The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ

You are missing the point. The very fact that they were talking about a trinity means the teaching was in no wise Christian. That made them false teachers.

You can only be Christian if you teach what Christ and the Apostles taught.

The Apostles were already fighting against Apostasy, and it set in after the death of John because there was no one left with the authority to oppose it.

The fact remains that these ones were not Christians, and few have been since. Christianity only raised it's head above the waters with the group that eventually because Jehovah's witnesses.

Christianity is more than a label, it is a way of life and of living. Once you depart from that you cease to be a Christian, whatever you choose to call yourself.




The simple fact that it has never been a Christian teaching means that it could not have been known as one. Even the Apostate churches didn't accept it until the 4th century, even the catholic Church admit that.

Actually the following is quite an interesting passage from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, in more ways than one. I shall highlight the interesting bits.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

In the first highlighted passage you may notice that the third part of the trinity of Theophilus was not Holy Spirit, but Holy Wisdom.

I assume that is because of the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs, which actually describes the pre-mortal Christ rather than another person.

The second highlighted passage is quite a good contra argument. For the trinity to be true there has to be divine revelation, but that isn't possible according to that passage.



For it, about it, the point is that the fact that they were still arguing is evidence that it was not even an accepted doctrine in Apostate Christianity at that time. If it were accepted, there would have been no need to argue it's case.

QED as they say.




Well you are obviously welcome to consider them valid if you wish, but the fact, and I mean fact, remains that they aren't whatever you choose to believe. Belief does not change fact into lies or lies into fact.



No it is not based on interpretation. There is no need for interpretation, it is self evident for two reasons.

One is the simple fact that of the only two scriptures which appear to support the trinity one is known to have been added and the passage makes more sense without those few spurious lines.

The other scripture is self evidently false not only because of John's use of two different words for God thereby differentiating between the two beings, but also because to understand it the way the trinitarians do contradicts far too many sayings of both Christ and his Apostles to ever be true.

Those two reasons are unarguably true, no-one can deny the contradictions belief in the trinity brings in to bible teaching.



Of course you have an axe to grind, you have spent an awful lot of time grinding it on here.

As for your friends, by whose authority do they call themselves Christian? Certainly not by God's because they teach provably false things, and support pagan festivals such as Christmas and Easter.

Why do I say Easter is pagan? Well take a trip to the British Museum and look at a frieze on the wall there which depicts a procession to the Goddess Astarte (AKA Ishtar) and you will find priests carrying trays containing buns with crosses on. I have seen that frieze with my own eyes so I know beyond argument that it is so. Not only that, but the name Easter comes from Ishtar, who was a fertility Goddess whose rites included ritual sexual intercourse. Hence the fertility symbols used at Easter.

The fact the Christmas is a pagan celebration, introduced into the by them totally Apostate church by Pope Gregory the 4th to attract in pagan worshippers is a matter of historical record, as is the fact that the trinity teaching was not an official teaching until the 4th century when the Athanasian Creed was adopted.



Nor should you believe something to be true with which your conscience argues. For faith to be real it has to be bsed on evidence, and if you cannot accept that evidence then that is your choice.

The difference between you and I there is that I had already made up my mind about the basic teachings of the bible based on logical analysis of the text of the New Testament (New English Translation if I remember aright - it was my mothers, and only a pocket edition at that).

Not everyone's mind is truly logical. It requires an ability to be coldly analytical which most people cannot do. I have had that sort of mind science childhood, and again, that is what made me an engineer so in demand when I worked for IBM, and others afterwards.

I have to admit I would love to know what questions you felt they were unable to answer satisfactory, though judging by your demonstrated inability to understand what I am saying half the time I doubt I would do any better than they.

Mind you having said that you have also displayed an inability to understand exactly what has been said even by those that you use to support your own arguments so......................

No offense intended, but that is actually an amazingly dumb argument.

The fact that Christians were putting forth an apologetic for the trinity proves that the trinity is not Christian? I guess that makes sense to you... I am not sure how though.



