So, verse 16 of John chapter 10 is now being used especially diligently to prove this theory. Let us quote this verse again, given its importance: "I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and these I must bring: and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd." You know, it gives me special pleasure to talk about this verse because, when discussing its meaning, you can see especially clearly the absurdity of what was established, so to speak, by the "faithful slave" 70 years ago. So, this verse says that Jesus Christ, besides the people of Israel, has other sheep – these are the Gentiles. And that's it, Jesus said nothing more. Only this truth. He did not even hint at any hope of going to heaven or living on earth, nor of any "anointed ones" or "having hope of eternal life on earth." All this is contrived by the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses to justify their immeasurable domination over fellow believers, to create a caste, class, or some other structure of this domination. If someone needs more solid evidence, read the Bible, reflect on the context, and don't look anywhere else, and you'll understand. You will no longer be confused by all these "insights" of the "faithful and prudent", "great and wise Goodwin", pardon the "slave".

 Speaking of Revelation 7:9, "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb in white robes and palm branches in their hands." Here we see even more clearly the inconsistency of what Jehovah's Witnesses want to prove. Because it is said here that the "great crowd" is in heaven, first, because they are "before the throne" and not on earth (John is in heaven in this vision and describes what is happening there), and second, because they are ministering, as Revelation 7:15 says, in the temple of God. The Greek word naos, which is used here, does not mean the whole temple, with all possible courts, but specifically, a sanctuary into which only priests could enter. And, if so, then only heaven serves as a prototype of this, and not as not earth.

Conclusion: a great crowd is in the sky! Thus, we see that neither John 10:16 nor Revelation 7:9-17 say that people have the hope of "everlasting life on earth."  But don't be discouraged! They have a great hope – eternal life in heaven. This is wonderful, this is really the "good news" that our Lord Jesus Christ preached! And here we come to another teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, which causes them themselves, I am talking about ordinary believers, misunderstanding and often simply bewilderment.

Michael the Archangel

This is the teaching that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel. Speaking seriously, and discarding all other irrelevant arguments, the only Scripture that Jehovah's Witnesses can cite to prove their rightness is 1 Thessalonians 4:16: "The Lord Himself will come down from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God." In the New World translation, this verse reads as follows: "The lord himself will descend from heaven with a call, with the voice of an archangel." A new study book, What Does the Bible Really Teach?, published by the Watch Tower Bible in 2005, states on page 219: "As this verse shows, Jesus has the voice of an archangel. Therefore, Jesus is the archangel Michael." I want to say to my brothers and sisters in faith: "Tell me, please, only honestly, did you believe in this on the basis of this statement?" I doubt it very much! It is simply proper to believe unquestioningly everything that the "faithful slave" has said, but in this case he is simply deceiving you, he cannot prove anything in this matter, and therefore he resorts to such an unworthy form of proof as an unsubstantiated statement: "This is the truth! And that's it!" After all, if you read verse 16 further, it says: "and with the trumpet of God" (NM). From this it follows that "Jesus has the trumpet of God. So Jesus is God." This conclusion is modeled on the conclusion from the book The Bible Teaches. Why does the Watch Tower Society not come to this conclusion? He just doesn't need it. A different conclusion is needed, and it is being drawn, no matter what. In fact, the literal translation from the Greek is as follows: "for the Lord Himself, commanding in the voice of the Archangel in the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven." Here we see that the preposition "in" is used, which explains everything, namely: it is seen that the Lord will be in the command, and in the voice of the Archangel, and in the trumpet of God, but this does not mean that he will be in the command itself, or in the voice or in the trumpet, all this will accompany or accompany his descent from heaven. Therefore, this does not prove that it is he who has the voice of the Archangel (it is the voice of the Archangel, who gives it at the Lord's descent from heaven), or that He is God (the trumpet of God does not necessarily sound only under the influence of God Himself, this is a figurative expression). Therefore, I think it is not possible to conclude from this verse that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, nor that he is God. Evidence for these claims must be found elsewhere in Scripture. However, in the case of the Archangel-Christ, there are no more such places. This means that our Lord Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel are different personalities.

