Many Miles

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

Hopefully I'm not outside acceptable boundaries by citing the source I'm about to cite. If I am, please just let me know.
Today I was shown a recent article published by Rolf Furuli. His article addresses the biblical account of Noah and the great flood. Specifically he cites Genesis 6:21 and then he says, "Neither Noah nor the animals ate meat, so only plants were taken into the Ark as food."
- So we have this: No meat.
- More stringently, we have this: Only plants.
So, what about milk? What about water? What about natural earth elements such as mineral deposits (e.g., salt licks).
Because the Genesis account said humans could use plants as food, is that supposed to mean that was the only thing humans could consume as food?

I've not suggested Furuli as a credible source on the topic. He's just one of many who've expressed the same or similar notion.
When it comes to personal experiences he's shared, I find no reason to doubt his testimony, though there is always another perspective to every experience. But some of his deductions of evidence are unsound. His idea of what the peri-flood Noah did not use as food is an unevidenced assertion. He uses this as a supporting premise, but it assumes a great deal.

Facing death is typically a new experience for each person. It’s a very personal experience. It’s difficult to judge why individuals face death however they do. 
Thomas Jefferson concluded there was a purpose for old age. It prepared a person for death. That was his view, once he achieved old age. 
My paternal grandmother faced death twice.
The first time she was terrified. I mean, just terrified. She looked at me and said, “[Name], I can tell you that no matter what anyone tells you, or how many people are around you, dying is something you have to do all by yourself, and I can tell you, it’s not fun.” She survived though physicians had said her death was sure. 
The second time she was serene. She said she just wanted to close her eyes and not wake up. She was ready to face death, and she did. She died, but not in fear. 
So maybe there was something to Jefferson’s conclusion. 
 

The protein of erythrocytes (red cells) that release oxygen to tissue is called hemoglobin. Essentially, the erythrocytic cell is a carrier of the hemoglobin protein. This protein is a combination of the heme molecule and globin proteins. The heme molecule in this protein has an affinity for oxygen, which is why it releases carbon dioxide and binds with oxygen in lung tissue. As this oxygen rich molecule circulates through the body, when it encounters tissue with more oxygen affinity than it has, it releases oxygen to that tissue and binds with that tissue's carbon dioxide, which it then circulates back to lung tissue to release the carbon dioxide and acquire oxygen for another trip to transport more oxygen to needy tissue.
But here's the important part. The body is not catabolizing the erythrocytic cell. It's not "eating" the cell. The cell remains intact and functioning as a tissue. Also, though the erythrocyte is rich in protein, its protein is not catabolized as food. Transfused red cells are transport vehicles for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen and carbon dioxide they exchange, retrieve and deliver is not eating, its inhalation and exhalation; it's catch and release.
Each person must conclude what they will about other persons. That's the way it is, it'll always be that way, and it should be that way.
In my case, I prefer to learn from those around me, whether I like what they say or not. This is because I want to learn, even if that means I find out I'm wrong about something. For me, I could care less about your personality. But I do look to learn from each interaction. Also, sometimes, someone puts information out in public view that the public deserves to know is incorrect. In this case, it's incorrect to assert:
That was said in terms of intravenous administration, and it is just plain false. And, the one who said this did so under auspice of someone who "worked in the medical field". This suggests the notion above is said authoritatively. Yet, the statement that "there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube" is patently false.
- If you eat blood the body sees nutritional elements and it metabolizes those elements as food. It's eating.
- If you transfuse blood the body see biological tissue that it uses as tissue. It's a tissue transplant.
Think of my person however you want. But if you're going to say things at least say things that are correct.

