Pudgy

I agree with him as well…all this thread does is make me stronger in my personal stand 

I’ve taken advantage of my new freedom to wear a skull & crossbones, eyepatch, and cut off my leg for a peg leg.
To hear the crazies on the exJW site, you’d think it might happen any second.

I think this is true. A lot of people have made the argument that blood is 80% water, or that the major component called plasma is 90% water, and we know there is nothing wrong with water. This is still a bad argument.
It reminds me of what David might have said if some of his men said, "David, you said you wanted water, and a lot of men were bleeding, but we found a way to separate the water from their blood. Here! Won't you have this bottle of water we got for you?"

A teaching could be wrong because it's unsound.
A teaching could be wrong because it's false.
Though both are wrong, the latter would be more wrong than the former.

It's just beginning.

… especially Hanna Barbarians …

It resonates with me too. Life is too important to put at so much risk, even for soldiers believing they are doing the right thing for the war effort.
That same idea can be interpreted to think of the importance of blood as representing life. So those who take that idea seriously, even those who would never drink a drop of blood, might be all the more anxious to use any means possible to save a life, even if it involves the medical use of blood. (e.g., fractions, reintroducing one's own blood into one's body during a surgery instead of pouring it out on the ground, etc)
Jesus said that saving a human life was more important than following the law.  
As an aside, Paul was a kind of Barbarian for a Jew. As a tentmaker he had a very undesired job for a Jew. He was working with the hides of dead animal bodies. It could be a stinky job, too. That's similar to the job that Simon the Tanner from Joppa had. Peter was staying at this tanner's house when he had the dream that he was supposed to slaughter and eat reptiles (et al). 
Tertullian's father was also a Barbarian of sorts. After Tiberius condemned the practice of sacrificing babies, Tertullian's father helped to crucify priests of Saturn who had been caught openly sacrificing babies. He crucified them on the very trees overlooking the temples of Saturn where their crimes took place. 
And of course Jesus himself leads a war resulting in the spilling of much blood, even to the point of making his enemies drink blood. 
(Revelation 14:20) The winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress as high up as the bridles of the horses for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
(Revelation 16:5, 6) . . .I heard the angel over the waters say: “You, the One who is and who was, the loyal One, are righteous, for you have issued these judgments, . . . and you have given them blood to drink; they deserve it.” 
I'm guessing that not all Barbarians will see what David did and draw the same conclusions.

I agree that it is. But that's if we are trying to claim we can take some fractions (especially the one you just alluded to) and claim we are still abstaining from blood. I'd say that it should be a matter of conscience if one accepts those fractions, but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood. You are accepting blood, because your conscience has allowed you to take a risk that such a use of blood, even though technically not abstaining, is potentially life-saving. Also, that it is not the same as eating blood, and is still showing respect for life and the life-giving properties of blood itself. If it is a breaking of God's law, then it's only because one's conscience allows for the higher principles of Jesus about life over law, and the increased freedom of conscience that Paul promoted. 

That is why I think some of JWI's tongue in cheek* predictions are not too far fetched.
*(Or maybe he was being completely serious, not sure this time) 

…
As is, I read two different kinds of faith being considered.
The first is about the philosophical concept of faith, the idea of faith, and
The second is about how to make that idea and concept transition from a capability to a real thing.….
BECAUSE … If that “leap” is not made … faith without works is dead.
Two entirely different ideas, would be my guess.
Jehovah can DECLARE a man rightous who has faith that never heard of the Law of Moses.  The Scripture is talking about how FAITH transitions from concept to reality.
I may see it differently tomorrow if I get more sleep.
 
 

…
As is, I read two different kinds of faith being considered.
The first is about the philosophical concept of faith, the idea of faith, and
The second is about how to make that idea and concept transition from a capability to a real thing.….
BECAUSE … If that “leap” is not made … faith without works is dead.
Two entirely different ideas, would be my guess.
Jehovah can DECLARE a man rightous who has faith that never heard of the Law of Moses.  The Scripture is talking about how FAITH transitions from concept to reality.
I may see it differently tomorrow if I get more sleep.
 
 

ummmm … two dimensional?
 

Don't know.
But the explanation for the differences in this particular example could easily be that the Acts 15 decree was right for the time and place, just as letting prophets speak up in the first century congregation was right for the time and place. Peter's "killing" of two members of the congregation for lying about the extent of a financial contribution might have been right for the time and place. Certain types of healing, use of oil, speaking in tongues, etc., might also have right for the time and place. The holy spirit may well have been "leading" through difficult periods in ways that were not going to be right for another time, or even for other congregations with different situations.  

