between Adam's sons, Cain and Abel, from Genesis 4, which we will read. God makes it clear also to Noah and his sons and those to come after them that God will not tolerate murder. Man is created in the image of God and God reserves the exclusive right to take a man's life. Humans do not have that right and will answer to God if they kill. Note the original incident where God is now addressing Cain, who had just killed Abel.

Genesis 4:10 And He said, What have you done? The voice of the blood of your brother cries to Me from the ground.
Genesis 4:11 And now you are cursed more than the ground which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

God did not require Cain to be executed. He probably saw little point to it at that time in the development of the species of man so early in his development. Cain was one of only a handful of people belonging to the first, and at that time, small family on earth. There was no larger group, tribe, or society to deter, really. God allowed him to marry and continue the population expansion. But God made it clear to them and those after them that it would not continue to be tolerated. Punishment and execution would be the rule.

But note the strong symbolism in these 2 verses. Blood has a voice and cries out to God. And God hears. To me, this is a blatantly obvious piece of literary symbolism, of which the Bible is full of. And it is in one of the first 4 chapters of the Bible. I say this because I believe there is plenty of symbolism throughout all 4 of those chapters at the beginning, including the "days" of creation. But many Christians are of the opinion that everything is absolutely literal. I wonder how they can be so sure when symbolism is so obvious in parts.

But the blood is also symbolic and will receive more symbolic emphasis in the Mosaic law, beginning with the Exodus of Israel from Egypt under Moses, next, in the original Passover.



Blood Becomes Salvation
Back to Top

Exodus 12:6 And it shall be for you to keep until the fourteenth day of this month. And all the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it between the evenings. 7 And they shall take from the blood, and put it on the two side doorposts and on the upper doorpost, on the houses in which they eat it.

Exodus 12:
12 And I will pass through in the land of Egypt in this night. And I will strike every first born in the land of Egypt, from man even to livestock. And I will execute judgments on all the gods of Egypt. I am Jehovah!
13 And the blood shall be a sign to you, on the houses where you are. And I will see the blood, and I will pass over you. And the plague shall not be on you to destroy, when I strike in the land of Egypt.

God says the blood will be a sign, which means the same thing as a symbol, a token of their obedience. God, more specifically, His angel, will see the blood and pass over that house, sparing it from the plague the angel strikes with. That blood comes from a sacrifice of an animal, symbolic of the better sacrifice to come much later from the son of God. Jesus would even be killed at this same time as God did not want anyone to miss the symbolism being fulfilled. Moses will now pass on the instructions to all Israel.

Exodus 12:
21 And Moses called to all the elders of Israel and said to them Draw out and take of the flock for you and for your families, and kill the passover.
22 And take a bunch of hyssop and dip in the blood in the basin. And touch some of the blood in the basin to the upper doorpost and to the two side doorposts. And you shall not go out, anyone from the door of his house until morning.
23 And Jehovah will pass through to strike Egypt. And He will see the blood on the upper doorpost and on the two side doorposts, and Jehovah will pass over the door. And He will not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.
24 And you shall observe this word for an ordinance for you, and for your sons forever.

The symbolism of this great event had a lot of details to it. Israel was being freed from the yoke of Egypt's slavery. Jesus' sacrifice would free all mankind from the yoke of sin and death's slavery, which we had all been slaves of. But much of this event revolves around the symbolism and observance of this event that Israel was to observe forever more until the Messiah should come to fulfill the real sacrifice and free them from the token symbols of the law that awaited the coming of the Messiah/Christ, Jesus, son of man, son of God, savior of the world, king of kings, Lord of lords, mighty God, prince of peace, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

I use some of the many names given him as this has importance elsewhere in identifying symbols in the coming last days. But if you want to know more about that, you will have to look elsewhere on this site. Have fun! Let he who has ears listen to what the spirit is saying.

Now if you want to read more about how blood was used in symbolic sacrifice at the temple, you may read these accounts. They are not all the accounts but are of the more prominent ones that first appear in the law: Exodus chapters 24, 29, 30; Leviticus chapters 1, 3-9, 14, 16.

Leviticus 12 speaks of "the blood of her cleansing," applying to the healing after a birth and of the menstrual cycle of a woman. Even though God designed to woman to clean out or flush in regular cycles, keep in mind that it is the blood of a creature born in sin from Adam and as such, that blood is considered tainted or stained with sin, and represents nothing good in the eyes of God. Many women take this too personally when it is only to represent our fallen inherited condition which has caused us to all break down in time and die, no matter which sex we are.

Because of this fallen condition, justice demands that we only have a right to be released from this sin and blame if a proper sacrifice of untainted, unstained, innocent, righteous blood of a perfect guiltless man, which Jesus would fulfill. There is nothing personal intended toward any woman. Her blood is merely a symbol of our collective sin and as such, would make her ceremonially unclean. She is no more or no less good or bad than any man. In this respect, she is absolutely equal in the eyes of God for without the holy blood of Jesus, we are all sinful and unworthy of any help or intervention.

Here is the big key understanding of all this sacrifice and blood stuff. God, freely and absolutely, gave Adam the ability to reproduce and create offspring and, may I add, gave the responsibility and accountability in creating and raising offspring. What Adam would do, good or bad, would be passed on and affect his children. God gave this without any strings attached, whatsoever. It was an important assignment which God gave over to Adam to care for.

And let me make it clear, it is an assignment and responsibility that each one of us has received as creatures capable of reproducing. The choices we make can very much affect our children after us. This is a gift and assignment we all need to take very seriously. Besides our devotion and obedience to God in all things, this is probably our greatest responsibility we have. There are a lot of things involved with that responsibility. But the very greatest one would be, if we were perfect, or more correctly, free from sin as Adam once was, would be to remain without sin by obeying God and remaining in harmony with Him and His commands so that our children can also inherit the ability to live forever, being free from sin, defect, and the prospect of dying.

But having been born in sin, the next best thing we can do for our children is give them love and teach them all about how they can get free of the sinful state they were born in by recognizing how they can get God to intervene in their behalf and renew them so they can have the same opportunity that Adam had, but threw away. And they can do this by recognizing the price paid to fulfill justice, the shedding and sacrifice of righteous innocent blood, an injustice that has to be righted in some way or another. Jesus could ask for his life back, and he could require that his seed, his potential to produce offspring be either restored or replaced by someone else's.

He chose to have someone else's seed, namely Adam's, be the ones to replace his own. Of course, those offspring of Adam's would have to be restored to perfection in the flesh in order to be adequate replacements of Jesus' offspring. And that is exactly what Jesus had wanted, as well as his Father, our God, Jehovah.

If we and our children recognize the sacrifice of Jesus in our behalf to justify us being allowed to be returned to a state free from sin, aging, and death, then we have to ability and prospect to live forever, if we are willing to remain obedient to God and in harmony with Him, always. We will get that chance by obeying God now, while not under force or compulsion, but doing so of our own free will.



A Likely Future Scenario
Back to Top

In order to make it even more clear, lets take a trip to the future for a moment. Imagine we are all in God's kingdom now, in a state of perfection, free from sin and have been obeying God up till now and remaining without sin and with the prospect of eternal life by eternal obedience.

Now someone, oh, lets say . . . Satan . . . comes along and says, hey, now that you are perfect, you do not need to continue to obey God. There are other ways you can live without getting out of hand or going crazy as people did the first time around. It can be done. You can live in peace and harmony without following all of God's rules. We will show God His rules are unnecessarily restrictive and prohibitive. It is not necessary. Once we prove to Him and to each other that we can still live good and decent, with peace and order, we will have proven Him wrong and will have Him restore our ability to live forever this way, which He is willing to do if we can prove Him wrong.

And what sort of restrictions will he say are not needed now? Oh, what has he always used? I am sure sex will be there among the many things. Why not free sex? Why the extreme restrictiveness of only one partner. That is just selfish and immature. We are so much smarter and above all those primitive feelings and emotions. Our intellects can overcome all that. Let us share our love and affection with each other and draw closer to each other, rather than maintain all this distance and these unnecessary personal boundaries.

We will honor an agreement among each other that we will share our mates and should any mate become pregnant, the owner/husband will take care of the child, regardless of whose genetics it might derive from. Or maybe Satan will suggest a sort of communal living arrangement whereby all will share in the raising of children.

It will all sound so wonderful and full of possibility. But everything has already been tried and offered in the past here on earth in a state of sin even as I write. Having once come into perfection will not change the outcome afterward. There is a lot about the human psyche that many of us do not appreciate. Satan's suggestions will not work. And when they begin to fail as jealousy, rivalry, competitiveness, selfishness, and other nasty things begin to appear, due to not maintaining those very strict but also very important boundaries of behavior that God insists upon, they will see that they have been wrong in disobeying God and were not able to prove Him wrong and He will prove to be right and it will occur to them that they have no hope of a 2nd chance and that sooner or later, they will die off.