Show me where Christ or the Apostles taught that Christ is or was Michael.



Well, it is true that the JWs (and Mormons) teach this. It is not true that this is a fact.



According to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Mormons claim the same, and Catholics claim also to be the only true church, as do the Exclusive Brethren, The Brethren and a host of others besides. This self affirmation is not a form of proof.



This is a limited form of truth, but it is true in so far as it goes. However, Christianity is predicated upon certain beliefs.



When did the rather bizarre claim that Christ was Michael first rear its head?

It is not taught by the Apostles, and Christ never said it.



So Christ is Christ, Michael, the Word and Wisdom?



Your second highlighted section says, in full: "It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence."

Ok...? Maybe you and I read that differently. It says that when the doctrine of revelation is no longer admitted, then, it follows that the doctrine of the trinity is rejected.

However, surely you are not now going to claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that divine revelation occurs?

If so, it is true that one can deny the trinity, I suppose (although in truth I would dispute this anyway on the grounds that there is ample reason to accept the deity of Christ). However, it is also true that no-one need accept that Christ is Michael either.

Follow the logic.

Jesus cannot be God, because he does not say that he is God (but again, this is false anyway, but we will leave that aside for now).

Jesus cannot be Michael, because he does not say he is Michael.



Again, a dumb argument. There were some that were arguing that Christ was a demiurge - or, a necessarily imperfect being.

There were some arguing that Christ was God.

There were some arguing that Christ was God, but was not the father.

There were some arguing that Christ was not God.

Some argue that Christ in dying for human sin, has paid the price for sin, and that salvation is by Grace, through faith.

Others argue that works are required as well as faith, in order to be saved.

And so on. That is, to say that a thing cannot be accepted Christian doctrine because it is argued about is true, but to say that it is therefore false, is wrong. People claiming to be Christian argue about all kinds of things.



Well, this runs counter to your argument somewhat. The JW beliefs are held to be true by virtue of them believe it.

That said, I agree with you that believing a thing does not make it true. I have in fact, said that many times.



I have already dealt with the theos/theon argument. One is the nominative noun, the other is the accusative. Do the research and find out about it.



Bollox. Not only is it possible to argue, but people in fact do argue about it. Us, for example.

It is correct that the trinity is not mentioned in the bible, however, neither are the JWs, Christ being Michael, or the JW belief that Christianity will cease to exist for several centuries until the Jehovah's Witnesses appear.

As to the Trinity causing problems, well, I am happy enough to discuss the trinity, however, for now, I am seeking first of all to show the deity of Christ - this is not the JW belief that Christ is God like, but that Christ is God.

Disbelieving this, creates a host of problems. For example, John and Paul (in Colossians) say all things were created through Christ. Unless Christ created himself, or, is uncreated, this statement is false.

That Jehovah (that is, God), appeared in human form and was seen by people, is evidenced in the fact that Adam, Eve, Sarah and Abraham all saw and spoke to Jehovah. The JW rebuttal that the being that was called Jehovah, spoke as Jehovah, and thought as Jehovah, was *not* Jehovah, is hardly convincing.

Also, the JW schema to me, appears untenable in light of Romans 8:9-11.

https://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ro/chapter_008.htm Romans 8:9 However, YOU are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in YOU. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this one does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in union with YOU, the body indeed is dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account of righteousness. 11 If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in YOU, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make YOUR mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in YOU.

Now apart from the fact that Paul speaks somewhat interchangeably of Christ's and God's spirit, he also speaks of the spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead.

Who is this talking about - that is, who is the "he" referred to in verse 11, where it says, "he that raised up Christ Jesus"? It seems pretty clear that it is talking about God, right? Paul seems to be saying that God raised Jesus from the dead. However, Jesus said that he would raise himself from the dead. https://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_002.htm John 2:19 In answer Jesus said to them: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 Therefore the Jews said: “This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was talking about the temple of his body.