Enter Paul's ministry ...
Between Jews converting to Christianity and Gentiles embracing Christianity, we find that each has persons whose worship God accepted.
But Jewish Christians had just learned something new. There were Gentiles who aside from all the Jewish tradition and ritual, had worship that God accepts, just as it was at the time.
Just reading the room a bit, when Cornelius and his household met Peter and his entourage it is a bit more than evident God was nudging the gentiles toward Christianity. Though He accepted their worship, there was something more He was looking for in them. Hence, though their worship was already acceptable, God was showing them something new too. But the new for them was not extensive ritualistic law codes. Rather, it was embracing Jesus and becoming followers of him. Peter immediately offered baptism in the name of Jesus, and these holy spirit bearing gentiles were thus baptized.
Leaping
Between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians, one could argue the Jewish Christians needed to make a bigger leap than the gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians learned their expectation of fellowship with gentiles would need them to do a seriously large downsizing. For fellowship with gentiles they basically needed to rip the entire Mosaic Law code out of their head. It obviously wasn't needed for acceptable worship, and insisting on its provisions would certainly hamper brotherly fellowship with gentile Christians, when they should all be siblings in faith.
Holy spirit entered the picture by pointing to standards of behavior held out for all men that existed prior to Mosaic Law and all its associated ritualism. It boiled down to a few items that were not Mosaic Law but were more than natural law. It boiled down to the letter issued as an apostolic decree and found in Acts 15. This decree filled the gap for sibling fellowship for al Christians, no matter their decent.
Enter Paul
Paul knew God had already accepted gentile worshipers as they were, which was made evident by holy spirit falling upon them. This is not to say that the worship of all gentiles was acceptable to God, but of some of them it was (such as Cornelius). Hence in his words to them he didn't argue to ignore the apostolic decree but, rather, it appears he was telling them not to go to extremes in relation to it. Hence, what was sold in a meat market, unless they knew it was something contrary to the apostolic decree then don't worry about it. As Paul said, 'Make no inquiry'. Regarding food used in idolatrous ceremony, it was not the food's fault how it had been used. But once the ceremony's over why waste food that's perfectly edible!? Paul wasn't advocating that idolatry was okay. He was only pointing out that nitpicking about where food had been is nonsense and should not interfere with eating something that's perfectly edible. Don't make a big deal out of it!
Then Paul says to Timothy, " For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." That statement would, by itself, stand in stark contrast to the apostolic decree that had been issued with help of holy spirit. But this statement does not stand alone. Paul prefaced this statement by saying he was speaking of "foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." It just happens to be the case that of the foods "God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." there was a provision that God had expressed to all humankind that should be observed out of respect for life. That was to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This was the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree.
Jesus speaks
He said, ". . . 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.” Jesus also said, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"
Aside from what natural law would tell a person, I ask the question: what would come out of the mouth of someone who understood God's sentiments on respect for life and what He expected in demonstration of that respect? That, out of respect for life and God's sentiments of it, it would be right and proper to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This is the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree that should be abstained from. The worship Jesus spoke of was not based on technical things but, rather, what is in the heart. The heart of anyone who worships God wants to please Him out of fear (respect) of his dominion over them and their wanting to please Him in how they live their lives, which in the end is our worship. Our worship is how we live our life, and it's done authentically only from the heart.
 
 

Facing death is typically a new experience for each person. It’s a very personal experience. It’s difficult to judge why individuals face death however they do. 
Thomas Jefferson concluded there was a purpose for old age. It prepared a person for death. That was his view, once he achieved old age. 
My paternal grandmother faced death twice.
The first time she was terrified. I mean, just terrified. She looked at me and said, “[Name], I can tell you that no matter what anyone tells you, or how many people are around you, dying is something you have to do all by yourself, and I can tell you, it’s not fun.” She survived though physicians had said her death was sure. 
The second time she was serene. She said she just wanted to close her eyes and not wake up. She was ready to face death, and she did. She died, but not in fear. 
So maybe there was something to Jefferson’s conclusion. 
 