Each must do what they feel is right…..and I’m sure it was a nightmare for the apostles and the James's of the time to explain what was and wasn’t acceptable in their worship…we just look at those  scriptures differently…I guess I didn’t realise just how different we looked at things …
besides all that…I sincerely hope  you will be okay with your health and I mean that…I really hope things improve for you so you don’t even have to consider the above…..and nobody can judge what another does…and you should know by now I wouldn’t…..🤗
 

Srecko:
(2 Samuel 23:2) . . .The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue.
(Mark 12:36) . . .By the holy spirit, David himself said, . . .
(2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God . . .
(1 Corinthians 7:10) . . .To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, . . .
(1 Corinthians 7:40) . . .and I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.
Well, not only those who wrote, but the apostles speaking of themselves or with reference to the past positively believed that Jehovah directed their writing, at least in part, of what they were writing.
Concerning the modern "doctrinal guardian", nowhere in Scripture do we find support for believing that they are inspired. A separate issue are reckless or pretentious statements by themselves that they are "guided." I would like more humility on your part (their part I meant to say).
 
 
 
 
 
 

Yes, I see your point, I see your point...
I think that for any 1st century Christian of Gentile origin, when they learn that Jehovah from the beginning (Noah) prohibited the consumption of blood. This was later highlighted in dozens of mentions in the Mosaic Law and, finally, in the apostolic decree (with Paul present) of Acts 15. In short, I am sure that in no way would they want to consume blood.
As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole.
So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink  blood.

I have never claimed to be a “good” JW, as I am a Barbarian at heart, and that is why the example of David pouring the water on the ground resonates so deeply with me …. I understand that that on a gut level … and the reasoning behind it.
I can see how Jehovah holds that all blood belongs to him and is jealous for it.
It feels perfectly right and proper and like Thinking, I don’t see any loopholes.
The perspective of a righteous (sometimes) man who fought in hand to hand combat carries more weight with me.
Even a non-JW Barbarian can understand the underlying principle that blood is sacred.

I have never claimed to be a “good” JW, as I am a Barbarian at heart, and that is why the example of David pouring the water on the ground resonates so deeply with me …. I understand that that on a gut level … and the reasoning behind it.
I can see how Jehovah holds that all blood belongs to him and is jealous for it.
It feels perfectly right and proper and like Thinking, I don’t see any loopholes.
The perspective of a righteous (sometimes) man who fought in hand to hand combat carries more weight with me.
Even a non-JW Barbarian can understand the underlying principle that blood is sacred.

Just a quick recap. I flippantly predicted that all medical blood products become a matter of conscience in 2026 and you said then that means you could argue that fornication and idol worship would also be a matter of conscience:
I wanted to acknowledge that idea by saying that a Christian like James would react similarly if he knew Paul was now saying it was OK for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to an idol, after James had written that gentile Christians should abstain from meat sacrificed to an idol. Thus: 
To that, you said: 
So I first wanted to point out that James was also a scriptural Christian and he would also have drawn his conclusions about blood (and meat sacrificed to idols) from the way Jehovah viewed blood (and sacrifice and idolatry) all the way throughout the scriptures. So I think that in this regard all of us should want to be Jamesian Christians. 
If anything, James was looking for a good scriptural compromise that would help Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles be able to associate more closely.
After all, Christian association involved feasts and eating together. So much so that some were even using the Memorial celebration as another time for a feast. 
(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, . . . (Jude 12) . . .at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves. . . (2 Peter 2:13) . . .while feasting together with you.  (1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, 33, 34) . . .When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21  For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. . . . Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment (Matthew 9:11) . . .“Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (1 Corinthians 10:27) If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you. . .
  Without putting words in your mouth, or twisting them, like I did before, I'm going to try to guess what you probably mean. I think you are saying that Paul may have had a point in contradicting James on the "food sacrificed to idols" part of the decree, but that the blood part of the decree was too important, and there could be no rationale against such a longstanding decree that seems to go all through the entire Bible.  
If that's what you mean, then I'd say that personally I agree. The Bible remains clear on the blood issue, and I can't think of eating blood without finding it repulsive. I find the same thing goes on in my mind with medical uses of blood, even though I am aware that this isn't really the same as eating blood. Making use of whole blood or fractions of blood for medical purposes is more like a partial organ/tissue transplant. And it can be just as dangerous as other organ/tissue transplants. 
But I think that the central body of elders for modern day congregations of Witnesses have done something similar to what James was doing. They have looked for a scriptural compromise in allowing once-forbidden organ transplants and once-forbidden tissue transplants, but have still tried to show a respect for the idea of abstaining from blood, even in medical procedures that have nothing to do with eating blood. 
So although I am still a bit revulsed at the idea of using blood for medical purposes, I remember that I had the same revulsion for heart, kidney and liver transplants. To a smaller extent I still do. What you said before about heart transplants resonated with me. And what Pudgy said about David's refusal to even drink water representing blood resonated with me too. 
But the more we understand about medical procedures, and the more we can make our own decisions about safety risks, we can start to be less revulsed by the medical use of fractions, and less revulsed by other tissue/organ transplants. In fact, I long ago decided that I wouldn't impose my own conservative conscience upon my children. Then more recently I decided that some of these medical options might even become viable for me if a situation ever called for it. 
On David's choice, it seems that Jesus made a point that it actually would have been OK for David not just to drink that water, perfectly legal, but to actually break God's law and even eat the shewbread that only the priests could eat upon penalty of death for anyone else:
(Matthew 12:2-7) . . .the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? . . . 7  However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
(Matthew 12:11, 12)  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
(Matthew 15:6-11) . . .’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.. . .11  It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
Perhaps we are just not ready for what may well have been Paul's outlook for gentiles on blood, things strangled, and meat sacrificed to idols. But we are slowly moving in the right direction. Previously, I think I made too much of a point about James going for the Noahide decree as opposed to the Mosaic decree when making a burden for gentiles. Now, I am looking at Paul's view which is apparently against ALL LAW, no matter how good those laws appear. Under Christ, we are no longer under law at all. We don't need to be. There will always be those who will fight the idea and say that if we don't put Christians under at least some law, they are going to go "hog-wild" as a friend of mine at Bethel used to put it. They'll say we can't trust the brothers to do what's right unless we give them rules and goals and quotas. But Paul would have been against the Noahide laws, too. Christians are under "undeserved kindness" not law. 
I like the way Colossians puts it.
(Colossians 2:8-3:5) . . .Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ; because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.  . . .  God made you alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. . . . Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath. . . . Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. . . .  If you died together with Christ with respect to the elementary things of the world, why do you live as if still part of the world by further subjecting yourselves to the decrees: “Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch,”  referring to things that all perish with their use, according to the commands and teachings of men?  Although those things have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship . . . they are of no value in combating the satisfying of the flesh. . . .  Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 