Now, when Jesus prophesied that he would raise himself from the dead, was this a false prophecy? If Christ is not God, there is a contradiction in the statement at Romans 8:11, and Jesus prophesy in John 2:19.

Further, Christ says, in John 15:13 https://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_015.htm "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends." Now, Christ died for his friends, yet, according to JWs, God did not die for his friends (this in itself would be interesting to discuss, however, I seek to make a different point). Christ also says of himself in John 5:19 https://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/joh/chapter_005.htm Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner."

Can Christ commit a greater act of love than God on one hand, yet only do what the father does, on the other? One of these statements appears false if the JWs are correct.




And you don't? I suspect we are both prone to stubbornness, you and I.



By whose authority do you call yourself Christian? By whose authority does any JW call themselves Christian? Merely saying, I know I am a Christian because God told Mr. Russell that he is the faithful slave, is not sufficient proof.



Do they? I didn't know that you knew my friends.



I have never claimed anything about Christmas or Easter. As far as it goes with me and my friends, its relationship to paganism is irrelevant to us. I take it as opportunity to see family and friends, due to the extended nature of the holiday.

What we palpably do not do is dance around naked sacrificing goats or anything remotely like it.



And, as I have pointed out to you before, this is not evidence. I had a ridiculously old copy of the bible that had been in my family for generations. I used to read it because, even then, I was drawn to all things historical. And, God intrigued me. I came away from my reading with the view that Christ was God. So what?



People with autism or other similar things, can be remarkably logical when it comes to maths, but fail dismally when it comes to other forms of logic. Not all forms of logic are the same, and being good in one, is no guarantee of being good in another.

Also, if the basis from which one works is that, "I am right and everyone that disagrees with my views is automatically wrong," logical thinking is probably not their strong point.



Ignoring yet another slight on my intelligence, I will begin with my question regarding Jehovah appearing to Abraham, Adam, Sarah and Eve, when Jesus has said that no-one has seen the father.

My JW friend has not returned since I asked this, and, your response that it was not Jehovah but an angel, seems poor at best.



Well, I asked you to explain the quote from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, and so far, you have been unable to. Do you even understand it?

You appeared to argue that the JW version of the quote was not a deliberate and misleading distortion of the original. I strongly disagree, and argue that the JWs have deliberately distorted the meaning of the text through intentional, selective quoting (and I have also suggested that the fact they did not give the proper reference for the quote, probably shows on their part an attempt to cover it up).

The JW version is as follows: https://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm

“DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:... ‘At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings.’—Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.”

This says, quite clearly, the Trinity was not part of Christian faith. Pretty categorically too, I would have thought.

The full quote however, is somewhat different. https://4witness.org/jwysbt/ysbt_ch2.php#fn6a

"Economic and essential trinity.—(a) The transition from the Trinity of experience to the Trinity of dogma is describable in other terms as the transition from the economic or dispensational Trinity (tropoV apokaluyewV) to the essential, immanent, or ontological Trinity (tropoV uparxewV). At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings….It should be observed that there is no real cleavage or antithesis between the doctrines of the economic and the essential Trinity, and naturally so. The Triunity represents the effort to think out the Trinity, and so to afford it a reasonable basis.” —Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 12, p. 461

Note that not only do the critics of the JW position provide the whole quote, they also give the proper reference, so people can see for themselves.

The JWs have distorted the meaning of this text through selective quoting, such that they make the text argue the opposite of what it says in the original. This selective quoting to misrepresent is at best demonstrating a lack of integrity. Do you agree? Or, do you believe that the JWs have accurately quoted this text, and have not altered the meaning conveyed, by their selective quoting?

"Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter."

I am not sure how you read the sentence above, but I read it as saying what it says. They say that the trinity was unknown for centuries after biblical times. This is demonstrably false, as I have categorically shown.

As this quote appears at the end of a long line of quotes taken from the early church fathers, in a section entitled, "What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught" it is abundantly clear what the JWs mean. What they mean is, 'the trinity was not known for centuries after biblical times,' which, again, is false.

