Were all the faithful Christians of the first century of the anointed regardless of age or gender? Please answer scripturally. Question 2: is there pressure from fellow witnesses or the society to reveal your identity?

Yes. All original Christians were anointed. Virtually every Christian letter speaks to those who belong to Christ or who have otherwise been anointed by God with his holy spirit. For example, 2 Corinthians 1:21 says: "But he who guarantees that you and we belong to Christ and he who anointed us is God." In reference to the relative handful from the Jewish nation that accepted Jesus and became born-again, John 1:12 says: "He came to his own home, but his own people did not take him in. However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God's children, because they were exercising faith in his name; and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man's will, but from God."

As for your second question, as evidenced from the many emails received, most brothers respect my desire to remain anonymous at the present time.

I have a question regarding the stand on blood taken by Jehovah's Witnesses. It is my understanding that the witnesses believe that humans became imperfect and were exiled from Eden, while non-domesticated animals grew to fear humankind. So animals remained relatively the same, throughout humankind's fall with the exception of their newly acquired fear of men. My problem is that if God created these animals to function, much as they presently do, why are there species such as mosquitoes and leech's that feed and survive on human blood? Further, why before man, did God create monstrous Dinosaurs that viscously feasted on one another, quite naturally? If God wished for little children and old men alike to die for his no-blood standard, then why would he allow them to be taunted by the animals that in some cases intentionally drink this substance? Please remember instinct is not intelligence, it is programmed by whoever blessed us with this planet. Thank you for your kind consideration of my question.

If I may re-word your question, you have essentially asked: If blood is sacred to God, then why did he create animals that eat blood?

Basically you are asking what the difference is between humans and animals.

While there are well-established similarities between humans and animals, due to the fact that we share the same biological support system, there are also many differences. But, the most important aspect that separates men and women from the lower order of animal creation, is that we were made in the image of God. Being made in Jehovah's image means that we have the potential and capacity to think and behave in a pattern similar to God himself. Jesus was said to be an 'exact representation of God's very being,' so that everything he said and did was what Jehovah himself would have done under similar circumstances. Also, because we are made in God's image, we have a greater accountability and responsibility before God. That means that we are obligated to obey him.

As you rightly pointed out, animals only obey their instincts. So, it is impossible for those creatures to consciously decide to serve and obey God. Now, consider the matter of law and morality. Every society and culture that has ever existed recognizes that stealing is wrong, for example. In the letter to the Romans, Paul called that "the law within." That's why we impose penalties upon those who are thieves: because stealing is universally recognized as wrong. However, in the animal kingdom there is no such awareness of right and wrong. Animals, birds and fish fight and take from each other as a way of life—in some cases they would perish if they didn't. When men behave in such a manner we consider them to be animalistic predators and plunderers.

As another example, take the matter of sexual morality: it is generally recognized, even by godless people, that adultery is wrong. In the animal kingdom, things are very much different. While some species of birds and certain animals do mate for life, most animals mate with multiple partners. Dogs and cats might even mate with their own brothers and sisters from the same litter. Again, though, people who violate standards of morality are actually becoming animalistic--and certainly the Bible says as much in many places.

In regards to blood, the horrible, fictional character of Dracula, who is part man and part vampire bat, certainly illustrates that we recognize the animal, predatory nature of feasting on another's blood.

So, the point is that animals were not created to follow God's laws. We were, though, and that's what Jehovah expects us to do. Jesus once stated, if I may paraphrase, that it would be better to die faithful to God, than to compromise just to save our own necks--only to lose God's favor. That sort of nobleness places us far above the animal creation. That's why Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to lose their own life, if it were actually to come down to that, in order not to violate Jehovah's command to "abstain from blood."

If you believe we are not in the last days, then when do they begin?

The exact phrase "last days" is only found in a few places in the Greek Scriptures. Jesus never actually used that exact expression in reference to the end of the world, nor is it found in Revelation. However, Jesus did refer to the conclusion of the system of things numerous times. But, the conclusion of the system, or time of the end, refers to the actual judgment period.