Yes, Jesus bought them just one chance to obey or not, in perfection and freedom. He did not buy or fulfill 2 chances. His fleshly life was just one life and bought the offspring of just one life for one time.

It would take yet another righteous sinless life to be sacrificed for each individual who sinned after having been perfect.

Where are the hordes of perfect souls who will be willing to give up their lives to rescue people who had the same chance as those who remained faithful to continue to obey God and live and decided not to? What could possibly motivate the faithful to give up their good lives because some dummies decided to throw what they had away? Nothing will move the faithful to do that. The dummies had the same chance as everyone did. What they did and do with that chance is their own business. They have harvested what they planted. There is no more hope left for them.

A man without hope is a very unhappy, fearful, jealous, angry, dangerous, and malicious creature, capable of absolutely anything. When they realize that their death is inevitable with the flow of time, not to mention the injuring, murders and other such things that begin to occur with alarming frequency when people fall prey to disobedience and sin, they will look upon those who still have obedience and life eternal in them, and will hate them and eventually be moved to attack and kill them. This is what is prophesied in Revelation 20 where the hordes, represented symbolically as Gog and Magog,, intended to remind us of a similar vision involving those who attack God's people in Ezekiel 38 & 39.

Of course, I am sure Satan will use a variety of temptations. But sex is sure to be high on the list. All these tactics will work with amazing success so says Revelation 20 as it relates that most of the earth follows Satan and surrounds the camp of the holy ones. But God sends fire out of heaven and destroys them all. Those remaining faithful through that are then pronounced as "living," that is, living forever, never to taste death again, as they have shown they will remain faithful forever, as they have learned the lessons taught both before Judgement Day (also affectionately called Armageddon by some) and after in the 2nd and final judgement after the thousand year reign of peace when Satan gets freed up briefly to see if he can prove God wrong after all. They will have been tempted, as Jesus had been, tried as Jesus had been, and remained faithful, even as Jesus had, even at the threat of death represented by the angry numerous mob of Gog and Magog. They will never have to do that again.

Now I am hoping people can more clearly see the meaning of the lake of fire, symbolic of the 2nd death in Revelation 20. It is symbolic of one very important thing. There will be no 2nd chance to life once we have been brought back to perfection, that is, absence of sin. No one is going to buy, ransom, or rescue you. You will get one chance and just one chance only to obey and remain obedient. You will not get a 2nd chance, no more than Adam did. Once you sin, after having been free from sin, you will die, never to come to life ever again. The symbolic eternal smoke and burning of the lake of fire are given to make it most abundantly clear that no one ever comes back from this place. Once you are gone, you are gone forever. You don't rise from the grave, nor does the sea give you back. Your place is in the eternal death, the 2nd death, the never a 2nd chance death from which there is no return. Your gone forever. And the lake of fire can also represent a trial by fire which the faithful come through without getting burned or even getting hot.

Why is this such an important message to get across to people? I think that is obvious as people are going to ignore God's rules, even after having been brought back to life for a thousand years of peace and obedience. So God issues fair warning before hand. But there is yet another reason that maybe most may not be aware of. Scattered among the many Christians interpretations out there are those who believe that everyone everywhere who ever lived will eventually be saved. This is such a big and misleading lie that it could only have been inspired by Satan.



A Wicked Lie From Imposters
Back to Top

The group I am most aware of for believing this and promoting it are the International Bible Students Association, founded by a one Charles Taze Russell in the 1870's. The group exists to this day, though their numbers are not all that big. Perhaps of interest to some is that a much bigger and more successful group came out of this movement not long after Russell's death in 1916. That group actually managed to take over Russell's religious/financial non-profit organization, leaving the Bible Students, who actually remained faithful to Russell's teachings of everyone will be saved eventually, totally abandoned and robbed by the usurpers as I will call them. They are now known, since 1931, as Jehovah's Witnesses, hereafter called by me, JWs.

JWs claim that Russell was God's faithful appointed servant, the faithful and wise steward of the Luke 12 illustration. And they claim that they were the successors of Russell and as a ruling body or class, continued to be that faithful steward who was appointed over all Jesus' belongings. They made their own Bible translation in which they conveniently added a few words, terms, or definitions to distort the scriptures more to their own liking. Instead of acknowledging that the slave might not be good but resort to mistreatment of their fellow slaves, they give him another name, the evil slave and claim that they are the promised first. There was no promise of one or the other, but only choices to make as to which one each person will be.

But the irony of their confiscating Russell's empire, all done legally according to USA laws of incorporation and non-profit statues, was that they would end up rejecting many of Russell's teachings and policies, which should make many JWs wonder about how faithful a servant Russell could have been if they needed to reject so many of his interpretations. Incidentally, the reason they were able to take Russell's empire from his appointed representatives in his last will and testament, is because Russell himself, in his organizing and incorporating of his empire, left legal loop-holes that rebel leaders, especially the President of the corporation, "Judge" Rutherford, were able to exploit and use to win over control of the corporation with all its desirable assets. But JWs were and are, no faithful steward of either Russell or God and neither was Russell faithful to God. These are, of course, only my own personal judgments and opinions.

Forgive me for getting off the track a little but I thought I ought to offer a little bit of insight into those two groups while bringing up a specific teaching of the first group under Russell. The first, though less successful and less known of the two, prominently featured then and to this day, the teaching that every one will be saved, first one group, than another, and another, in successive waves, best described in Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages" book, with the various ages bringing their share of those saved.

This teaching contradicts scriptures just for starters, but worse and more deadly, could cause many who hear their message and believe it, to think that they do not have to worry about making the first cut, wave, or age and wait for the next one, living it up now in sin and not being concerned for after all, eventually they will get saved sooner or later, anyway, right?. Who cares if you wait till the last train is leaving for salvation! Any train is a good one, right? As long as you get there at some time or another.

But God makes it clear that if you do not pass the important test coming upon all the inhabited earth just before Armageddon/Judgement Day, that you will forever miss out on the only opportunity you have for salvation from death with eternal life. People must understand that God is not playing around. He is serious and is only going to ask once, so to speak. We will get one good chance and definitely need to make the right choice at that time or miss out forever.

So while we are introduced to the 2nd death in Revelation 20, some have already experienced the 2nd death or will, shortly. If we do not want anything to do with the 2nd death, we need to pay careful attention to God's word and commands. We are in a bad condition where death comes quickly sometimes not even giving us 70 or 80 years and certainly giving us precious few if any in which we have health, youth, and beauty with us. If we want a chance at life eternal, it is time to get with it and fast. Do not delay!

This is the idea behind the sacrifice of righteous, sinless blood, otherwise called holy blood. This sacrifice pays for the sins of Adam and Adam only to give us 1 chance at choice and 1 chance only, to submit to God and obey Him in whatever He says. And once having received righteousness and perfection, never to throw it away again by disobeying God and condemning ourselves to a death from which there is no rescue. It will be a permanent, everlasting death from which we will never return and I mean never!

This is the real symbolism offered by blood in the Bible, and our justification and salvation by the blood of Jesus, and of the 2nd death; which means no 2nd chance if we screw up after! The concept of sinless sacrificial blood is where the justification for God's intervention in our behalf originates. Innocent spilled blood requires the balancing of injustice with restoration.



Blood Gives Us Choice
Back to Top

This point in time is a very unique one in that one man's innocent life could pay for everyone, regardless of how many since they all came from Adam, whose sins are the ones being paid for. One man sinned and another paid for his sins to rescue that man's offspring. So the choice Adam made for us all is undone by us all serving as Jesus' offspring. Only one life has to be shed to pay for us all.

But now imagine that we all attain perfection. And then suppose we all sin again. We have now all made bad choices for our own potential offspring and now there are many formerly righteous lives who are now tainted with sin and need paid for or balanced with justice. Now it is not just one to be sacrificed to pay for it all, it is as many of us as have sinned. There can not begin to be enough to pay for us all. And why should anyone, anyway, since we all had a fair chance and a choice and simply made a bad choice.

God's grief when Adam sinned was not what he did to himself. It was that we, Adam's offspring, were relatively innocent in that we did not have any choice. Freedom means having choice and control over which way our lives go. If we have no choice, we have no freedom. We are victims of circumstance and this is what grieves God.

But there is yet another thing accomplished by doing things this way to fill the earth with righteous God-obeying people. Choice is best only made with experience and understanding of the full consequences of what our choices will mean for us and others. But we were born without knowledge as well as without choice.

In learning while in sin, we get to fully learn and appreciate what sin against God leads to and results in. Having learned or at the least, having had the chance to learn, we are given choice and the best chance we have to make the right choice based on knowledge, information, and if we took advantage of it, appreciation as well. Then we are most apt to make the right choice and stick to it.

So we, the human race, all descendants of Adam, have been given choice, which could lead to knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and even appreciation so that we can live forever as God intended, but in harmony with His will and not against it. This is a deep concept for many as they simply haven't applied themselves to trying to understand it all.