Now, as this text is written to oppose orthodox Christianity, it seems repellent to me that they would seek to oppose it through blatantly distorting the truth (that is, lying).

The absolute, very best that you could possibly say about this, is that the JWs lied by inference, in selectively quoting the church fathers to make it seem that they do not endorse the trinity doctrine. However, even that is false, as the JWs explicitly say that the trinity was not known "for several centuries." They are wrong. They either lied, or they are incompetent.

But, as I have said so often, and as you fail to address, biblical scholar Julius Mantey threatened legal action against the JWs for misquoting him by selectively quoting his work to make it appear as though he also did not support the trinity, when he absolutely does. He also legitimately protested that they used his work without permission. Not only did they lie, they also committed intellectual theft.

This demonstrates, at the very least, a significant lack of integrity on behalf of the JWs.

if you do.

Context is everything.

The JWs are there talking in terms of Christian belief therefore it is within Christian belief that they mean it was not known.

Ignore context at your peril because you will invariably be wrong



But the whole point, as the JWs are demonstrating is that the Ante-Nicean fathers were not Christian in thier teaching, therefore not Christian at all. You can only be Christian if yoou teach Christian things.

Again, context is all important.



No the text is not written to oppose "orthodox" Christianity, it is written to defend true Christianity against the false.

Christianity is Christianity. It is not what man says it to be, it is what God and Christ say it is, and no man has the right to change that. The Ante-Nicean fathers tried to do just that which puts them at enmity with God.

Therefore the JWs comment still stands. In the context of true Christian teachings the trinity was, and still is, unknown because it is a false teaching.

If you can't understand such a simple thing as the importance of context in an otherwise ambiguous language, then I pity you.

The scripture simply tells Christians to keep abstaining from blood.
JW's don't need the WTS telling them what that means and they certainly don't need to be threatened with disfellowshipping and shunning if they interpret the scripture differently than does the WTS.



I have no problem with the brotherhood. I have a problem with the WTS that thinks they have the right to impose their conscience on the brotherhood and threaten them with disfellowshipping and shunning if they don't dance to their tune.



Since the Bible has nothing to say about blood components, the WTS should simply let JW's decide for themselves based on their conscience what blood components they will accept. Do you have a problem with that? If so, spell out why.

Then there would be no point in having the Governing Body and Pharisees, who were condemned for "nit picking" and sticking to the letter of the law, like you would take over.



The Brotherhood thinks they do have the right to make the "rules" and kick anyone out of the club who refuses to stick to them, so you have a problem with the brotherhood.

No-one has the right to impose their own conscience on another, but the "committee" of any association has the right to expect people who wish to be a part of that organisation to stick to the rules and regulations of that organisation. No one is forced to join if they don't agree, and no-one should.

Apart from that Disfellowshipping is basically a last resort sanction designed, by the 1st century Christians under God's guidance, to ensure the safety of the rest of the Congregation. No-one is summarily disfellowshipped, even from breaking the law on blood use. There is a whole "counselling" routine to go through first. However if someone is not repentant then the Elders in the Congregation have no choice but to disfellowship.

Don't forget, I should know, I am disfellowshipped. I've been through the process, more than once in fact, for reasons I have no intention of going into.



They do let them decide which ones they wish not to use, but as with the 1st Century Governing Body, todays Governing Body were presented with requests for clarification and they acted on those requests prayerfully, and to the best of their ability. Why would anyone have the problem with that which you seem to do?

I don't doubt that, when the issue arose many Brothers and Sisters were, like me, opposed to the use of any blood component, for the very reasons you have stated before, however, like 1st Century Christians all who understand how things work accept that the Governing Body are there to do just that, govern. That's how the Christian Congregation worked in the 1st Century, that is how it works now.

They are not on this earth to control, they are here to guide, and they have done their best to remove hard and fast controls from as many things as they felt they dared, just as their 1st Century counterparts did, and still show full respect for Jehovah and His word.

