Many Miles

Because a person has a library at their disposal does not mean they understand what they're reading. Everyone needs help learning how to learn, learning what information means, and when or whether pieces of information do or do not have a relationship, and what that relationship is and potential consequences.
Both sources you cite can be useful though. And, I am a hearty advocate of reading. I'm also a hearty advocate of learning from everyone and everything around me, and I think everyone should be that way. We learn from one another.
I don't know that anyone here is trying to sound intelligent. It seems to me folks here are just sharing their thoughts, if they have any, on whatever the topic is.
I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. These days I don't know of any hospital that uses a product rendered from blood purely as a volume expander. What you cite of WWII is of a desperate measure for a desperate time and place. As late the the early 21st century there are also isolated reports of extremely remote medical services that have used coconut water (NOT coconut MILK!!!) as a volume expander. But this can be very dangerous because users are gambling that the osmotic pressure of whatever coconut water they use is suitable for IV administration. If it's not, the fluid will, basically, initiate a cascading event of hemolysis where erythrocytic cells explode in the peripheral blood stream. It can be lethal. Hence, anytime a medical facility has used IV administration of coconut water it's a desperate measure, and what they're really doing is gambling to buy time for access to better therapeutics. Again, though, this is unrelated to the subject of products rendered from blood.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Administration of oxygen to a patient and that oxygen being sufficiently transported to organ tissues are separate things. There is such a thing as bleeding to death. Without enough erythrocytic cells to efficiently transport oxygen and carbon dioxide (alternatively) a patient's organs will shut down and they will perish.
What you write here paints a relatively correct picture. There are therapeutics that can stimulate erythrocytic production, but it takes time. As you say, it could be days. It could even be weeks for sufficient erythrocytic production rise to stabilize a patient. In the face of severe anemia, what fills the immediate gap is transfusion of red cells. These transfused cells will serve as transport for oxygen until the patient's own system can produce enough erythrocytes to do the job, and can sustain that production.
Neither life nor health is guaranteed. Nevertheless, humans in need of medical care are looking for the best care available for whatever is their condition. And, when the question is, "What is the scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?" it adds nothing to the discussion to, essentially, simply assert 'It does!'. So far you've ignored all the logical scriptural arguments put forth in this discussion, which is why I eventually just ignored you. But another reader thought your comments above could use a response.

All things considered, the early Christian church was comprised of folks from very, very diverse backgrounds (think: Palestinians and Jews!!!) who all had one thing in common, plus one new dimension of thought. They all honestly wanted to do right by the One they looked to as their Creator, God. The new thing was Jesus.
The earliest Christians did their best to help this growing entourage attracted to the man from Nazareth, all of whom wanted to worship God in an acceptable way and all of whom heard a call to follow Jesus. They wanted to know how to do it, and the earliest church leaders did their best to help them, and before they passed away in death they left their testimony for the benefit of future followers. They worked to protect worshipers as best they could, but they were all sinners just like us. Today we have their testimony. It's up to each of us to make the best of it.

A profound statement, and well said. Concise. Thorough. Thoughtful. Big gift in a small package. It's Christian.
The only thing I dislike is the phrase "truly Christian". Smacks of "no true Scotsman". I'm confident you understand. I'll let other readers figure it out. Life's a learning experience, after all.
PS: All underlining is added by myself for emphasis.

Certain witnesses gave proof somewhere. Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, Elihu, Cornelius. All, names of men who feared (respected) God and worked righteousness, and whose worship was accepted by God. They honestly just wanted to do right by God. Really, when we read the Genesis account, that's all God ever looked for in Adam, and then Eve. Both, His creative work. Now we are where we are. The aforementioned names all testify to the points you make. Each knew and understood the ultimate authority, and their personal responsibility. Respectively, it was God, and themselves. Between themselves and the Creator, they squarely placed their loyalty to Him, regardless of personal consequence. It's scriptural.