Jesus Was Flesh
Back to Top

I find it so odd that many Christians do not understand what it really is that Jesus accomplished and what it means for them and everyone. They are so confused about so many doctrines because of this most important one escaping their notice. I write now in hopes a few can wake up and understand why Jesus had to be fully flesh, fully a man, and not part God or part spirit or something other than exactly what Adam had been.

It would be no big deal at all if a spirit or a god or the God came down to earth to be tried. For how could the devil and his earthly followers begin to threaten God or even a spirit? Spirits can not be harmed. They could put on an act if you liked. Actors do it all the time, why not a spirit? But spirits can not be harmed or killed by man. How could men make a spirit feel threatened? A spirit knows he can not die. Even demons can not die unless God executes them, which He will someday.

Jesus was nothing but a man of flesh as Adam was. He certainly was appointed and granted all God's power and authority while in the flesh but he was still just a man and truly did die, which truly did pay for Adam's sin. If he did not die, that Adam's sin has not been paid and we are all doomed. But we know he died for otherwise, God could not have and would not have poured out His spirit upon believers at Pentacost.

So misunderstanding the sacrifice and symbolism of blood has cause many to believe in the silliness of the concept of the trinity. So that is why I feel this is perhaps the most misunderstood and neglected doctrine in the Christians religion, that of blood and sacrifice. People would not advocate the law of Moses being observed if they understood this concept of blood and sacrifice. This is the foundation cornerstone of the Christian religion, which eludes so many believers. I hope this has helped to clear it up.

I might note that it has long eluded most people in the world who laugh at blood, sacrifice, and atonement.

Now we will look at more about blood and sacrifice in the law just to clear a few more things up. But the most important aspect has already been covered.



The Ultimate Symbolism
Back to Top

Leviticus 17:8 And you shall say to them, Any man of the house of Israel, or of aliens who sojourn in your midst, who offers burnt offering or sacrifice, 9 and does not bring it in to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation to offer it to Jehovah, that man shall be cut off from his people.

This could use some more explanation to the uninitiated. Any sacrifice made, is to be made in the temple of God and not some place of their own choosing and perhaps even their own officiating, acting as their own priest or whatever. God will tell you who, where, and how. He is the boss and He does not want His symbolism tempered with and twisted and distorted. You can understand that, can't you? Now pay attention to the next account. Its real important, especially verse 11!

Leviticus 17:10 And any man of the house of Israel, or of the alien who is staying in your midst, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person that eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to atone for your souls; for it is the blood which makes atonement for the soul. 12 For this reason I have said to the sons of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood; and the alien who is staying in your midst shall not eat blood.
Leviticus 17:13 And any man of the sons of Israel, or of the aliens who stay in your midst, who hunts game, beast or fowl, which is eaten, shall even pour out its blood and shall cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; its blood is for its life. And I say to the sons of Israel You shall not eat blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is in the blood; anyone eating it is cut off.
Leviticus 17:15 And any person who eats a dead body or torn thing, be he a native, or an alien, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean. 16 And if he does not wash them, nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity.

This just might be one of the most important lessons of the law. Remember Leviticus 17 and always keep it in mind. God here defines the symbolism and importance of blood. No one is ever allowed to eat it, ever! Not before the law, not during the law and not after the law and probably not ever into eternity though I will leave that for God to say for sure. For blood symbolizes and represents the justification for God being allowed to intervene and spare us a life without choice and without hope. It is atonement. God gave it to be used on the and around the alter for atonement. That is the only use God allows for blood. Blood is our salvation and God does not want us to forget that, ever. So He gave us a way to remember in that we can never eat blood which represents . . . life!

Leviticus 19:26 You shall not eat with the blood; you shall not divine, nor conjure spirits.

Just another warning. Do not eat blood!

Deuteronomy 12:15 Only with all the desire of your soul you shall sacrifice and shall eat flesh within all your gates according to the blessing of Jehovah your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean one may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the hart. 16 Only, you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it as water on the earth.

You know, when you think about it, God allows us to eat flesh. He is not asking us to starve. It is only the blood we must avoid. Since blood is a lot of water with just a little percentage being nutrients or energy, we are not giving up much as regards sustenance. Enough sustenance and protein are in the flesh. So while maintaining the symbolism, we are not giving up much to do it. Some of us are willing to die if we need to. Can't we give up a little thing like blood? When I say little, I obviously do not mean little as in symbolism but only little in the elements that make up blood.

On eating meat in general, meat not used as sacrifice, and eaten at home, there were still some rules, but again, the blood can not be eaten. It is also emphasized that holy things, sacrifices, etc. should be made and eaten in the place that Jehoavh your God shall choose. When sacrifices are offered, the blood is poured out at the alter.

Deuteronomy 12:
21 If the place which Jehovah your God shall choose to put His name there is too far from you, then you shall kill of your herd and of your flock which Jehovah has given you, as I have commanded you; and you shall eat within your gates according to all the desire of your soul.
22 Only, as the gazelle and the hart are eaten, so you shall eat of it; the unclean and the clean may eat of it alike. 23 Only, be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the meat; 24 You shall not eat it; you shall pour it on the earth as water. 25 You shall not eat it in order that it may be well with you and with your sons after you, when you do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah.
26 Only, your holy things which you have, and your vows, you shall take up and shall go to the place which Jehovah shall choose. 27 And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of Jehovah your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out by the altar of Jehovah your God; and you shall eat the flesh.
28 Take heed to listen to all these words which I am commanding you, in order that it may be well with you and with your sons after you forever, when you do that which is good and right in the eyes of Jehovah your God.



Sacred Symbol Reaffirmed
Back to Top

OK, now comes the most important announcement made concerning what to continue to observe from the law. A big fight had been caused by Jews who began to insist that non-Jews must observe the law and get circumcised. Paul said they did not need to. But as Paul makes clear in Galatians, the holy spirit directed him to go up to Jerusalem so that the whole assembly of brothers could set this matter straight once and for all. All are gathered and testify, with some of the most relevant testimony coming from Peter, who Jesus said would receive the keys of the kingdom, signifying that he would be the one to open the kingdom up, as if by key opening a closed door, to let the nations in to be saved and become one with the Jews as had been God's purpose from the beginning. James, younger fleshly brother of the Lord, the appointed overseer of the congregation in Jerusalem so that the Apostles might preach the word throughout the known world, according to historical accounts among early Christians, speaks for all the assembly.

Acts 15:
13 And after they were silent, James responded, saying, Men, brothers, hear me:
14 Simon recounted how even as at first God oversaw to take a people out from among the nations for His name. 15 And with this agree the words of the prophets, as it has been written,
16 After these things "I" will return and "will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen," "and I will build again the things which have been demolished," and I will set it up, [Amos 9:11, 12] 17 so as the rest of men may seek the Lord, "even all the nations on whom My name has been called, says the Lord, who is doing all these things." [Amos 9:11, 12]
18 All His works are known to God from eternity.
19 For this reason I judge not to trouble those from the nations turning to God, 20 but to write to them to hold back from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and that strangled, and blood.
21 For in every city from ancient generations Moses has those proclaiming him, having been read in the synagogues on every sabbath.
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with all the church, to send chosen men from them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Judas having been surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 writing by their hand these things: The apostles and the elders and the brothers, to those throughout Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, brothers from the nations: Greeting.
24 Since we heard that some of us having gone out have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, Be circumcised and keep the Law, to whom we gave no command; 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to send chosen men to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have given up their souls on behalf of the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
27 Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, they by word also announcing the same things. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to put not one greater burden on you than these necessary things: 29 To hold back from idol sacrifices, and blood, and that strangled, and from fornication; from which continually keeping yourselves, you will do well. Be prospered.

Look how it ended in verse 29. Just 4 things for people of the nations to observe as Christians, and keeping the law in general was not one of them. But not eating blood definitely was one of them. It was one of the 4 most important things they could think of. Now let us not misunderstand what these men of God were saying or not saying. These were not the only 4 things to observe. The letters of the Apostles certain speak of more than 4 things to observe.

Certainly murder, rape, and stealing were still prohibited. But especially as regards ceremonial type things of the law, 4 remained as essential. Not eating blood was still one of them. That should be of no surprise for that had been an important command at least since the days of Noah. But take careful note that Acts does not say "eat." It says "abstain." That is quite the broad word to use. But when you think about it, was there any use, other than that of symbolic atonement, that was allowed for blood in the law? No! So though not specifically indicated, it would seem that any use of blood, having already received the righteous blood of Jesus in atonement, would be forbidden.

So now there should be no doubt as to the sacred symbolism of blood and why this symbol is so very important to the worship and salvation of Christians. It is a wonder how little attention blood has received from professed believers today, given that they constantly remind us that Jesus died for our sins.