They are not perfect, and they may have got things wrong at times, but out of respect for their intentions, and their love for God and the Brothers and Sisters I respect their decisions. I am sure God understands and accepts their imperfect efforts so why should I not do so? Why should anyone who respects God not do so?

Only a Pharisee would object.

So you are saying the JWs lie by inference then?

I can see that you appear to struggle with even simple concepts, so I will try to make this as easy to understand as I can, just to help you see what is already very obvious.

The Jehovah's Witnesses quote the early church fathers, and selectively quote them to make it look as though they do not support the notion of the trinity, and/or Christ being God.

But each of the early church fathers *does* support this very doctrine. Thus, the first lie of the Jehovah's Witnesses that is clearly demonstrated in just this pamphlet, is a lie of omission - that is, systematically quoting others in a way intended to misrepresent them, in order to deceive. But, as we will see below, the deception goes much further.



This is, on your behalf, magic, I have to say.

And, completely false. The Ante-Nicene fathers are discussed by the JWs just after the section entitled "Taught by early Christians?"

The section dealing with the teaching of the early Christians, provides quotes from actual scholars, that appear to support the JW position. I only checked one, and, unsurprisingly the JWs had misquoted their source. But anyway...

After this section on the early Christians, the JWs *then* quote the early church fathers. As we have shown, the JWs not only lie through selective misquoting, but here, they lie by inference, making it appear to the unwary, as though the ante-Nicene fathers, are considered Christian by the JWs. The JWs do not imply, let alone state explicitly, that the early church fathers are not 'Christian'. What they *do* imply, however, is that they are 'Christian in the JW sense' and that they deny the trinity.

This is false on a couple of counts.
1. The JWs are not using the term Christian in a way that is considered legitimate.
2. The early church fathers support nothing of JW doctrine.
3. The early church fathers are correctly considered Christian.
4. Jehovah's Witnesses are correctly considered a non-Christian cult.



Technically, the brochure is written to defend Arianism against orthodox Christianity. You might like to claim words and use them to mean whatever you like, but, when you do not qualify what you mean by those terms, it leads to a lot of confusion, and assists in the telling of lies such as the JWs are guilty of herein.



True. And Arianism is Arianism. You are trying to argue that Christian is Arian.



See, just because you assert a thing, does not make it so. You have provided nothing other than self assertion to back the JW claim to be *the* 'one true church.'



But again, as I have shown yet again here, that is not the way that the text is written. That is not what the JWs are *actually* saying.

I know that the JWs do not have too many educated people on board, but surely, even you can see that using words in a way that is not generally accepted, so that it deceives people, is deception - lying by inference at the very least. This is a method of argumentation that lacks credibility. The entire brochure, I would think, is aimed at young or nominal Christians, more than any one else. This makes the inferential lies even worse.

However, the JW argument is not just inferential lies, is it? It is outright fraud when it involves misquoting others, and, it is theft when it involves using (or rather, abusing) those quotes without gaining proper permission (and, the fact that the JWs misquote people, and then do not provide the necessary references to allow people to check them, makes it pretty clear that the misquotes are by design).

Is lying, deliberate deception, theft and fraud really a good way for "Christians" to argue their position?



That's how I feel about the JW supporters to be honest. They have no understanding of context when it comes to the bible. If they did, they would flee the JWs.

This topic should be called:

"WHOEVER WRITES THE LONGEST RESPONSE WITH THE MOST INANE EXPLANATION OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE WINS"

The WTS has no right to impose rules and regulations that are not based on the Bible. The Bible says nothing about blood components.



There is no need for any JW to be repentant over taking any blood component because the Bible doesn't forbid the taking of any blood component. When the WTS disfellowships someone for taking certain blood components they are going beyond scripture.



But they don't let JW's decide what blood components they want to use. There are four blood components that JW's are not allowed to take. Doing so is a disfellowshipping offense. There is no Biblical basis to forbid anyone from taking any blood component and therefore no basis to disfellowship anyone for taking any blood component.