The same follower of Jesus that took time to put Jesus' prayer to paper also took time later on to comment about the unity of which you inquire.
At the very end of his first epistle, John wrote "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ."
God gave us His written word. Today we call it "the Bible". This is God's inspired written testimony. God created the natural world we see all around us. God's creative work is His inspired testimony in the form of object lessons. Both of these inspired testimonies are equally of God. His testimony is truth.
Jesus' prayer included this, "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."
So, we have God's testimony, which is truth. We have that word in two forms. Inspired words are God's truth, and inspired creation is God's truth. And, getting back to the closing words of his first epistle, we have what John said of Jesus, that "he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one."
This is what I've said in more concise terms on several occasions. God gave us His testimony, and He gave us brains, and He expects us to use them both. What it looks like is this:
1) Things that are present in creation or presented in express terms in the Bible, we accept for what they are, for what they say. Each of these serve as propositions useful to use our brains to deduce sound conclusions of what those express propositions imply.
2) Deductions we form of those propositions must conform to conventions of logical construction. That is called using our brain. This is called forming logical (sound) conclusions.
3) We assert express terms for whatever each proposition says.
4) We assert what is deduced from those propositions to the extent we can prove those deductions. Deductions of logical conclusions can vary in veracity, based on the strength of premises (propositions) applied.
5) Things we cannot soundly reason we leave people to decide for themselves, which is as it should be.
6) Aside from express propositions found in either the Bible or creation, every deduction we form must be falsifiable. This is part of logical conclusions.
Then is when and that is how we have the unity Jesus spoke of that relies on the truth of God and the intellectual capacity given by Jesus. We then have a community where all of us as friends are encouraging one another to use our brains, and where we find we are wrong we embrace the moment and rejoice that we've learned and grown as Christian men and women. But we do not ostracize (or otherwise beat!) those who ask that we prove something true and then fail to prove that thing true on the bases of solid testimony from scripture (or creation) or sound conclusions thereof.
 
 

All things considered, the early Christian church was comprised of folks from very, very diverse backgrounds (think: Palestinians and Jews!!!) who all had one thing in common, plus one new dimension of thought. They all honestly wanted to do right by the One they looked to as their Creator, God. The new thing was Jesus.
The earliest Christians did their best to help this growing entourage attracted to the man from Nazareth, all of whom wanted to worship God in an acceptable way and all of whom heard a call to follow Jesus. They wanted to know how to do it, and the earliest church leaders did their best to help them, and before they passed away in death they left their testimony for the benefit of future followers. They worked to protect worshipers as best they could, but they were all sinners just like us. Today we have their testimony. It's up to each of us to make the best of it.

So … the task now becomes … what are the SPECIFICATIONS of the task that the men, full of spirit and wisdom, were to be put in charge of?
What is a legitimate job description?
The basic assumption is that the Congregation would be governed EXACTLY as specified in Matthew 18.
The reality at the present time is NOT EVEN CLOSE !

A profound statement, and well said. Concise. Thorough. Thoughtful. Big gift in a small package. It's Christian.
The only thing I dislike is the phrase "truly Christian". Smacks of "no true Scotsman". I'm confident you understand. I'll let other readers figure it out. Life's a learning experience, after all.
PS: All underlining is added by myself for emphasis.

The same follower of Jesus that took time to put Jesus' prayer to paper also took time later on to comment about the unity of which you inquire.
At the very end of his first epistle, John wrote "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ."
God gave us His written word. Today we call it "the Bible". This is God's inspired written testimony. God created the natural world we see all around us. God's creative work is His inspired testimony in the form of object lessons. Both of these inspired testimonies are equally of God. His testimony is truth.
Jesus' prayer included this, "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."
So, we have God's testimony, which is truth. We have that word in two forms. Inspired words are God's truth, and inspired creation is God's truth. And, getting back to the closing words of his first epistle, we have what John said of Jesus, that "he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one."
This is what I've said in more concise terms on several occasions. God gave us His testimony, and He gave us brains, and He expects us to use them both. What it looks like is this:
1) Things that are present in creation or presented in express terms in the Bible, we accept for what they are, for what they say. Each of these serve as propositions useful to use our brains to deduce sound conclusions of what those express propositions imply.
2) Deductions we form of those propositions must conform to conventions of logical construction. That is called using our brain. This is called forming logical (sound) conclusions.
3) We assert express terms for whatever each proposition says.
4) We assert what is deduced from those propositions to the extent we can prove those deductions. Deductions of logical conclusions can vary in veracity, based on the strength of premises (propositions) applied.
5) Things we cannot soundly reason we leave people to decide for themselves, which is as it should be.
6) Aside from express propositions found in either the Bible or creation, every deduction we form must be falsifiable. This is part of logical conclusions.
Then is when and that is how we have the unity Jesus spoke of that relies on the truth of God and the intellectual capacity given by Jesus. We then have a community where all of us as friends are encouraging one another to use our brains, and where we find we are wrong we embrace the moment and rejoice that we've learned and grown as Christian men and women. But we do not ostracize (or otherwise beat!) those who ask that we prove something true and then fail to prove that thing true on the bases of solid testimony from scripture (or creation) or sound conclusions thereof.
 