Blood transfusion

Now about blood transfusions. This is also a topic for very serious research. Therefore, I will try to discuss this problem briefly this time. Jehovah's Witnesses do not transfuse blood because the Bible, which is undoubtedly true, forbids eating blood. For example, Leviticus 17:13,14 says: "If any of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, catches a beast or a bird that can be eaten, he shall let its blood flow out and cover it with earth, for the life of every body [is] its blood, it is its life; Therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any body, for the life of every body is its blood: whoever eats it will be cut off." See also Genesis 9:3, 4; Acts 15:28,29, 21:25. These are clear biblical instructions not to "eat blood." Why was this done? Because blood was used in Israel for sacrifices to Yahweh, and it symbolized life, and therefore showed how much people were aware that they were completely dependent on God. All this was regulated by the Mosaic Law, and it was strictly observed. The early Christians were also told to "abstain from things sacrificed to idols and to blood." But was it as mandatory? Probably yes! Historical evidence shows that Christians did not eat blood sausage (this was mentioned, for example, by Tertullian in his book "Apology" in Chapter 9). This was respect for God's foundational commandments. To summarize, we can say in the words of the English scientist Joseph Benson: "The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites... was never abolished, but, on the contrary, was confirmed in the New Testament, Acts 15, and was thus made valid for all time."

It should be emphasized that when Jehovah God forbade the use of blood, he was referring to the blood of animals, not human blood. Therefore, it is clear that this prohibition (for the use of animal blood) cannot be extended to the transfusion of human blood. Jehovah God could not have given such instructions to the Israelites, because then they would simply not have understood anything: "How is it possible to inject blood into a vein? How is it possible to get some kind of vaccines or red blood cell masses from it?" Therefore, there is a time for everything. When that time came, Christians had to put God's principles into practice in order to make a decision about using blood to save lives. And this principle is the most important: "God is love!" Everything else follows from it, but not vice versa. Therefore, no religious organization had the right to assume the responsibility of dominating the conscience of Christians, as the Watch Tower Society did. Here it is enough to recall that the Apostle Paul, in fact, did not even forbid eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:10), but advised not to do it for the sake of the conscience of others. But already the apostles say: "Abstain from things sacrificed to idols" (Acts 15:29). What is this, if not a striving for unity, so that there would be no stumbling among Christians, although it is also said in the New Testament: "Nothing that enters into a man from without can defile him" (Mark 7:15). Therefore, Christians must decide for themselves, depending on the specific situation, whether or not to use blood to save their own life (or the life of another person).

In the book of Jehovah's Witnesses What Does the Bible Really Teach?, on page 131, the question is asked: "Would a Christian violate God's law in order to prolong his life a little in this system?" My conscience does not allow me to say that there is no call not to value one's life, which means that there is no urge to suicide. As an elder, I know of several occasions when Jehovah's Witnesses have told doctors: "If you give me blood, I will hang myself!" This shows that Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand what suicide is, and for them it is not a sin as grave as a blood transfusion. Therefore, if we look at the question of blood from the other side, it turns out that Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse a blood transfusion in the face of death are committing a sin, because in such a situation it can mean suicide. This is what I want to ask my brothers and sisters to think about. Therefore, there is a difference in eating hematogen (for pleasure) and transfusing blood to a hemophiliac patient. There's a difference when a doctor says, "Well, let's inject red blood cells to raise hemoglobin," or when you're unconscious, you don't have a blood substitute (like perfluororan), you have a leg blown off from a car accident, and the doctor says to your wife, "We need blood, this is the only chance. Do you have friends with the first blood group?" This should be a matter of your conscience, and not a matter of conscience of others, who are not at all concerned, because "God is love", and not prohibitions to save the lives of others, if there is such a possibility.

 That's all I wanted to say about it. The rest is up to everyone to decide. Especially since the Watch Tower Society is in a state of "war" on this issue with an entire world that they accuse of cruelty, and which cannot understand the cruelty of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. Therefore, this "war" has already been lost, Jehovah's Witnesses are setting too negative an example of "love" for others. Nor can they prove from the Bible that God forbade the use of blood for medical purposes. Yes, in a number of Scriptures it is forbidden to eat blood, but not to use it to save life.