To Karren

Mercelius 31st May 09 16:37
Happy birthday to you! I hope you are well. Have a nice trip! Eiko

Science makes everything possible

Thanks for posting and your regard. I appreciate that.
I think resurrection will take place eventually. I mean it's not impossible and it's not a matter of two or three years. It is a matter of tens of millions of light year in future.
Science will enable the dead to get a new life again. Science makes almost anything impossible possible. The the dead will be resurrected after tens of hundreds of years to come.
It's possible, but no one try to do so.

What's up?

Hi Tim..
I was wondering what you are doing.
I've been writing many personal letters and all are kept in my blog.
Sometimes visit my site. For example here http://mercedo-eve.blogspot.com/
I'm very glad you say you study hard.
Sincerely yours,
Mer

Aritificial blood

Hello good afternoon Br **..

Yeah I was supposed to wait your sending a reply for my first email. So sorry too.

>this decision was made by a group of older men

That's right, but that does not necessarily mean in 21c all Christians ought to follow.
Refrain from blood was commanded because still in early century blood was sometimes on the table. ( I read this description from 'Apologeticus' written by Tertullian (ca.155–230) or even if it were not on the table animal blood was used in idol worship. From such various point of view I guess blood needed to be kept away from Christian's mouth.

When we think about the meaning of command we must consider its background, context,etc. For example because Mose's law was repealed by the death of Jesus today's Christians no more try to follow Mosaic law. I guess old congregation leaders as St James couldn't realise the real meaning of the death of Jesus and said so just to ease the tension between Gentile and Jewish congregations. For example Jews don't baptise while Jesus did so though, let alone they must have thought they are different from Gentiles in treatment of blood.

Blood prohibition was appears three times in Bible. One is in Genesis and this command was given to Noah, and second was in Leviticus given to Israelites. the third one was in Acts. So many agree Old Covenant was replaced by New Covenant. Some say command given to Noah was not nullified by New Covenant so command given to Noah is still in effect.

Is that so? I'm afraid not. Jesus is greater than Moses, let alone than Adam, Noah. Since Jesus existed before the first man, I think we ought to put maximum significance on the Advent of Jesus in if we were Christians and that's the meaning of I though the Redemption.


I'm glad you take fractions of red, white blood cell, platelets, plasma, but are you originally doing so? or sometime after you decided not to accept blood transfusion you decided to accept such products derived from blood? Not sure.

Suppose you were banned to take milk instead. Do you insist powdered milk, condensed milk, milk candy, soft cream are OK since they are not milk but a product derived from milk? So if someone take red, while blood cell, platelets, plasma at the same time is it OK?


But aside from all what I wrote here, whether you take blood or not belongs to conscience of each individual Christians. In Acts we read Refrain from blood, whether it includes merely evading to use animal blood for sacrifice or too far to include blood related medicines as immunoglobulin, or blood transfusion in operation. It's up to us not up to other's decision. I merely believe if some Christians accepted blood transfusion you cannot blame they are a violator. I think so.


So my question this time is do you use artificial blood in need if it were invented some day in future?

Yes, I am now in :: and attending the meeting regularly as of 11th of April. I wish you were here, but let's resume Bible study on line! I appreciate your advice.

At second world war you refused to go to war and put into camps in Germany. It was very meaningful because war in general is against humanity, conscience of Christians. But how about the refusal of blood transfusion! That benefits who?

I say to myself.. This feeling is from my personal experience. He's dead in hope of resurrection. Probably resurrection will take place in millions of years in future time. But till then who cares?

See you in next email.

With Christian sincerity
Mer

So sorry

Hello good evening Br **..

Oh, you were still composing your thoughts about my first mail. Sorry, I was impatient and made you hurry.

As you say if Mosaic law was repealed in Christ death, that's what I pointed out about the meaning of Redemption.. but it seems this idea is not original..

Blood prohibition was mentioned three times that is in Genesis to Noah, Leviticus to Israelites, and the third one is to Gentiles in Acts.

Command given to Noah is not Mosaic law, that's why this law is not nullified by the Death of Jesus? Moses recorded a command given to Noah since he is the one who wrote the first book Genesis. Is there any difference between command given to Noah and Mosaic law? I don't think there is.

As to the description in Acts about it I read Catholic had already solved this matter in 1442 Session 11 of the Council of Florence.


So my main question is isn't blood prohibition nullified through the death of Jesus?

If not, what was the meaning of Redemption?

Please take your time as long as two weeks. I will send another email after that.


Best wishes,
Mer

Council of Florence 1442 Session 11

mercedo wrote today at 4:32 AM
> it's only Mosaic law that is rendered null and void by "the New Covenant".

I thought this is the meaning of redemption, but I guess many knew already..
However the fact is this is given to Noah.In 1442 in the council of Florence, session 11 as to Acts description this is interpreted as follows.

>It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.

So this is already settled in Catholic world.

As to the deference between order to Noah and Mosaic law, I don't think there's substantial difference since Pentateuch was thought to be written by Moses.

mercedo wrote today at 3:57 AM
Leviticus 7:22 -27 also prohibits having fat. This is much more practical in our times since it causes lots of diseases. I'm not sure if they follow.

Direct communication

mercedo wrote today at 10:54 PM
Hello from the screen!
Many don't think we have seen one another, but the fact is I feel as if I saw you and talked through the net every time I visited your site.
I spend many hours before the screen. Here's where I am.

Meaning of Redemption

Hello good morning Br **..