The first usage of the term "last days," was by the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost. That's when he introduced to the Jews the newly- formed Christian congregation by quoting from the 2nd chapter of Joel; and he added that the foretold outpouring of spirit was to occur in "the last days." So, according to the apostle Peter, the pouring out of God's spirit marked the beginning of the last days for the Jewish system.

However, many years later, James wrote to the brothers and rebuked those who had put their trust in riches. He warned that those Christians who had stored up wealth had in reality stored up fire for themselves in the last days when their riches would fail them. According to James, then, the last days were a future period of judgment. Down a few verses at James 5:8, James exhorted the brothers to continue to exercise patience and to wait for the presence of the Lord. So, James made a definite connection between the presence of the Lord and the last days. However, the point is that since material riches have not failed us yet, the last days that James made reference to have not begun yet. Neither has the presence of the Lord begun either--otherwise we would not have to continue to patiently wait.

It is evident, then, that the term "last days" may be used in different ways. It may be used to denote an extended period leading up to God's judgment, or it may also be used in reference to the actual judgment period. In the first century, the last days commenced in 33 C.E., yet the final days of Jerusalem began in earnest in November of 66 C.E., when the Roman armies first assaulted the city.

As far as Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, we are not wrong in saying that we are living in the last days. That is not because of the ending of the Gentile times as we suppose. But, we can point to the period of 1919 as the point in time when Jehovah did pour out his anointing spirit to energize and revive his servants to go forward with the message of Christ's kingdom. While this writer believes that the Watchtower has attributed far too many prophecies to that period, the fact is that it did serve as a Pentecost-like turning point for those who were serving as Jehovah's witnesses at that time. In a general sense, the last days for this world began then.

However, as James indicated, the last days can apply specifically to the time of the tumultuous and fiery end of the system that takes place as a result of Jesus' presence. Those last days have not begun. But, we may assume that the time of the end is imminent. It should be self-evident that when a hate-filled world, overseen by powerful, wicked demons bent on causing ruin, comes to possess countless weapons of mass destruction, that the end of such a world is inevitable.

At Matthew 16:3, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their self-imposed blindness and hypocrisy by pointing out that they were intelligent enough to interpret weather patterns in order to know what sort of weather to expect the following day. He then asked, rhetorically, why it was they could not interpret "the signs of the times." The question arises: what signs did Christ expect them to interpret? Evidently, Jesus expected them to take note of his teaching and powerful works, as well as the preaching of John the Baptist and the apostles, as a sign of the times. In the same manner, the preaching of Jehovah's Witnesses has served as a sign of the times and has brought us to the stage where the last days may begin in earnest, when the actual presence of Christ commences as suddenly as the unannounced arrival of a thief in the night.

In Exodus chapter 4:24 why would Jehovah want to kill Moses?

The verse in question says: "Now it came about on the road at the lodging place that Jehovah got to meet him and kept looking for a way to put him to death."

It is not really clear in that verse who the "him" is that Jehovah was going to put to death, whether it was Moses or his son. The next verse indicates that Moses' wife circumcised Gershom, their son, and that appeased the angel. So, it appears from that verse that Gershom was the one that was going to be put to death. In explanation: long before the Law of Moses came into affect, Jehovah had commanded that Abraham's entire household had to be circumcised. Genesis 17:14 states that any uncircumcised man should be cut off, as he would be a violator of God's covenant with Abraham. So, perhaps because Moses was raised as an Egyptian and his wife was a Midianite, they neglected to circumcise their son. By Jehovah's forcing the issue at that particular time, right after he spoke to Moses about killing Pharaoh's firstborn, it would emphasize the fact that, like Gershom, the Hebrews were God's firstborn, and were under God's covenant with Abraham and that was the reason that Jehovah was going to deliver and bring them to the land that he had originally promised to give to Abraham's offspring.