 

Doctors of medicine always treat transfusion of products rendered from blood as tissue transplants because that's what it is. Of course, different tissues can represent different complications. Tissue transplantation should always come with a very considered risk-to-benefit analysis. Even when it's autogenic.
Well, to be sure, red blood cells don't make oxygen, but they do transport oxygen, and carbon dioxide too.
The reason to offer source material allows what we say to be checked for veracity. Most, if not all, the sources I provided are probably available freely online.
JWs surely do not abstain from using from the donor blood supply, but they hardly ever contribute to the same blood supply they accept products from. As for whether I'm right or wrong about what I've presented, I'm happy to help where and when I can. Where I'm wrong I want to know, which is one reason I'm willing to share information. So others can break it apart and analysis it for anything that might be false. We all learn from one another.

A profound statement, and well said. Concise. Thorough. Thoughtful. Big gift in a small package. It's Christian.
The only thing I dislike is the phrase "truly Christian". Smacks of "no true Scotsman". I'm confident you understand. I'll let other readers figure it out. Life's a learning experience, after all.
PS: All underlining is added by myself for emphasis.

Certain witnesses gave proof somewhere. Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, Elihu, Cornelius. All, names of men who feared (respected) God and worked righteousness, and whose worship was accepted by God. They honestly just wanted to do right by God. Really, when we read the Genesis account, that's all God ever looked for in Adam, and then Eve. Both, His creative work. Now we are where we are. The aforementioned names all testify to the points you make. Each knew and understood the ultimate authority, and their personal responsibility. Respectively, it was God, and themselves. Between themselves and the Creator, they squarely placed their loyalty to Him, regardless of personal consequence. It's scriptural.

A profound statement, and well said. Concise. Thorough. Thoughtful. Big gift in a small package. It's Christian.
The only thing I dislike is the phrase "truly Christian". Smacks of "no true Scotsman". I'm confident you understand. I'll let other readers figure it out. Life's a learning experience, after all.
PS: All underlining is added by myself for emphasis.

@Juan Rivera I finally read through this whole topic, previously only noticing some side topics of interest to me at the time.  And I see that you have often addressed me here and hoped I would offer "on-topic" comments much earlier. As I read through it, I think @Many Miles is offering exactly the kinds of responses I would have offered had I been a little more thoughtful and focused on the original topic.
I agree that Galatians contains themes about doctrinal purity and, per Miles, the limit of obedience to human authority. We get valuable perspectives on these topics as Paul writes about many different things, including his own authority, the good news, being justified by faith and not works, and the difficulties Jewish Christians had fully appreciating that last concept (coming from a background of 1500 years of "salvation by works," i.e., law). 
But it seems that you also intend to find in Galatians some evidence for an ecclesiastical, God-appointed, human authority, such as a governing body that provides a basis for the proper type of Christian unity. I know you are aware from past comments that I believe Paul goes in a different direction on that question. I do think such an authority would be extremely valuable and convenient. But I see too many scriptures that fly in the face of expecting exactly that type of authority today. That doesn't mean that a type of human governing body doesn't serve a good purpose, of course. And this doesn't mean that the congregations are without human teachers and authorities. It just means that we, if we are truly Christian, must share the responsibility with them for what we accept and believe.
Of course, just saying all that is easier than providing the scriptures and details behind it, but many of those points have already been made in this current discussion.
And I like that you are looking for a more methodical approach. I appreciated this about "Rotherham" when I often went on for many pages in discussions with him (over a decade ago). He remained in a private "theology" email discussion group that I lightly participated in for years but I now only read comments from others now and then. Is he still around? Haven't heard from "Rotherham" for years now. Do you know about his health? 
And thanks for locating that blog from Apologetic Front on the web.archive. I found many pages there with some good ideas to review:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201214409/http://apologeticfront.com/category/faithful-slave/
https://web.archive.org/web/20150201220435/http://apologeticfront.com/category/governing-body/
 