Guidence based on the Bible is good. Guidence based on personal opinion is not good. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for the WTS to forbid any blood component and so far you have provided none.

You rally don't get it do you? It is based on bible precedent. The Pharisees condemnation of the people for bringing relatives to him to be healed on a Sabbath was based on law, but it ignored the principles of mercy. You are doing exactly the same, and if the Governing Body had been so hide bound so would they have.

Still, keep it up, because you make the Governing Body look better every time I have to reply, and your self look more and more like a Pharisee lol.



No they aren't because they are applying scriptural precedent and fulfilling the same role as the 1st Century Governing Body as scripture tells us their job was, interpreting those laws and not being so rigid that they become like the Pharisees.

Like I said, they aren't perfect, they may well have got it wrong, but Christ will appreciate what they have tried to do.

Maybe it should be, no blood or components at all, I certainly feel my conscience says that, but I will not, and have no more to, criticise the Governing Body for following bible precedent set by both Jesus and the 1st century Governing Body that immitated him also.



No, but they do let them decide which ones not to take,outside certain parameters. The biblical law, if you want to be Pharisaic about it is to take no blood components at all. They would be completely within the authority given them to say, no blood no way no how and disfellowship any who unrepentantly took any blood component at all, because whole blood would have had to be used to obtian it.

Their authority comes, as did that of the 1st Century Governing Body, comes from God not man.



What makes you think that they base their guidance on personal opinion? Do you know whether or not they would accept any blood component at all themselves? I am very confident indeed that they would not, but they have no intention of enforcing their conscience on others.

Just as another thought on the same subject. Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 10:23-31 "23 All things are lawful; but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful; but not all things build up. 24 Let each one keep seeking, not his own [advantage], but that of the other person.
25 Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. 28 But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? 30 If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks?
31 Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory."

Think on that.

Paul too would have been within his rights to say, do not eat it unless you know for certain that it contains no blood, or at least has been correctly killed and drained, but no, he didn't. He realised the almost complete impossibility of being sure what the source of the meat was, and so he said don;t worry on your account, let your conscience be easy, but worry about the conscience of others. If they know the source of the mat, or claim to, and say it has been sacrificed to idols or not drained properly then don't eat it. Don't trouble their consciences.

That is the principle the 1st Century and Modern Day Governing Bodies act on.

So you see there are a number of precedents for them acting as they do. All of which are biblical and therefore all of which are approved of by God.

You got it backwards. My position is exactly opposite of a Pharisee. I'm not advocating enforcing the letter of the law. I'm for ALL blood components being a conscience matter because the Bible says nothing about them. How in the world is that acting like a Pharisee? A real Pharisee would enforce the letter of the law and not allow any blood components. By your standard I'm less like a Pharisee and more merciful than the Governing Body, right? On the other hand, the GB acts even worse than a Pharisee. How so? They go further than enforcing the letter of the law and actually make up their own law! If a JW takes a transfusion of platelets they are viewed by the GB as commiting a disfellowshipping offense. Exactly what law have they broken? Certainly no law recorded in the Bible. What they are guilty of is breaking a Watchtower law. That's even worse than what the Pharisees did. They went overboard in enforcing the letter of the law but I don't recall them making up their own laws.



Big deal. Of course JW's are allowed to decide what blood components they don't want to take. Even the Governing Body isn't stupid enough to force JW's to take blood components against their will!



That would make more sense than the current policy of forbidding some blood components while allowing other blood components. Logic would dictate either forbidding ALL blood components or allowing ALL blood components. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that some blood components are forbidden while other blood components are a conscience matter.



I know the Governing Body views platelets as forbidden while allowing JW's to take hemoglobin. This has to be just their personal opinion because there is nothing in scripture that would guide one to make this determination. The GB considers taking platelets to be a disfellowshipping offense. So they do enforce their conscience on others.