I am a witness who is currently studying an Open University biology course at home in my spare time, that at present is going into a fair amount of detail about the origins of life, genetic change, evolution, natural selection and so forth (which I genuinely to find interesting and even logical at times). The elders in my congregation do not know about this, and I'm worried that if they find out then I could be disfellowshipped. Do you think the elders would have a case against me if they find out? Should I be truthful with them, carry on in secret (I enjoy it), or give up on the course?

You earlier have written on 1914. My question though, is regarding the event that happened in 1980 at World Headquarters in regard to 1914. Raymond Franz, then a member of the governing body, had received a book written by a brother in Sweden proving beyond the shadow of a doubt through secular sources that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E., but rather in 586 B.C.E. What frustrates me is that in my own personal research, I have never once, outside of the Society's publications, encountered a source that suggests any other date than the agreed upon 586 B.C.E. date. I have written to the Society (using an anonymous address and alias) on this issue, asking for definite proof of their claim that this event took place in 607 B.C.E. Instead of receiving an answer to my question, all that happened was they suggested I trust them, and at the same time they were trying to find out who I was, and what congregation I was in. I sensed that they were more interested in trying me than in helping me. Why are they so stubborn on this issue? Why do they continue to ignore the facts, or treat the average reader like they are violating some Biblical principle if they were to do independent research? According to Franz, in doing research for the "Aid to Bible Understanding Book", he did not find any secular evidence to support the Society's theory, and when he presented his evidence to the Governing Body, it didn't seem to phase them one bit. What's going on here?

There are a number of things going on. First, the Watchtower has acknowledged all along that secular history doesn't accept the 607 date for the destruction of Jerusalem. The reasons that the Watchtower gives for accepting 607 have to do with the fact that they agree with historians on 539 B.C.E. as the date for the fall of Babylon; and allowing two years for the eventual release and return of the Jews to Jerusalem, the Watchtower simply counts back 70 years from 537 to arrive at 607. So, their reasoning is that since the Scriptures say that Jerusalem would lay desolate for 70 years; and from the date 586 to 537 is only 49 years, the Watchtower goes with 607.

Of course, Carl Jonsson, in his book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, offers his own interpretation of what Jehovah meant by the 70 years. Having personally read Jonsson's book a number of years ago, though, I would not necessarily characterize it as having settled the issue using his interpretation "beyond the shadow of a doubt."

However, the whole argument is really moot anyway, given the fact that it can be reasoned out scripturally that the Gentile times have nothing to do with the so-called seven times of Daniel anyway.

As for why the Watchtower has so tenaciously clung to the 607-1914 doctrine, it appears as if that is the means by which Jehovah has temporarily covered the heads of his prophets and visionaries. Since Jesus' presence is by stealth, like a thief in the night, the only way he could actually arrive as unexpectedly--as if a thief--to those who are otherwise in expectation, is if they are initially led to believe some bit of misinformation regarding Christ's presence.

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, Jesus illustrated the affect his presence would have upon his disciples by likening them to the wise and foolish virgins. According to the Watchtower that parable was fulfilled in 1919. But, that is not possible for two reasons. One: Jesus said that once the bridegroom arrived and the wise virgins entered into the marriage feast that immediately afterwards the door was closed. Yet, most, if not all, of those who claim to be part of Christ's bride class today were anointed after 1919. It is clear that the door to the Lamb's wedding feast was not closed back then.

Secondly, Jesus concluded his parable by saying: "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know either the day or the hour." If Christ arrived in 1914 and initiated the prophesied judgment of Jehovah's anointed household in 1918-1919, why must we still remain on the watch for the master's arrival? Also, the brothers back then were very much in anticipation of 1914; yet, how is it that Jesus said that we would not know the precise timing of the master's arrival?

It seems then, that rather then serving to enlighten us, the dogma of 1914 has served to blind us; making it all the more critical that we heed Jesus' admonition to keep on the watch. Apparently, when Jesus does finally arrive, some of the anointed will prove to be like the foolish virgins who allowed their lamps to run out of illuminating oil. Perhaps, it may be that the stubborn refusal to relinquish 1914, at the critical time that Christ's parousia actually commences, may be what ultimately prevents the foolish virgins from entering the wedding feast. That would certainly be ironic.