Loved that program! And, they were correct. 100%

Honestly, only you know what that is supposed to be referring too.
 
It is true that Russell predicted Armageddon would come in 1914. I quoted his own publication to that end, for your sake. It's not my prediction. It was Russell's.

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 
Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.
It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.
Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

Who has to cite scripture to know Armageddon did not occur in 1914?

Yes. But the "extraordinary prophecy" cited by the society from The World Magazine specifically references Russell's prophecy and not any predecessors. And, as it turns out, The World Magazine was wrong because Russell's prediction that 1914 would see Armageddon was false. It didn't happen.
Do you deny that Russell taught that 1914 would see Armageddon? THAT is what The World Magazine credited Russell with correctly prophesying. 
Yes. He was.
"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A. D. 1878, and that the ''battle of the great day of God Almighty " (Rev. 16:14.), which will end in A. D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word."—(The Time is at Hand, Chapter IV, The Times of the Gentiles, 1902, p 101, underlining added for emphsis)
Russell came right out and predicted that Armageddon would end in 1914. He was wrong. The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from using the positive press coverage.
What Russell said about 1914 prior to 1914 is not subjective. It's conveniently written down.

Right. Worse, the supposed "God-Inspired Truth" that the society cited from The World Magazine as a fulfilled extraordinary prophecy turned out to be false, because what Russell had actually predicted, Armageddon, did not come in 1914 as foretold.
The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from capitalizing on the fantastic media coverage that article brought to their front door. The society is still riding that pony to this very day.

The society has wrapped a great deal of its theology around the year 1914. Even the 1919 teaching you allude to stems from the 1914 date. I won’t go into tremendous detail here, but it’s worthy of note what put legs on the teaching so that it got the traction it was assigned by the society.
In its 1993 brochure “Why Should We Worship God in Love and Truth?” there’s a chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”. This chapter is primarily designed to steer individuals toward JWs as the source of ‘God-inspired truth’. Within that chapter the last section is titled “The Greatest Evidence of All”. There, being introduced as ‘the greatest of evidence’ is this paragraph:
Decades before World War I began in 1914, Jehovah’s worshipers were making known the significance of that year. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”8 Ever since the momentous events of that year, so accurately foretold in the Bible alone, the whole world system of things has been in its “last days.” (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993129?q=%E2%80%9Cfulfilled+an+extraordinary+prophecy%E2%80%9C&p=par )
At the time, the article cited here published by The World Magazine really stirred tremendous interest in the teachings of Charles Russell. The article got prominent position on pages 4 and 17 of the magazine, and it feature one of Russell’s intriguing line graphs of the ages.
But do you see those ellipsis dots in the quoted paragraph? That’s the part left undisclosed, and I dare say more than 99 percent of the JW population today does not know what is undisclosed. The “extraordinary prophecy” that, according to The World Magazine, was fulfilled was that Russell and the early Bible Students had foretold that 1914 would see the battle of Armageddon.
The article in question is dated August 30, 1914. Hence at the time the publisher had no idea how 1914 would turn out. But we know today. We know for a fact that Armageddon did not occur in 1914, which is what Russell and the Bible Students had foretold.
What this means is:
1) “The Greatest Evidence of All” is based on a claim of fulfilled prophecy made in secular publisher in The World Magazine. This is what put legs onto the 1914 "prophecy". A secular publisher.
2) And, the “The Greatest Evidence of All” is no evidence at all about truth, because, as it turns out, prior to 1914 what Russell actually predicted for 1914 (Armageddon) did not come true. The would-be prophecy was false. So, something that we know was false is cited as 'the greatest evidence' for truth. That's a lot to take in!
That’s what the ellipsis dots camouflage. And it’s about a flagship teaching of the society.