Blood Transfusions
Back to Top

Now I would like to address one last issue with regard to blood with everyone. Having once had some association with Jehovah's Witnesses so many years ago, I know that they had an extreme view as regards blood, believing the dietary prohibition on blood to also apply to blood transfusions. Whether right or wrong, it is an interesting thought and not one we want to easily dismiss without adequate consideration.

That blood is a profoundly important symbol or at least, should be, there can be no doubt or dispute! This is s core essential belief as I see it. Can one just do what they want with it, other than eat it? That would be the question to answer. And if eating blood is prohibited due to its symbolism of life, are other things covered by the prohibition "eating?" Of course, Acts 15 does not say eating. It says "abstain!" Questioning whether it is proper to have a transfusion is not a bad or unreasonable question to ask. Better to be safe than sorry, right? But no Christian should dismiss anything without giving it due serious thought. Effort is always a requirement of God.

Eating is clearly out. No question there. What does eating do? It is fuel and sustains life. Blood transfusions also sustain life. In fact, intravenous injection is also a way to supply food/energy as when a patient is unconscious for a long time and can not eat. Really, there is a lot of similarity between using blood to keep us alive either directly as food or indirectly through our veins. Both food and blood can enter both ways, thereby accomplishing nourishment and energy one way or the other.

The big difference I see is that if one loses a lot of blood fast, it can quickly mean death, whereas going with out blood for food when there is other food available will not harm us and even if we were very hungry, blood as food through the mouth would still not likely be enough to help us much unless we had a lot of it. But, unfortunately, I don't think that whether our life is at stake is an issue.

Our lives will be at stake sooner or later by our persecutors who will threaten us with death if we do not give up God. We must die then if required rather than renounce God. So death is sometimes in inevitable when we obey God.

Great hunger due to famine or whatever would not give us the right violate God's law forbidding the eating of blood. There were no exceptions to eating it. So if there are none allowed for eating, I would not see a medical crisis as justifying eating it or accepting it by a blood transfusion, either. The only thing to be discerned is whether blood as a symbol of life would prohibit its use to sustain other people or having other people's blood sustain you.

Many seem to think that because a transfusion is not through the mouth, that it becomes "science" or "medicine" and has nothing to do with eating or sustaining one's self. I wish I could be convinced of that. They say, this is not eating, it is an operation. But I do not believe their conclusion is reached because of the facts. I believe they are trying their best to justify that which they believe is life saving and so important. Part of god medicine is a good diet and many medical problems are solved by proper eating habits so eating is medicine and science, too.

But I shall propose that most situations where doctors and medicine says transfusions are necessary or vital, that in fact, they are not, and can present many dangers, and do not tell you there are synthetic alternatives available and they are better than blood in most respects. I will offer the evidence in a minute. So when you are told by Satan or an angel of light, or a doctor with a supposed halo over his head that you need a blood transfusion or you will die and that there is no alternative, in my opinion, he is lying and you should not believe him, even as Eve should not have believed the "serpent," but did.

But whether it is a lie or not, the fact our life might be in danger does not give us a right to break God's law. There are many times and situations that might require us to die at the hands of persecutors rather than break God's laws. It is the reality of the worship of God. As Jesus warned:

Luke 9:
21 And strictly warning them, He ordered no one to tell this, 22 saying, The Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
23 And He said to all, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily. And let him follow Me. 24 For whoever desires to save his life, he will lose it. But whoever loses his life for My sake, this one will save it.

Luke 14:
25 And great crowds came together to Him. And turning, He said to them, 26 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers and sisters, and besides, even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me, he cannot be My disciple.
28 For who of you desiring to build a tower does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has the things to finish; 29 that having laid a foundation, and not having strength to finish, all those seeing begin to mock him, 30 saying, This man began to build, and did not have strength to finish.
31 Or what king going to attack another king in war does not first sit down and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet those coming upon him with twenty thousands? 32 But if not, he being still far off, sending a delegation, he asks the things for peace.
33 So then every one of you who does not abandon all his possessions is not able to be My disciple.

Jesus made several things clear here. One, if you are going to follow Jesus, you will suffer and must be willing to suffer just as he had and was going to suffer more, even to the death. If you are not willing to suffer and die as he was going to, then you should not follow him. In other words, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Two, count the cost of following. Maybe you can not hack it or do not want to bother. Maybe it is too much for you. Only the brave need apply for God's kingdom and being followers of Christ. The prize goes to those who really want it . . . desperately want it!

Anyone who tries too hard to save their present sinful lives are likely going to lose them whereas he or she who is perfectly willing to give up their life (for God, of course) will receive it back from Christ in the resurrection. So death here and now for righteousness sake is no death at all for we are guaranteed a resurrection. So if avoiding the use of blood, the 2nd most sacred symbol in all of our worship, causes us to die (quite unlikely), we can be assured we will get our life back from God and live happily ever after in eternity.

OK, you want to know what the most important symbol is, am I right? Here we go. It is obedience to the best of our ability.

So we all need to carefully consider whether we are truly willing to pay the price required to gain eternal life. It is to some, a very high price. But they are only looking at the present and not exercising faith, as I see it. I see it as a bargain if I need to give up my life now so as to get a much better one that lasts forever, a little later in the resurrection. But only you can decide how valuable it is to you and if the price is right for you or not.

Will you honor the symbolism of God, even to the point of death? The tree of knowledge of good and bad! Was it not a symbol? Baptism is only a symbol. Much of the law of Moses was only a symbol. But obedience to what that symbol and all symbols stood for was absolutely essential. I can not see how this issue of blood is any less so. I don't know how it happened, but it would seem apparent to me that the JWs (Jehovah's Witnesses) actually got this one right. And they say miracles don't happen anymore! Too bad they could not improve some of their other flawed doctrines.

Again, in Acts 15, the word is "abstain from" not "eat." We have no authorization to use blood in any way according to Acts. And even when the law was in effect, the only way blood was ever to be used was by the priests at the alter or otherwise poured onto the ground and covered over. It was exclusively God's.

Let us not forget what Leviticus says about blood. The life of a soul was said to be in the blood. Blood was representative of life. And God in the only one who can give life or has the right to take life away or order others to take it away, or to receive it back. All life belongs to God. He has full and complete jurisdiction over life. We are not allowed to interfere with God's rights and prerogatives. If we do, we might find ourselves angering God and losing out on life completely. Better that we leave God's things to God and obey Him as He requires us to. As I see it, blood is His and we are not justified in using it for anything.

But there are some distinctions to be made that Jehovah's Witnesses do not make. These are what we will consider, along with some solid science.



Show Me the Facts
Back to Top

Let's now consider the scientific facts about blood transfusions so you can see why I have the opinions that I do about doctors and the medical profession. When I was with Jehovah's Witnesses, I was convinced at that time that transfusions were wrong from a religious point of view. But I was even more convinced from a medical and scientific point of view that they were wrong for me, meaning not beneficial and maybe even being harmful to me.

The JWs offered many good scientific facts about blood but few people ever took those facts seriously. Most thought it impossible or unimaginable that doctors and "science" could be wrong or would choose to ignore so many dangers in regards to blood and be so un-scientific about it. Therefore, they concluded that transfusions really did not present any danger and that the only real danger was avoiding transfusions. They would almost certainly die without transfusions. In addition, I find that there are actually many great risks and dangers posed from blood transfusions. My opinion is that the doctors were liars and that profit was by far their biggest motive for pushing blood. I believe that also because I know of a lot of other common or even standard procedures that I believe are either life threatening or based on profit motive. I cover a few after we finish with transfusions.

But what I believe many Christians do is make their final decision about whether transfusions are OK by God or not, based more on the dangers they believe are likely if they do not take blood. Since I believe they are being lied to and that there is little to no danger from alternatives to blood and that they are even more likely to suffer or die with transfusions than without, I believe if people knew this and really believed this, they would avoid transfusions, even if they did not violate God's commands. However, if they did believe as I do about the science and risks of blood, they would be much more likely to conclude that transfusions are not OK by God.

Really, whether transfusions are dangerous or not should not even come into this argument. I believe the merit of transfusions being wrong is well supported by the Bible, alone. God only allows one use of blood, other than that which is your own. And that is at the altar by a priest if we were still under the law. Since that is gone, we do not even have that use. Blood's symbolism prevents any use at all as far as I can tell.

Let me address a few things of a practical scientific nature in regards to blood and medical practice. While the medical establishment, much a trade and business union, in my opinion, and who, in my opinion, acts more out of economic interests rather than health interest or even science interests, often insist that blood transfusions are vital when required. But the facts, as I see them, do not always support that assertion and more often than not, do not support that assertion. Often, blood is infused as a matter of routine or caution, "just in case." In fact, it is my opinion that most of the time, transfusions are carried out to make money. Anything they can sell you, they will, even if you do not really need it. It's just more money to make.