ummmm … two dimensional?
 

No..dont twist my words and meanings…yes I said that ….but my conclusions on transfusions come from the way Jehovah viewed blood all the way thru the scriptures…thus  I am not a Jamieson  Christian but a scriptural one….well I’m trying to be..
I also am not fanatical ..I for one know fractions are in certain medicines and as the brothers pointed out..if one wants to be fanatical then one would not be able to have blood tests as all blood should be poured out on the ground and not used for any purpose.
So this  isn’t about straining the gnat…I see it as showing respect for blood as the life is in the blood….and that belongs to him.
I tried many years ago to shoot holes in this….even a loop hole…sure would have made my life a lot easier. As time and science moves on..all I can say it has proven to be a highly dangerous substance and must be used with the greatest of care…speaking of that blood is not properly screened for the parasites of Lyme…which is really a pandemic in the states and across the world.
They are finding hundreds of different species of just one of the parasites …still I feel as comfort my  people says….my stand is based on the scriptures ALL of them… I don’t agree with the WAY we disfellowship people…Jesus set the bench mark for that when he forgave Peter….also Paul exclaimed to the Corinthian cong for being to hard on the Adulterer….and there was a danger of the man becoming over saddened……yes he gave counsel to remove him…but it is my understanding it was only a matter of months when he directed them to bring him back into the brotherhood…anyone can correct me on that.
As a people we tend to beat disfellowshipped one’s down …tho I do see that slightly changing….trouble is when the GB say something it seems like a number of stiffnecked elders stick to their own thoughts…..we have new elders and I have seen ones reinstated very quickly.
so my thought is everyone can do what they want…but be careful when you are responsible for a newly interested one….
 

You know (rhetorically), 85% of all problems discussed here on this thread could be SOLVED if the Congregations were governed SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY  as Jesus directed in Matthew 18:14-17.
What we are seeing now is not even close.
When we interact with people of the nations and tax collectors, who among us here treats them like lepers and takes their families hostage if they don’t do the same?
Nobody.

I would say that Paul, in the aforementioned texts, is alluding to eating meat previously offered to an idol in a pagan temple of worship. Meat that was sold in the temple itself, and the income from the operation financed said place.
Paul says that the Christian with a weak conscience thinks that he is contributing to false worship, but the strong one only thinks that he is paying for a service: receiving food. That is, he does not make a donation to promote something idolatrous.
In other words, I don't find that Paul even remotely addresses the issue of whether or not the meat was bled. That idea was not under consideration in the context we are talking about. I believe that if the Christian suspected that this was the case (that the meat contained blood), his conscience would prevent him from eating it. But that point is not discussed in those verses.
 
(1 Corinthians 10:25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 
 
So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain.
I think so, but I may be wrong.

You know (rhetorically), 85% of all problems discussed here on this thread could be SOLVED if the Congregations were governed SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY  as Jesus directed in Matthew 18:14-17.
What we are seeing now is not even close.
When we interact with people of the nations and tax collectors, who among us here treats them like lepers and takes their families hostage if they don’t do the same?
Nobody.

I have heard (from a reliable source) that Ramapo has hit another hiccup. The brother who moved there so he could help has been reassigned to a project on Long Island, NY where a new assembly hall is being built. (JWI might know something about that).