To have a good friend is far and foremost pleasurable for our life. I feel completely rejuvenated having chat with a couple of friends there in Kingdom Hall.

Religious freedom is more important than life itself. If Jehovah's Witnesses say no to transfusions we all have to pay deepest respect to their decision no matter what the basis of their decision might be. It is their solemn, own freedom. Freedom of faith, which is a right guaranteed by Constitutions.

So I leave it to them. And here's my thought.

As you pointed out no meat has been banned under New Testament. Likewise in my opinion, blood is now OK for humans to make the most of from every aspects as much as we can.

Let' s think about the symbolic meaning of Redemption. This idea is very unique in Christianity. Blood of humans from Adam had been made unclean by original sin, yet Jesus redeemed its sin in his death on the torture stake. So humans are now eligible to get access to eternal life if they really repent.

Blood was originally used in pagan traditions in ancient times and of course in modern times contaminated blood causes many fatal diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis.

However once it is used and applied in completely sterile states, transfusion has been saving tens of precious lives and many other blood related products such as plasma, globulin have been a key to cure for many diseases. Then all of a sudden we understand why Jesus compared wine to his blood.

Then we also agree with the claim that blood stands for life made by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Doctor prescribed immunoglobulin when I was likely to suffer from tetanus three years ago, which is made of blood.

I know my idea is over-interpretation of the meaning of Redemption, but I believe scientific truth and religious belief go with in the long run.


My wishes,

Mer

Shed light

tom sheepandgoats said...
Your post seems addressed to a specific person, yet it it on a public blog. So I'm not sure how to comment, for fear you might say "who asked you?".

So I will commment on an aspect of transfusions you haven't asked about.

The stand of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding transfusion is, ever so gradually, entering medical mainstream. For different reasons, of course, but it is still happening. For example, New Scientist magazine ran an article recently entitled "An Act of Faith in the Operating Room." The act of faith was not refraining from a transfusion. It was giving one. Details here:

http://tinyurl.com/6n9lvx

6:26 AM


Eiko Onoda said...
Thanks Tom.. I appreciate your link which sheds light on new aspect in my thought.

I think basically any literal work is meant for only one reader. Both personal letters and literature have same value on it.

Only for one reader, therefore we become serious.

8:42 AM

edit comment publish this comment

Hello good afternoon Br **..

I think I send one query per week since it takes at least one hour for you to reply. You have lots of responsibility over English congregation now, so please spare me one or two hour for me per week.

I hadn't noticed I was asking particularly about the matters in Torah, because Old Testament has much more volumes than Greek Scriptures I might seem to have asked more about Torah, but I hadn't noticed about it till I was remarked from you. ..OK.. I try to ask more about New Testament from now.

But first sorry my next query relates to both New and Old Testaments. It is about blood transfusion.

Jehovah's Witnesses is well-known for their refusal to participation in World War II first and later they came to be known by refusal to one of modern medical treatments - blood transfusion.

As I confessed many times I have carefully read all Scriptures both New and Old already and I found two parts Jehovah's Witnesses has been relied on for their refusal to blood transfusion. I don' t mention them now because you must know them as well.

One is from Old Testament, which reads we can eat any meat but we need to get rid of blood and in New Testament it reads we get away from blood. No one scriptures say we mustn't inject others blood into our body.

Blood transfusion is a modern medical treatment started from 18th century- if I recall it correctly, so it's out of question we can't find such verses written before the first century.

As I pointed out in my last query that swine was banned from eating because it was contaminated from various germs, so the command was so proper for us to keep.

I don't think no modern humans from early civilisation had had blood for daily dietary. It must have related to very different heretic traditions though it was very sane for us not to have blood in our ordinary life. But how about transfusion? It is a medical procedure necessary for our urgent occasion. Sometimes this act is held out of pure philanthropic viewpoint, let alone it's nothing to do with heretic traditions.

Refusal to blood transfusion often bring about end of life immediately. I know one of my acquaintances who's dead after he refused it.

In this particular issue we can read in Revelation 16:6 that 'drink blood' and of course Jesus compared the red wine to his blood in Eucharist. How do you interpret them?


Best wishes,

Eiko
posted by Eiko Onoda at 12:36 AM on May 11, 2009

Ecce Homo

No, it's just normal. No need for treatment. Struggling is non sense and harmful to their character, just stop it and leave it as they are. However one thing I remind you is how important for homos to find another homo. There's no problem as long as homos love another homo.

Think it in image

mercedo wrote today at 11:31 PM
The truth never contradicts itself. Right, and if it does, it means not true. If we think something in language, contradiction occurs inevitably. Think it in image.

Mercelius 11th May 09 06:14
Thank you for your acceptance. By the way, weren't you in Japan? I saw your profile while I was browsing Japan section. Any way, thanks.. possibility to see you is very scarce though..

Hello

Thanks a lot for your sending me a comment. I really appreciate that!
Have a nice day, too.

Mercelius 9th May 09 17:37
What's up?

Eiko 9th May 09 17:21
Reply

Which one?

Eiko 9th May 09 16:51
Reply
I like this photo very much because it's..Sexy!

Nice to talking to you.
Nice to meet you.
Do you live in * City?

Eiko 9th May 09 16:10
Reply
I like your way you show yourself in someone's eyes by taking a mirror which reflects your true figure.. Besides, what a beautiful kimono you wear!

Eiko 9th May 09 15:54
Reply
Nice! nice, nice!!!