And let me assure you, while blood is often donated or bought at a modest price for a pint, it is sold for a steep mark-up with considerable profit made on blood, whether paid for or donated. It is not a non-profit item by any means. It is big money and big business, as I see it. And for those who do not believe the medical industry is profit oriented and cares little for you health, I do not care if I convince you or not. My opinion is that you are walking around with your head in the clouds and you can stay that way for all I care. Wake up and smell the coffee!

Or visit the Life Extension Foundation website ( www.lef.org ) and see the many scandals involving medical practice, lack of scientific consideration and the FDA's atrocious behavior, which again, has little to no basis in science or sound methodology, and has a lot to do with political corruption and being in bed with the pharmaceutical industry, serving their interests instead of the people of the USA and of science interests.

So let us look at the scientific facts. I think you will be amazed. I want to point out again, that many of these facts I will present with support, were pointed out in the early 1980's and disbelieved or disregarded. Only now are they being more readily admitted.



What Science Really Says
Back to Top

The most important factor when large amounts of blood are lost is to just maintain fluid volume within the circulatory system. Nutrients and other chemicals needed by the body need a good volume of fluid which can dissolve and carry those things to the body through the blood. Low volume of liquid means not a lot of nourishment can be carried or delivered. This is especially so with oxygen. There is the added danger that the circulatory system could collapse if there is not enough liquid volume to keep the system inflated and under pressure. The heart supplies the pressure of the liquid if there is enough. And as we all know, blood is that liquid which accomplishes volume, nutrients, and pressure. Red blood cells, while perhaps being the most common agent in blood and the agent which gives blood its red color, are far from being the only thing in blood.

But since red blood cells carry oxygen, the most vital and important element carried in our blood, keeping our body respirated and replenished with life giving oxygen at all times throughout our bodies, this is a function we would like to maintain at reasonable levels. But, let it be clear, of the two needs, volume and oxygen, the volume is the most important in order to achieve the other. Without volume, adequate oxygen can not be delivered or supplied, no matter what.

So I will point out that there have been many blood substitutes available for many years. Ringer's lactate, or even simple saline solution are two such examples available in the 1970's and maybe even earlier. These can supply plenty of volume and as a result, pressure is restored. They can carry some oxygen as well, though certainly not nearly as much as whole active blood will in its normal capacity. This has always been offered as an objection to using such substitutes. They emphasize the oxygen ability but as I pointed out, it is not the primary danger in low blood volume.

But here is what doctors and the AMA don't readily admit. Transfused blood, originally refrigerated or frozen, takes about 24 hours to become fully operational in regards to carrying and exchanging oxygen. So in the first hours of infusing blood, it remains virtually useless as an oxygen carrier. So the only thing it accomplishes of a good or useful nature is as a volume expander. So why not use substitutes since they do no worse, in that respect?

I should point out that oxygen can still be supplied at some level, though not at full capacity as with good blood. But the body works very quickly to restore a good deal of blood cells, responding in emergency fashion in order to recover quickly and then worry about restoring reserves later. Adding pure oxygen to a patient's air supply also helps as well as putting the patient in a pressurized air chamber. There are elements in many blood substitutes of the 1980's that carried modest amounts of oxygen, enough to be adequate in most emergency situations. Oxygen carrying was not a major obstacle.

But again, the point was that blood did not expand such capacity at all since it was not functional for quite some time. And in emergencies, the first few hours are by far, the most critical. Once past those, and nothing was better at getting past those than blood subs, not blood, then the patient would be much better off. If blood represented no risk of danger, it might be OK. But if it does present risks and dangers, it certainly would be better to avoid, given that it does no better than substitutes in the first few hours of injury and crisis. I might point out that substitutes which carried some oxygen were actually better than blood in the first hours of transfusion.

Now not only was blood not useful in the first few hours, it was and is, actually very dangerous. I know you doubt and don't believe me so note what Discover magazine had to report and admit in its July 2002 issue, pg. It seems that blood is an immune suppressant/depressant and causes immune stress reactions, any of which can be quite deadly and at the very least, be an aggravant. Why introduce that which is almost certain, at least at a mild level, to be harmful. That has never been explained or answered by the medical establishment. Blood subs do not cause any such reactions or present any such dangers. Really, when one considers the positive benefits of each choice, blood subs become the far more logical and desirable choice for any rational, well informed person. Now lets discuss some of those immune reactions from Discover magazine.

Discover Magazine July 2002 issue, "The Chemistry of . . . Blood"

The first example of a transfusion gone bad was of a lady whose body was destroying the red blood cells in her body as if they were bacterial invaders or something. Blood was not a solution here. Imagine that! Due to the serious immune reactions in her body and its nullifying any attempt to improve her situation, they decided there was no alternative but to try a new experimental blood sub called "Hemopure." It worked and saved her life.

The article points out well known risks from blood such as contamination by viruses, bacteria, and other such vermin, as well as even the possibility of giving the wrong type of blood to someone. They did not mention here but it is also a fact that many of the different factors in blood, co-factors such as Rh and others, can also cause antibody reactions or other types of attack response and stress. But note the next quote. "Less well-known is that transfusions often suppress the immune system as powerfully as a dose of cyclosporine."

Cyclosporine is given to organ transplant recipients. It depresses the immune system substantially so that the body does not attack or reject the organ. And even then, it does not fully suppress the immune system and patients can still react to these organs, which to the body, seem like foreign invaders that must be destroyed. This obviously affects the patient in many negative ways but is still better than not having a functioning organ so they put up with the side effects of a permanently depressed immune system and response and all that goes with it. Now if cyclosporine despresses the immune system, and blood is like cyclosporine, then what is obvious? Blood from others can depress the immune system substantially. The worst part about this is that in an emergency where open wounds, surgery, bleeding, and the like are all likely, any depression of the immune system could make one especially susceptible to infection and hinder the ability to fight it off once infected. Not what you need in an emergency, I assure you.

I think you need to see the exact quote here to believe what is next printed in Discover:

"Even something as mundane as an allergic response can cause disaster. "I've had people die after heart surgery just from a simple allergy," says Bruce Spiess, an anesthesiologist at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond who has been involved in tests of nearly all recent blood substitutes. "Blood donation is an organ transplant, and it's not to be taken lightly.""

I assure you that as a former member of the JWs, I was well aware of the many problems JWs had when they needed an operation and made it clear to their doctor that they would not accept blood. It was a fight and struggle to say the least. Often, doctors would seek court actions for force JWs to take blood for themselves or their children or unconscious relatives. And not one of those doctors ever admitted the quote in the preceding paragraph. If they did, the courts would never have gone along with the doctors at any time. Doctors were very reluctant if not quite unwilling to ever admit any problems with blood while I was a JW in the 80's.

These immune reactions and allergic reactions can kill! "It's not to be taken lightly," the doctor says. Well, that's odd because lightly is exactly how they took it when JWs would point out the dangers. Actually, some of the stuff I used to point out was even missing among JW presentations. But it was routinely ignored by the medical establishment. I think that comparing blood to an organ transplant is very appropriate and made by a doctor, not me. Obviously, this is a doctor guided by scientific facts and not economic considerations.

Still, they say their biggest concern is the limited blood supply available to needy patients. And blood contamination is still very much a concern with the FDA. In my opinion, little has been done in many years to improve that situation at all and contamination is not as uncommon as they would like you to believe, in my opinion, given what I have read but did not note at the time of reading so as to be able to give you a source. I believe CBS' 60 Minutes has done an analysis of the dangers on it. Since the days of AIDS, the situation has not improved much.

According to Discover: "the trip from lab to hospital has been anything but smooth, featuring plenty of dead ends and more than a few deaths." Comforting, isn't it? The article does not cover the blood subs of the past that have been around sometime. Those are still evidently looked down upon. Could it be because they are so simple, chemical wise, that no one could justify charging much of anything for them? Not much money there!

Now in the past, operations were performed with what I will call a little bit of sloppiness. Just cut, slash, and gash freely and just pour lots of transfused blood through them. It was the easy way of doing things. By 1980, they had developed a more refined operational procedure which they called bloodless surgery, whereby they would be very careful to seal up everywhere where they had cut or made an incision so as to minimize blood loss and the need for extra blood as a result. So more refined surgical techniques improved options for JWs and then for everyone, for that matter.

I want you to pay very careful attention to the last sentence of the paragraph I am about to quote. It is speaking of the many new experimental blood subs being looked into or experimented with. I will boldface the important part:

"Even if the FDA isn't satisfied with the manufacturer's proposal, it's clear that the drive to develop some sort of blood substitute won't be blocked for long. Scientists are too excited by the potential of artificial blood and by the fact that all the blood substitutes beat the real thing by some measure."

Did you see that??? Let me quote it one more time: "all the blood substitutes beat the real thing by some measure." I do not know if they are including past subs (it does sound like they are), but even if they are not, that statement is amazing compared to the crap JWs used to get from the medical establishment some 25 years ago. They openly admit that subs are better than real blood. Are you listening?! Don't let your doctor lie to you. Blood subs are better! That is not just my opinion, it is the statement of a doctor and a science magazine.