Enter Paul's ministry ...
Between Jews converting to Christianity and Gentiles embracing Christianity, we find that each has persons whose worship God accepted.
But Jewish Christians had just learned something new. There were Gentiles who aside from all the Jewish tradition and ritual, had worship that God accepts, just as it was at the time.
Just reading the room a bit, when Cornelius and his household met Peter and his entourage it is a bit more than evident God was nudging the gentiles toward Christianity. Though He accepted their worship, there was something more He was looking for in them. Hence, though their worship was already acceptable, God was showing them something new too. But the new for them was not extensive ritualistic law codes. Rather, it was embracing Jesus and becoming followers of him. Peter immediately offered baptism in the name of Jesus, and these holy spirit bearing gentiles were thus baptized.
Leaping
Between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians, one could argue the Jewish Christians needed to make a bigger leap than the gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians learned their expectation of fellowship with gentiles would need them to do a seriously large downsizing. For fellowship with gentiles they basically needed to rip the entire Mosaic Law code out of their head. It obviously wasn't needed for acceptable worship, and insisting on its provisions would certainly hamper brotherly fellowship with gentile Christians, when they should all be siblings in faith.
Holy spirit entered the picture by pointing to standards of behavior held out for all men that existed prior to Mosaic Law and all its associated ritualism. It boiled down to a few items that were not Mosaic Law but were more than natural law. It boiled down to the letter issued as an apostolic decree and found in Acts 15. This decree filled the gap for sibling fellowship for al Christians, no matter their decent.
Enter Paul
Paul knew God had already accepted gentile worshipers as they were, which was made evident by holy spirit falling upon them. This is not to say that the worship of all gentiles was acceptable to God, but of some of them it was (such as Cornelius). Hence in his words to them he didn't argue to ignore the apostolic decree but, rather, it appears he was telling them not to go to extremes in relation to it. Hence, what was sold in a meat market, unless they knew it was something contrary to the apostolic decree then don't worry about it. As Paul said, 'Make no inquiry'. Regarding food used in idolatrous ceremony, it was not the food's fault how it had been used. But once the ceremony's over why waste food that's perfectly edible!? Paul wasn't advocating that idolatry was okay. He was only pointing out that nitpicking about where food had been is nonsense and should not interfere with eating something that's perfectly edible. Don't make a big deal out of it!
Then Paul says to Timothy, " For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." That statement would, by itself, stand in stark contrast to the apostolic decree that had been issued with help of holy spirit. But this statement does not stand alone. Paul prefaced this statement by saying he was speaking of "foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." It just happens to be the case that of the foods "God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." there was a provision that God had expressed to all humankind that should be observed out of respect for life. That was to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This was the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree.
Jesus speaks
He said, ". . . 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.” Jesus also said, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"
Aside from what natural law would tell a person, I ask the question: what would come out of the mouth of someone who understood God's sentiments on respect for life and what He expected in demonstration of that respect? That, out of respect for life and God's sentiments of it, it would be right and proper to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This is the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree that should be abstained from. The worship Jesus spoke of was not based on technical things but, rather, what is in the heart. The heart of anyone who worships God wants to please Him out of fear (respect) of his dominion over them and their wanting to please Him in how they live their lives, which in the end is our worship. Our worship is how we live our life, and it's done authentically only from the heart.
 
 

From the Introduction, we find this statement:
"In our study, we will clearly point out that this variability in medical issues makes the Watchtower Society an incompetent organization in this field, and especially regarding its determination of refusing blood transfusions."
I have to agree with that statement. When asked about the fundamental underpinnings of its doctrinal position on blood, the society has said the following:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both contain utter falsehood.
Regarding Item 1 above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with forbidden red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with permitted cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. Hence, not only is utter falsehood found in this position, the position is also self-contradictory.
Regarding Item 2 above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false. 
Because the two fundamental underpinnings the society asserts for its religious position are total nonsense, then either they are just flat out dishonest or, as the author above says, the society is "an incompetent organization in this field".
Honestly, folks inside the society should feel utterly embarrassed at this nonsense, and perhaps this explains why not a single insider with any authority is willing to publicly discuss this subject with a learned person on its merit. All they will do in public is argue that a religion has a right to hold doctrinal views, and that individuals have a right to hold doctrinal views. But publicly address the merit with a learned person? No. Never! Well, they are right that religions and individuals have a right to hold whatever religious view they want, but that doesn't mean a religious view they hold is rational or, in this case, scriptural.