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. It completely overlooks so much of what I've presented, going contrary to much of it.
1) I do not believe it required more faith to be a Christian in the first century. Why? I've said this before. The early Christians had men among them who were working miraculous feats. Curing sick people. Feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves. Raising the dead. It's not hard to put faith in teaching coming from such men. In large part this is what led to Jesus having followers in the first place. Though a very loving man and excellent speaker and teacher, he turned water wine, he healed the sick, he raised the dead. This was enough to draw anyone's attention. After the Christ's resurrection and ascension Christ's apostles had similar supernatural power. You can't really refute that if it's real and you're there to witness it, which means you're doing well to listen and accept what they teach.
2) Though the early Christians could easily accept teaching from men working supernatural miracles, Paul warned not to accept even what they ("we") say if it departed from what they had already taught them and began teaching something different than they had accepted from prior teaching. I don't see how you can dispute this latter point. Paul said it point blank. To deny this is to deny the legitimacy of what Paul said, or to read a preferential interpretation into the text. Notwithstanding all that, what was to happen when the men with supernatural power to work miracles disappeared in death? Their very presence presented a restraint of false teachings and teachers. The answer is that they left behind their own inspired written works (miracle workers with supernatural power can be assumed to be inspired to also write a legitimate record of events and teachings). The earliest Christians had the inspired words available up to that time, which Paul spoke of to Timothy. But the new witness of words that we call the Christian scriptures today was left by inspired men for sake of Christians to come.
3) I've studiously avoided suggesting that any Christian should, as you say, 'trust in their own interpretation of scripture'. To say this is to totally misunderstand what it means to form a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. It's to the contrary. Logical conclusions drive bias to the side and puts what can be proven sound to the front.
4) Yes, I agree with that for the early Christians with exposure to teachers with miraculous supernatural powers. These men were walking and talking tangible evidence that they were teachers of truth. But when these men were gone Christians needed to take great care that they were not mislead by new teachers, and they needed to remember which loyalty is priority, which is to God and not men (no matter what position they may hold as teachers/leaders). They also needed to guard against following they own interpretations. The answer was learning to reason from the scriptures. I have to believe that the biblical notion of reasoning from the scriptures was sound reasoning (logical) and not unsound reasoning (fallacious).
 
5) I agree with everything you say here with one exception, which I've underlined. It's a false bifurcation here to say if a) they found their own conscience was uninformed then b) they were to conform to the mind of the congregation. This argument wrongly presumes two things, 1) that there is no alternative other than a or b (which is why it it's a false bifurcation) and 2) that "the mind of the Congregation" is "informed". Here's my question to you on this point: What if your mind is uninformed and the Congregation's mind is also uninformed? What then? Think about that. There is an good solid answer to that question.
 
6) In the presence of inspired biblical text and the testimony of God creation all around us, no one should form belief based on "their own interpretation", meaning how they prefer to see things. That would be no more than believing what you want to believe solely because that's what you want to believe, something I categorically reject.
7) You ask "was their an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation". For early Christians who had the testimony of miracle workers with supernatural power, my answer would be yes, unless (or when) they changed their testimony. This latter point is what Paul warned against. This is why obedience to teachers and teaching has a limit. For Christians that came after the men with supernatural power, they had the testimony left behind in the new witness which we call the Christian scriptures. Any teaching asserted based on the bible since the men with supernatural powers would have to conform to sound (logical) conclusions based on the testimony already given and codified as the Bible.
If the question is whether God expects us to obey Him ahead of whomever He may have placed in an appointed position, then we have to look to examples that test that question. This is why the incident of Aaron standing in passive support of God's appointed spokesman (Moses) is important. It succinct fashion it provides a very important object lesson. If we want to worship God then we have to obey Him no matter what anyone else tells us, even if that other person has, or is thought to have, divinely appointed authority. 
 