So when you refuse that blood transfusion, you are not only obeying God, you are likely choosing the better, safer, more effective alternative to saving your current life as well. That is what real science seems to be revealing.

"'These products are not like blood,' says hematologist Robert Winslow, whose company in San Diego, Sangart, is developing a next-generation blood substitute. 'They're different, and in many ways they're better.'"

They point out that the first initial hour or two, perhaps on the way to the hospital while in the ambulance, may be the most important time, when quick injections of oxygen are what is most important and blood subs might offer a better solution, certainly better than blood would at that point. Isn't that what I said a few paragraphs back?

"Someday, blood transfusion is going to become an antiquated procedure. I'm sure of that." Dr. Winslow.

Well, allow me to add to that. My opinion, based on all the evidence, past and present, is that transfusions had always been antiquated and the lesser of other alternatives. The article early on pointed out that some had died from immune reactions or the wrong blood type given. But this statement is misleading. While statistics give credit for cause of death to many causes, very few would ever be attributed to blood transfusions. Of the few where blood was the obvious culprit, there were and are many more deaths that almost certainly could have been cause by blood reactions and simply ignored or given some other cause as the reason for death.

A death as a result of severe injury/trauma or severely progressed disease would be attributed to those severe conditions. But if those who died had received transfusions as part of the treatment before dying, would the doctors know if reactions to the blood had actually been the trigger that caused that death? They likely would have no way of determining that. But given what has been revealed here, it is very much a reasonable possibility that blood transfusions could have contributed to numerous deaths, due to the stress they caused while a patient was in critical condition. It is just that we have no way to be sure. Do you feel luck today?

Many deaths in hospitals are attributed to infection. How much did blood reactions contribute to these overall adverse reactions? Again, we have no way of knowing for sure but given that blood is routinely administered, the possibility, even the likelihood, is quite high. It could be the greatest scandal of many years in medicine. But this is not likely to be a area they will ever explore or study. Why dig up controversy and hurt your credibility when you don't need to, right? That is the problem. But given the facts, avoiding blood transfusions could be a very wise decision and perhaps the safest and most cautious choice in health situations that are deemed critical.

To accept blood is to take risk, a fairly likely risk. Only gamblers and risk takers would engage in such behaviors and choices as I see it. And for Christians, there is the other consideration. Does God allow us the use of other people's blood to sustain us in some way or any way? Give that risk factor as well, Christians might do well to play it double safe and avoid any use of blood other than their own.



Skeletons in the Closet
Back to Top

I thought I would point out a few other dirty little secrets of the medical establishment. Lets look at hermaphrodites. These are people who were born with genitalia that either were hidden or indistinct, possibly having formed both male and female aspects. Doctors happily decided for the parents and new borns, that this situation just simply had to be corrected, of course, implying that something was wrong or defective. Well, it certainly was not a normal development, but the organs likely functioned without problems.

Doctors give the excuse that parents are confused and do not know how to treat the child without a definite gender. They are or get confused. I dispute this as do those who were born hermaphrodites and their parents. But many parents are told (practically ordered) that such an operation is "needed" or "necessary." The parents assume they are being told the truth and therefore, go along with it. They are not made aware that the operation is unnecessary from a physical medical standpoint and absolutely will be harmful as the body will try to correct the initial surgeries made to "correct" the so-called defect.

In most hermaphrodites, doctors saw the easiest solution was to eliminate the enlarged clitoris or underdeveloped non-functional penis, depending on your point of view and make the child into a girl. But the body reacted to their cutting surgery as if it was an injury and would try to repair what it had started with. Operations would have to keep on being performed every few years as the body tried to undo the doctors' injuries. Of course, that was a good moneymaker for the surgeons, coincidentally.

But those deformed genitalia contained sensitive nerve endings that allowed the developing human being to be able to experience some sort of sexual stimulation and pleasure, had they been allowed to keep what God had allowed to befall them. But doctors, playing God, decided to rob them of what God had granted. Problem is, outward changes in the body do not change the inner psychic functioning, brain wiring and organization, behavior, and desire that lies in the brain for its origin.

These now adult people are very upset that doctors made such decisions for them and the way the victims, and that is clearly what the are, see it, the doctors committed acts of atrocity, for which I fully agree. They are unable to receive most forms of sexual stimulation we all take for granted. In addition, they often do not feel comfortable or happy with the gender roles and the behavior that is expected from others as a result of that gender association. There is now a move to stop these senseless atrocities, done supposedly for the poor defective baby and its parents. These patients suffer great psychological damage and confusion from not being able to develop without doctors and society telling them how they ought to think, feel, and behave. They usually require lots of therapy. The operations are unnecessary and not appreciated by the recipients. In fact, they are quite angry about it as they should be.

The doctor's creed is supposed to be: First, do no harm. 2nd, if possible, do some good. Not only do they seem to be doing no good, those who consider themselves victims believe they have been done very serious harm. So much for doctor's creeds. I also am of the opinion that blood transfusions are more harmful than the alternatives. Here again, harm would seem to be preferable to good. Is it good reasoning or science? It does not look like that to me.

Oh, how about Siamese twins? Doctors routinely insist that the twins must separated or they will die young. Really??? Freak shows had Siamese twins that lived well into their 40's and 50's if not longer. So why do doctors say they die young? What I can tell you about every case I have heard about in the last 25 years is that at least one twin always dies after the operation. Sometimes both die. And before every operation, the doctors are always confident they can save both. And they always fail. Let's call it "unbridled optimism" without supporting data on their part. In fact, the data are contradicting.

Facts are that one twin always seems to die. Often, both die. And for those not surgically separated, they often live to considerable ages. As for the living twin of those separated, we have yet to see it they live much longer than they would have if the other twin had remained. And for the one that remains, many more doctor visits and some surgery are almost certain, resulting from the complications of separation. Their life spans are by no means assured of surviving any longer than they would have if remaining with the other twin connected.

But according to the "1st do not harm" philosophy, the doctors might do well to live up to their oath instead of constantly violating it. But they sure do make a lot of money! Medical and surgical intervention should only be done if there is a major crisis at hand where death is likely in the very near future, which absolutely can not be said or justified in the case of Siamese twins.

So here are a couple more obvious examples where doctors are not led by the facts or "science" but are merely following an agenda that might suggest to some that profit was the only motive that is readily apparent, to explain the contradiction in actions and their very own creed/oath.



Blood Products?
Back to Top

What about things made from blood.? I wish I had easy answers but I will ultimately have to leave this one to conscience. Many drugs and other such substances derived either from human or animal blood or urine. The urine is fine. But the blood might be a problem for really, we do not have any permission to use blood for anything other than its symbolic use in a sacrifice that is no longer performed. We are only told in Acts 15 to continue to abstain from it.

Now those things extracted could hardly be said to constitute blood. If I remove hormones from blood, can they be said to be blood? I think not. They are hormones. But what is blood, but a whole host of substances that help sustain life. God does not define blood as any particular substance. That certain substances are isolated, does that let us off the hook? I would be a Pharisee if I could give you a definitive answer. There could be reason to be concerned. Though what was taken out of blood is no longer blood by itself, it definitely came from blood. Blood was used to obtain it and can we use blood for something, anything, other than pouring it out on the ground?

It is easy to make light and say one is splitting hairs or straining gnats. Maybe! Some see life being helped or saved as permission to accept blood by products. In the end, given a lack of clear definition, I would let each Christian decide for themselves.

But ask yourself, is it worth a gamble with your life to ignore a very clear command that could have a lot of implications? To abstain from blood (Acts 15) is a pretty broad command. Given that fact, I can not accept products knowingly derived from blood.

Did you catch that word, "knowingly?" Remember what Paul said about eating meat with non-Christians? Do not inquire but eat in faith. I covered this in my "Conscience" article. If a doctor prescribes a drug, you need not ask how it was made or where it derived from. If by some chance, it is revealed by your doctor or you read about it somewhere that it comes from blood, then you could obstain if you feel you must.

But many things that come from blood can also be derived from elsewhere. Hormones can be extracted from blood or urine. In general, few people have any idea where things come from. Really, it is the whole blood that is objectionable. However, may I point out that it is not we who used the blood to make the drugs. Someone else, a drug company, did. I can not be responsible for what others do. But what comes to me as a final product is clearly not blood, even if taken from blood. Really, this is not an unreasonable or objectionable view.

So in the end, do as you see fit. But remember that if there is even the slightest doubt about whether it is OK or not, then your conscience is not out of faith. You have a doubt and should not ignore that, according to James and Paul.

James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being driven by wind and being tossed; 7 for do not let that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord.

1Corinthians 10:28 But if anyone tells you, This is slain in sacrifice to idols, do not eat, because of that one pointing it out, and the conscience; for "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness of it." [Psalm 24:1]

1Timothy 1:5 but the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience, and faith not pretended.