After reviewing resources at my disposal, I offer this:
The thing at issue is language in the apostolic decree. Specifically whether abstain "from blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree, and if so what that means.
As an initial matter, the letter containing this decree says it is the result of the holy spirit. I don't take that lightly. When someone with miraculous supernatural power says something is of the holy spirit, I listen. And, the men posting this letter are testified to have had such power.
As a second matter, this decree came after Jewish Christians, namely Peter and others who went with him, witnessed holy spirit falling upon gentile worshipers of God, even before they were baptized. Hence Jewish Christians were schooled (let's just say, very pointedly reminded!) that God accepted worship of men and woman outside Jewish law and tradition so long as they met basic standards (though God didn't immediately spell out what that was). Hence, eventually Jewish Christians were going to have to come to grips with the fact that regardless of descent "the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." But what did this mean? What made their worship acceptable? At the moment, all Jewish Christians knew was they were not the only ones whose worship God accepted; hence Jewish Christians would have to adjust their view of essential elements of acceptable worship, that is in relation to their own Jewish tradition, and in the face of their new faith in Jesus.
That said, this, together with consideration of multiple accounts of this decree (from various early church traditions, i.e., Western, Alexandrian and Caesarean text), most likely both abstain from "blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree.
So what do we gather from both these being in in the apostolic decree?
Jewish Christians would have to dig deeper than their ritualistic traditions constructed around Mosaic Law, the temple and all that these entail. And, they had a new faith in Jesus that moved them! Holy spirit helped them out. Acceptable worship included essential things aside from Mosaic Law and beyond what natural law would dictate. One item that would fall into this gap had to do with Noahide law. It addressed a prohibition in relation to killing and blood. According to Noahide law, to "abstain from blood" would include abstention from "things strangled" by human hand. So why was "things strangled" included in the decree? It would be repetition. So why include it?
I can't be dogmatic about answering the question. I would say, though, that invoking Noahide law as essential would basically require the notion of abstain "from blood". (I.e., blood of slaughter) So that aspect was a given within the decree. When it came to "things strangled" there could be something practical going on. As a practical matter, the fresher and cleaner the meat the more preferable. Keeping an animal alive until it was sold kept its meat fresher. At the time, meat sold for dietary purposes, if it was killed at the point of sale, would often be strangled then and there. Killing a critter made the carcass more manageable. Killing a critter by strangulation aided in protecting its flesh from external contamination, which is initially helpful. (Modern processing houses for wild game much prefer an animal to be intact as possible. Field dressing, for example, tends to introduce all manner of contaminants that would not otherwise be there to have to deal with.) Hence, the notion of abstain from "things strangled" could arguably be no more than addressing a practical matter that contemporary Christians would find themselves confronted with.
In short, including "abstain from blood" and "things strangled" may mean nothing more than one is statutory language and one addresses a practical matter.
PS: Nothing about this presentation is intended to construct a logical argument. It's no more than sharing potential.

The "big freaking deal" is the part of Genesis 9 that holds individuals responsible for deaths caused for teaching something that is false. That falls squarely in the realm of bloodguilt.
You've just put words into God's mouth. Under Mosaic Law Jews were to treat blood as a sacred substance that should not be used for anything, with the sole exception of using it for sacred sacrifice, and Jews were required to use blood in that way.
Aside from Mosaic Law God has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance. Noah was not required to waste blood onto the ground. Of living animals he would kill to eat, Noah was not required to pour the animal's blood onto the ground. Noah could do with that blood anything he wanted to do, except for eating it. That was the sole abstention required of Noah in respect to the substance of blood.
Oh, and, before I forget to mention it, God didn't not say anything to Noah about "all blood". The only blood he talked to Noah about was blood of living animals and the blood of human's who were killed for unjustified reason. To Noah, at no time did God address 1) blood of animals dead of natural cause, or 2) donor blood.
One more thing. Christians are not under Mosaic Law. They never have been.