The priest at the ancient tabernacle in the wilderness had something standing above them that was unmistakable. It was a supernatural phenomena of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This made it pretty clear that what was coming from the priests should be followed because that supernatural phenomena demonstrated God's approval of what they were doing there. If you want to look to the priesthood to examine the question of whether a worshiper should passively support a wrong teaching or sin (like in the instance at Meribah) then you need to find and share an incident that tests that question, which you haven't done. We know Jews were told to obey the priests. But what about when those priests told somebody to do something wrong, or wanted someone to support them in wrongdoing? Were they supposed to obey them then?  Ultimately, though, Israel insisted on having a king like the nations around them, and God appointed a King over Israel. The first one was Saul. Saul went bad. Though he was the anointed of God, he went bad. David would not act to remove Saul from his position because God had installed him as king. But David did not obey Saul because he knew Saul could not be trusted. This, too, was another incident demonstrating that our loyalty/obedience to God appointed authority has limitations. If it was true of Moses, whose was "God" to Aaron, then it was also true of the priesthood of Israel.
There is too much here so that time does not allow me to proof read. If something is misspelled or you have a question of anything please just ask. I have yet to see anyone post a thing suggesting that there is not an appropriate limitation to our obedience toward leaders we look toward as teachers. You recognize that somewhat, and I respect that. But I'd recommend you spend some time honing your skills of logical construction. Learning how to reason soundly helps a person avoid the trap of falling for their own bad ideas, preference and/or biases, and it also helps us recognize unsound teaching coming from others.

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. It completely overlooks so much of what I've presented, going contrary to much of it.
1) I do not believe it required more faith to be a Christian in the first century. Why? I've said this before. The early Christians had men among them who were working miraculous feats. Curing sick people. Feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves. Raising the dead. It's not hard to put faith in teaching coming from such men. In large part this is what led to Jesus having followers in the first place. Though a very loving man and excellent speaker and teacher, he turned water wine, he healed the sick, he raised the dead. This was enough to draw anyone's attention. After the Christ's resurrection and ascension Christ's apostles had similar supernatural power. You can't really refute that if it's real and you're there to witness it, which means you're doing well to listen and accept what they teach.
2) Though the early Christians could easily accept teaching from men working supernatural miracles, Paul warned not to accept even what they ("we") say if it departed from what they had already taught them and began teaching something different than they had accepted from prior teaching. I don't see how you can dispute this latter point. Paul said it point blank. To deny this is to deny the legitimacy of what Paul said, or to read a preferential interpretation into the text. Notwithstanding all that, what was to happen when the men with supernatural power to work miracles disappeared in death? Their very presence presented a restraint of false teachings and teachers. The answer is that they left behind their own inspired written works (miracle workers with supernatural power can be assumed to be inspired to also write a legitimate record of events and teachings). The earliest Christians had the inspired words available up to that time, which Paul spoke of to Timothy. But the new witness of words that we call the Christian scriptures today was left by inspired men for sake of Christians to come.
3) I've studiously avoided suggesting that any Christian should, as you say, 'trust in their own interpretation of scripture'. To say this is to totally misunderstand what it means to form a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. It's to the contrary. Logical conclusions drive bias to the side and puts what can be proven sound to the front.
4) Yes, I agree with that for the early Christians with exposure to teachers with miraculous supernatural powers. These men were walking and talking tangible evidence that they were teachers of truth. But when these men were gone Christians needed to take great care that they were not mislead by new teachers, and they needed to remember which loyalty is priority, which is to God and not men (no matter what position they may hold as teachers/leaders). They also needed to guard against following they own interpretations. The answer was learning to reason from the scriptures. I have to believe that the biblical notion of reasoning from the scriptures was sound reasoning (logical) and not unsound reasoning (fallacious).
 
5) I agree with everything you say here with one exception, which I've underlined. It's a false bifurcation here to say if a) they found their own conscience was uninformed then b) they were to conform to the mind of the congregation. This argument wrongly presumes two things, 1) that there is no alternative other than a or b (which is why it it's a false bifurcation) and 2) that "the mind of the Congregation" is "informed". Here's my question to you on this point: What if your mind is uninformed and the Congregation's mind is also uninformed? What then? Think about that. There is an good solid answer to that question.
 