But if you are fully resolved and without doubt, you might be in the clear. What about blood tests, you ask? A friend brought it up and it is rather interesting. Is examining blood a violation of God's law? Well, the first argument offered is that it is used to diagnose problems and perhaps heal people, and those are very noble causes, for sure. But again, a good purpose does not mean it is OK. The question is, is examining the contents of blood the same as eating blood? My reply? It would not seem so. The blood is not consumed in any way by anyone. And it is returned to the ground, so to speak, after being measured. It is disposed of. On the way, it is examined to see how much of various elements are contained in it to know the status of your health. I do not see this as any violation as the blood is essentially treated as God requires. If someone thinks they can refute this, I will be glad to consider it.

What about kidney dialysis machines and the blood that goes through them? Well, we all have a right to use our own blood. That is kind of obvious, isn't it? God gave our blood to us to keep us alive. That blood contains our life and can sustain our life. So if it goes out of our body only temporarily to be cleaned, we are only receiving back what is rightfully ours to begin with. I do not see God's law being violated here. The same would go for what they call blood storage whereby a person going in for an operation would, ahead of time, store some of their own blood which would be used during the operation, reintroduced into their bodies. They are receiving back what is theirs to begin with. Their blood is their own and they commit no sin for using their blood. It is theirs to have and keep, given to them by God.

The problem with using other people's blood is that it is not your own. It symbolized the life of another person and can not be consumed for any purpose, not just ritual purposes. The prohibition applied to all people everywhere in every situation. Even priests could not eat it for any reason, or use it in anyway other than prescribed ritual use commanded by God. If it is not ours, then we are not entitled to it. God gave each of us our own unique blood, which has our life in it, so to speak, and we must respect that and what it symbolizes. It is uniquely ours, given to us by God. Not surprisingly, modern science has revealed in just what ways they are that we and our lives are unique, genetically speaking.

This brings up another interesting point. Transplants. Body part transplants. Are they OK? Well, it must be admitted that the Bible never actually said anything on the matter. There may be principles that could apply but no one can say for sure. There are things to consider which I cover in an article specific to that topic alone. For me, it is wrong. But I can only make that choice or requirement for myself. It is purely a matter of individual conscience as far as I am concerned. Given that cannibalism is wrong, one might want to give it a little more thought, though. And with blood also considered, maybe more so. If our life, possibly indicating our unique genetic individuality, is in the blood, how much more so the rest of us.



Ever Changing Boundaries
Back to Top

Modern medical techniques certainly push our boundaries to the limits. Not too long ago, it was considered quite wrong to examine dead bodies. It was a desecration and a sacrilege. We have changed out views since then, have we not? Why or why not? Do you know why we thought it was wrong to begin with or why we think it is now right?

Some consider abortion to be murder. I question that assertion. How do we determine if it is life or murder? Short dresses are acceptable to many now in public. Women can also wear pants now. Why was it not OK before and yet OK now? Do you know? Slavery was prescribed and regulated by God and yet it was a country full of Christians in the USA in 1861-1865 that killed each other to the number of 650,000 over whether slavery was OK or not?

Some Christians, though small in comparison to the larger collection of those who claim that name, think war is wrong. Yet many others gladly fight and kill anyone, including other Christians, if their political views differ. Girls marrying at 12-17 was considered quite acceptable and proper at one time. It sure isn't that way now! Really, we have so many views and ideas that have undergone radical change in the last 150 years. The question is, why did they all change? Some might be understandable, but many have been changes clearly not in harmony with what God has established.

Medicine in one of those areas where morality seems to have been removed or at least changed according to how they want to define it. For instance, alcoholism or addiction used to be considered moral failures. Now it is not their fault nor a moral slip. It is a disease. They have been relieved or any personal choice or responsibility. But is that what God says?

There was a time in the Victorian age of the USA when doctors determined that "hysterical women" were to be treated by having their clitoral area "massaged" or "manipulated" in order to relieve the hysteria. This was and is the equivalent of a man going in and having his genitals "manipulated." Whether man or woman, clearly this is basically a form of prostitution and sex. It was called medical treatment once upon a time.

Even today, we have what they called in psychology/psychiatry, a sex therapist. Really, it is just a clinical excuse for prostitution. Whether healthy and/or effective or not, it is not allowed by God, who still defines it as a moral thing to be avoided. We excuse all sorts of shocking things in the medical and psychiatric professions and they are OK because they are "treatment" approved by a "doctor."

Well, God is the only doctor I know that can forbid or excuse a practice or treatment. And He says prostitution, by whatever name you give it, is still wrong. And it is quite possible that He would say the same thing about the use of blood and organs of others. Whether something if OK or not is not the decision or right of a doctor for a Christian. Only God need be considered in whether something is OK or not.

You have been given a number of things to consider. Give them a lot of thought. Do not easily or quickly dismiss them. Talk about them with other Christians who seem fair and reasonable. See if they can think of any scriptures or anything else that might illuminate more on this subject. In the end, only you can decide what is right or wrong. You should not be overly influenced or pressured by your peers, your brothers and sisters in the faith. It is you only who will answer to God for what you did, good or bad. Just make sure when you go before Him that you have given it lots of effort in thought and soul searching, things which He requires if you are to be excused by your conscience.



Fat in the Bible
Back to Top

I only recently became aware of the prohibitions against the fat of some animals and what that might mean. It was a shock that for as long as I had known the Bible, I was not aware of any restrictions on fat. But there are some. What is most interesting is how it contrasts with blood, in that fat, while some types of it are prohibited to God's people, are not prohibited to the priests, as is the case with some other things such as the symbolic offerings of food in the temple. In fact, the priests also did not observe or keep the Sabbath, either. How's that for those who say the Sabbath is forever?

But in contrast, blood is prohibited to all, including the priests, except to pour out around the altar. So I now present the regulations on fat to further reveal the law to us all and maybe shed some more light on blood and the Sabbath as well. Since the scriptures play such a prominent role here, my comments will be [{in brackets and color from here on in till this section is done.}]

Leviticus 3:
16 And the priest shall burn them as incense on the altar, bread of the fire offering for a soothing fragrance; all the fat is Jehovah's.
17 It shall be a never ending statute for your generations in all your dwellings. You shall not eat any fat or any blood.

[{This is addressing all of God's people in the law. We know about the blood, but the fat is new and a little different, though that is not apparent here. It will be in scriptures coming up. But for now, fat would appear to be off limits.}]

Leviticus 7:23 Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, You shall not eat any fat of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.

Leviticus 7:24 And the fat of a dead body, and the fat of a thing torn may be used for any work, but you certainly shall not eat it;

Leviticus 7:25 for whoever eats the fat of the animal, of which one brings near a fire offering to Jehovah, even the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.

[{The wording is subtle, but already there are some amendments. 3 specific animals are mentioned. These animals were exclusively used in a fire offering and the only 3 allowed for this purpose. But Israel could eat other animals as we shall see and these do not have this prohibition. But do note that while dead (for whatever reason) or partially eaten carcasses of animals, killed by other animals, could not be eaten for food, their fat, which also could not be eaten, could be used for other purposed, such as fuel for lamps, or for lubrication, or things like that. So now we are allowed some use of fat at this point on certain animals.}]

Deuteronomy 14:4 These are the animals which you shall eat: the ox, the flocked sheep, and the flocked goat,

[{Again, these 3 are used in sacrifice and more carefully regulated, but there are other animals as we shall next see that can be eaten and they are not as regulated as we shall later come to realize.}]

Deuteronomy 14:5 the hart and gazelle, and roe deer, and wild goat, and antelope, and oryx, and moufflon.

[{These are mentioned but there is no prohibition offered on eating the fat in these animals. Do you see any?}]

Deuteronomy 14:
6 And you may eat every animal that divides the hoof, and divides two hoofs wholly, and chews the cud among the animals.
7 But you shall not eat of those that only chew the cud, or those only dividing the cloven hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rock badger; for they chew the cud but do not divide the hoof. They shall be unclean to you.
8 And the swine, because it divides the hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean to you. You shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead body.

[{Some animals are not allowed to be eaten if one wanted to remain ceremonially clean. They were avoided by Israel. Early 2nd and 3rd century Christian writers offered some significance as to why these dietary laws existed. Justin of the 2nd century in his "Against Trypho" which I link to in my "Law" series in the "Heresies" page. Justin's was the best work on this in my opinion.

The next account deals with offerings made by the priests of the temple from the tithes, the 10th of all Israel's produce that was to be given to the Levites, as a sort of tax to support the priesthood and temple as God commanded. The part we will focus on is in verse 29 onward.}]

Leviticus 18:
25 And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying,
26 And you shall say to the Levites; and you shall speak to them, When you take the tithe from the sons of Israel, which I have given to you from them, for your inheritance, then you shall lift from it a heave offering of Jehovah, a tithe of the tithe.
27 And your heave offering shall be counted to you as grain from the threshing floor, and as fullness from the winepress.
28 So you also shall lift up the heave offering of Jehovah from all your tithes which you receive from the sons of Israel. And you shall give from it the heave offering of Jehovah to Aaron the priest.
29 You shall lift up the whole heave offering of Jehovah out of all your gifts, out of all its fat, its holy part, out of it.
30 And you shall say to them, When you lift up its fat out of it, then it shall be counted to the Levites as increase of a threshing floor, and as increase of a winepress.
31 And you shall eat it in every place, you and your households, for it is your reward in return for your service in the tabernacle of the congregation.
32 And you shall bear no sin because of it, since you have lifted up from it the best of it. And you shall not profaned the holy things of the sons of Israel so that you may not die.

[{Well, how about that?!!! The Levites can eat the fat, they and all their household. It is their reward, their salary for their service to God and to Israel. And in 32: "you shall bear no sin because of it." So the Levites are excepted and excluded from the prohibition on the fat of sacrifices. So fat is different from blood, for not even Levites can eat blood. Also be aware that Levites did not keep the Sabbath as Israel was require to do. Again, they had God exempting them from such requirements because the service of the temple was a holy function and holy things could still be done on the Sabbath, which was the point Jesus tried to make to the Pharisees but they would not listen.

God can exempt anyone from anything for God has the right to make whatever laws and rules, and exceptions to laws and rules, as He likes. That is His right as God and Creator.}]



Fat You Can Eat
Back to Top

Deuteronomy 15:
19 The firstling males that are born of your herd and of your flock, you shall sanctify to Jehovah your God. You shall do no work with the firstling of your ox, nor shear the firstling of your flock.
20 You shall eat it before Jehovah your God year by year in the place which Jehovah shall choose, you and your household.
21 And if there is any blemish in it, lameness, or blindness, or any evil blemish whatever, you shall not sacrifice it to Jehovah your God.
22 You shall eat it inside your gates; the unclean and the clean alike, as the gazelle and as the hart.
23 Only, you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it on the ground like water.

[{One can eat meat at home but certain animals in certain situations, such as the first born ox could only be sacrificed to Jehovah at His temple of His choosing, not anyone else's. Animals sacrificed to God could not be in any way defective. And never could anyone eat the blood as always.

Next we see two priests, Hophni and Phineas, sons of Eli the High Priest, disrespecting the ceremonial sacrifices given to them as a duty to God.}]

1 Samuel 2:
15 Yea, before they made the fat to smoke, then the priest's servant came in. And he said to the man who was sacrificing, Give meat to roast for the priest; and he will not take boiled meat from you, but raw.
16 And if the man said to him, Let the fat be made to smoke as the day, and then take as much as your soul desires; then he would say, No, but you shall give now. And if not, I will take it by force.

[{Eli's 2 sons were the priests of the temple, at that time in the form of a tent and they had no respect for God's sacred things assigned to them to perform. What is clear is that the people understood what was required and respected the ceremonies more than the 2 priests did. And Eli, though scolding them just a little, did not stop them. He should have had them stoned for not obeying their father or God. We note the burning of fat required and though not specifically mentioned here, the priests would also be entitled to that fat that was not burned off.}]

1 Samuel 2:29 Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at My offering which I commanded in My habitation? And why do you honor your sons above Me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of My people?

[{God asks Eli why he allows his sons to act against God, and take all the best of Israel as God has granted and not give proper honor to God. Good question. Just thought I would throw this in to show how we do not want to disrespect the symbols of God, no matter how trivial they might seem to us. They are not trivial to God or us. Though symbols, they are very important. Literally, our lives depend on keeping those symbols as evidence of our obedience.}]

Nehemiah 8:9 And Nehemiah the governor, and Ezra the priest, the scribe, and the Levites who taught the people, said to all the people, This day is holy to Jehovah your God. Do not mourn or weep, For all the people wept when they heard the words of the Law. 10 Then he said to them, Go eat the fat, and drink of the sweet, and send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared. For this day is holy to our Lord. And do not be sorry, for the joy of Jehovah is your stronghold.

[{Wait! Did you see what I saw? The leaders, Nehemiah and Ezra told the people to "eat the fat" among other things. But imagine you had only read Leviticus 3:17 where it forbids fat, seemingly to anyone? But when a variety of scriptures are considered, then we get the correct understanding and truth. Too many Christians like to take one scripture and base their interpretation on just that scripture. But this is neither honest nor accepted by God. We need to put effort into searching the scriptures so as to get the best result possible in order to please God and arrive at the truth as best as we can discern it.}]

Nehemiah 8:
11 And the Levites were silencing all the people, saying, Be quiet, for today is holy, and do not be grieved.
12 And all the people went to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words which were made known to them.

Psalm 81:16 Yea, He would have caused them to eat from the fat of the wheat; and I would have satisfied you with honey out of the rock.

Psalm 147:14 He makes peace in your border, He satisfies you with the fat of the wheat.

Isaiah 25:6 And Jehovah of Hosts shall make a feast of fat things for all the peoples in this mountain; a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, refined wine on the lees.

[{There is fat (oil) in grains like wheat. It is good fat. Fat things seem to be desirable in Isaiah's vision, and the fat full of marrow could only come from bones of animals, so fat is not prohibited except from certain animals and certain circumstances. Blood, on the other hand, is never OK, ever!}]

Ezekiel 34:3 You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you sacrifice the fat ones, and you do not feed the flock.

[{Bad shepherds who only look after themselves and cause themselves to feed and prosper while ignoring the flock. Note that fat is part of their luxurious diet, which comes at the expense of the flock.}]

Ezekiel 39:19 And you shall eat fat until satiated, and drink blood until drunkenness, of My sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you.

[{The birds are all invited to God's great sacrifice as He slaughters all His earthly enemies for the birds to feed on. The birds seem to be fond of fat as well. And they can eat blood, too. How bout that!}]

Ezekiel 44:15 But the priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the sons of Israel went astray from Me, they shall come near to Me to minister to Me. And they shall stand before Me to bring near to Me the fat and the blood, declares the Lord Jehovah.

[{While both fat and blood were symbols in God's worship, blood was obviously much more important. We note both here. I am going to end the color and brackets here}] and start with regular text again for my words. There, how's that?!



There seem to me to be several things that stand out in consideration of the law and of blood throughout the Bible. First, that some things prohibited to the people of Israel were not forbidden to the priests. Priests serving in the temple did not keep the Sabbath nor were they forbidden the fat of sacrifices. But blood was forbidden to all. It was only for God and His ceremonies, as a symbol of the blood that would be sacrificed for us by Jesus and belonging to God.

This makes blood a uniquely potent symbol and one that began well before Moses and the "law" and continue well after and will likely remain, even forever as a symbol of how we were redeemed so that we never forget.

Now for those who suggest that the Sabbath must be kept forever, I deal with the meaning of forever in my series on why we do not keep the law, which I link to at the end of this article. But what is so commonly missed is how the priests never kept the Sabbath but worked 7 days a week, 365 days a year, keeping the ceremonies to God without interruption. Again, God has the right to make any rules He likes and He can many any exceptions to those rules as well. The Sabbath has always been a relative law to benefit the people. The Levites were benefited by their constant service to God, which included maintaining all the writings and copies of the law and of those who claimed to be prophets.

But with the law eventually to be done away with, especially the temple and priesthood, a new covenant would be installed through Jesus by Jesus with a totally new situation whereby the nations would also be offered salvation. The Sabbath, along with every other ceremonial aspect, would be dissolved, except for one big symbol. That would be blood! Blood was repeated and carried over as its significance was just as big as before, something that could not be said about the other symbols and functions of the law like the temple or the priests.

Forgotten in all this by people today is that the prohibition on blood, symbolic of life given by God, precludes and prevents us from really doing very much with it. It belongs to God and not to men. It is returned to God when it is spilled.

Equally relevant is how this subject ties into the trinity doctrine of today. Blood, life, and death are all important aspects of how Jesus was to be defined while on earth. Some say he was God in absolutely every aspect, down to his very form of existence. But the Bible makes it clear that only the blood of a real man of flesh and blood, who had not sinned, could buy back and atone for the sin passed on to the offspring of Adam. A spirit could avoid pain, temptation, and certainly could not be killed by men. A spirit could not pay the sacrifice due to atone for sin.

I discuss these interesting aspects of Jesus needing to be flesh and blood only, and only fulfilling the role of "God" in certain aspects such as power, authority, and memory, but not as a literal spirit. The article addresses the idea of half God, half man and what ransom and atonement are all about. Prominently figured in all this is the understanding of the symbol of blood. We got the symbol down, not lets tackle the rest of that issue to see if we might not have to modify that trinity doctrine a little.

Check out the related articles on the subjects brought up here.


Related Articles

Half God, Half Man
Organ Transplants
Why We Don't Observe the Law!
About the Trinity



Back to Home/Index/Main Page/Directory/Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top