6) In the presence of inspired biblical text and the testimony of God creation all around us, no one should form belief based on "their own interpretation", meaning how they prefer to see things. That would be no more than believing what you want to believe solely because that's what you want to believe, something I categorically reject.
7) You ask "was their an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation". For early Christians who had the testimony of miracle workers with supernatural power, my answer would be yes, unless (or when) they changed their testimony. This latter point is what Paul warned against. This is why obedience to teachers and teaching has a limit. For Christians that came after the men with supernatural power, they had the testimony left behind in the new witness which we call the Christian scriptures. Any teaching asserted based on the bible since the men with supernatural powers would have to conform to sound (logical) conclusions based on the testimony already given and codified as the Bible.
If the question is whether God expects us to obey Him ahead of whomever He may have placed in an appointed position, then we have to look to examples that test that question. This is why the incident of Aaron standing in passive support of God's appointed spokesman (Moses) is important. It succinct fashion it provides a very important object lesson. If we want to worship God then we have to obey Him no matter what anyone else tells us, even if that other person has, or is thought to have, divinely appointed authority. 
 
The priest at the ancient tabernacle in the wilderness had something standing above them that was unmistakable. It was a supernatural phenomena of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This made it pretty clear that what was coming from the priests should be followed because that supernatural phenomena demonstrated God's approval of what they were doing there. If you want to look to the priesthood to examine the question of whether a worshiper should passively support a wrong teaching or sin (like in the instance at Meribah) then you need to find and share an incident that tests that question, which you haven't done. We know Jews were told to obey the priests. But what about when those priests told somebody to do something wrong, or wanted someone to support them in wrongdoing? Were they supposed to obey them then?  Ultimately, though, Israel insisted on having a king like the nations around them, and God appointed a King over Israel. The first one was Saul. Saul went bad. Though he was the anointed of God, he went bad. David would not act to remove Saul from his position because God had installed him as king. But David did not obey Saul because he knew Saul could not be trusted. This, too, was another incident demonstrating that our loyalty/obedience to God appointed authority has limitations. If it was true of Moses, whose was "God" to Aaron, then it was also true of the priesthood of Israel.
There is too much here so that time does not allow me to proof read. If something is misspelled or you have a question of anything please just ask. I have yet to see anyone post a thing suggesting that there is not an appropriate limitation to our obedience toward leaders we look toward as teachers. You recognize that somewhat, and I respect that. But I'd recommend you spend some time honing your skills of logical construction. Learning how to reason soundly helps a person avoid the trap of falling for their own bad ideas, preference and/or biases, and it also helps us recognize unsound teaching coming from others.

Some in the medical field who are involved in organ transplant admit IV  blood transfusion should always be viewed as a organ transplant..I think we both view Red blood cells as vital for Oxygen maker and carrier. I’m not sure on the rest of your scientific knowledge but I will bow to it as I know nothing of what you say .
Either way you think on it clearly one is not abstaining from it…but I stand corrected on the rest of your post…

What I wrote here is, I believe, what Paul alluded to in his second letter to Thessalonia. There, he wrote of something that served, at the time, as a restraint to what he went on to describe as what we would term “apostate” today. 
 
Paul was an apostle personally appointed by Christ. He was in addition to the earlier apostles. These men manifested supernatural abilities to corroborate that their teachings were right and should be accepted. But, as Paul said to Thessalonia, as a “restraint” though these men existed they were only temporary. One day they would all be gone in death, and their “restraint” would therefore be gone in person. 
 
But these men left something behind for future generations of Christ’s followers. They left behind written words that today we know as the Bible. We are equipped with the Bible. In their absence we have what we need for competency for examining teachings for soundness. 
 
Another apostle, John, wrote that we have intellectual capacity for the purpose of knowing the true one. Yet another apostle, Peter, reminds us we must be sure to exercise intellectual capacity with a sound mind. 
 
Hence those who initially acted as a restraint against wrong teaching left behind themselves two important things for us. 1) Written words and 2) that which can be soundly concluded from those words. Today, these serve as restraint against wrong teaching, and our obedience should rightly end where wrongness begins. This limit of obedience is, I believe, something Paul was very straightforward about in his letter to Galatia.