Maybe you worked in the medical field, but you don't seem to understand that blood products like packed red cells are of absolutely no value as parenteral nutrition. Though red cells are loaded with protein, if a patient were starving and given red cells by transfusion as their nutrition, the patient would starve to death because given intravenously the body will not catabolize its own red cells for sake of nutrition.
This has been known since the late 19th Century when Dr. William Hunter and his colleagues published very extensive methods and findings of blood physiology and transfusion medicine. Among other things, of transfusion of whole blood they found, "We have seen that transfused blood possesses no nutritive value." Of the transfused blood's physiology they found, "It behaves, not as a mass of nutritive material, but as a tissue." (British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 Aug 10, p 308; British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 July 20, p 117)
Transfusion of blood is, essentially, an organ transplant. We can eat a kidney and get nutrition. We can accept a kidney transplant and we get no nutrition. Transfusing blood works essentially the same way.
The findings of Dr. Hunter et. al. were later confirmed beyond any doubt by further experimentation and research conducted by Drs. J. Garrott Allen, Edward Stemmer and Louis R. Head in the 1950s. They proved conclusively that intravenous administration of red cells offered no nutritional benefit whatsoever. None. Nada. (Annals of Surgery, Allen et al, Sept 1956, pp 345-354; see also J of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Drs. Erik Vinnars and Douglas Wilmore, Vol 27 Numb 23, 2003, p 226)
Oddly enough, though, the same trio of researchers also found that products like cryosupernatant were effective for parenteral nutrition, and this is one of the products rendered from blood the society lets JWs accept transfusion of. This finding was established in the 1930s and conclusive confirmed in the 1950s. (Ibid)
Yes, internal homogenic or xenogenic tissue transplantation should always be weighed carefully. You don't want them if they are not essential to protecting mortality or morbidity. A risk-to-benefit analysis is in order for sure!

From the Introduction, we find this statement:
"In our study, we will clearly point out that this variability in medical issues makes the Watchtower Society an incompetent organization in this field, and especially regarding its determination of refusing blood transfusions."
I have to agree with that statement. When asked about the fundamental underpinnings of its doctrinal position on blood, the society has said the following:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both contain utter falsehood.
Regarding Item 1 above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with forbidden red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with permitted cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. Hence, not only is utter falsehood found in this position, the position is also self-contradictory.
Regarding Item 2 above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false. 
Because the two fundamental underpinnings the society asserts for its religious position are total nonsense, then either they are just flat out dishonest or, as the author above says, the society is "an incompetent organization in this field".
Honestly, folks inside the society should feel utterly embarrassed at this nonsense, and perhaps this explains why not a single insider with any authority is willing to publicly discuss this subject with a learned person on its merit. All they will do in public is argue that a religion has a right to hold doctrinal views, and that individuals have a right to hold doctrinal views. But publicly address the merit with a learned person? No. Never! Well, they are right that religions and individuals have a right to hold whatever religious view they want, but that doesn't mean a religious view they hold is rational or, in this case, scriptural.

From a macro-perspective, humans act like a virus consuming planet earth.
If something is not expressly forbidden it just means it's not expressly forbidden. It does not suggest permission or prohibition.
If something is not expressly permitted it just means it's not expressly permitted. it does not suggest it might be permitted or that is is prohibited.
Logically, it would be false to assert lack of permission means forbidden. This is because the premise asserts a false bifurcation that if something is not permitted that means it's forbidden when there could be reasons other than "it's forbidden" that a permission has not been expressed.
Lack of permission would only mean forbidden when there is present a demonstrable premise that everything is prohibited except that which is permitted. Without that latter demonstrable premise, lack of permission does not implicate forbidden.
When Eve was created she was presented as a compliment of Adam, suggesting a helping partnership. (Gen 2:18-22)
After the fall into sin, Eve was told Adam would dominate her. (Gen 3:16)

After reviewing resources at my disposal, I offer this:
The thing at issue is language in the apostolic decree. Specifically whether abstain "from blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree, and if so what that means.
As an initial matter, the letter containing this decree says it is the result of the holy spirit. I don't take that lightly. When someone with miraculous supernatural power says something is of the holy spirit, I listen. And, the men posting this letter are testified to have had such power.
As a second matter, this decree came after Jewish Christians, namely Peter and others who went with him, witnessed holy spirit falling upon gentile worshipers of God, even before they were baptized. Hence Jewish Christians were schooled (let's just say, very pointedly reminded!) that God accepted worship of men and woman outside Jewish law and tradition so long as they met basic standards (though God didn't immediately spell out what that was). Hence, eventually Jewish Christians were going to have to come to grips with the fact that regardless of descent "the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." But what did this mean? What made their worship acceptable? At the moment, all Jewish Christians knew was they were not the only ones whose worship God accepted; hence Jewish Christians would have to adjust their view of essential elements of acceptable worship, that is in relation to their own Jewish tradition, and in the face of their new faith in Jesus.
That said, this, together with consideration of multiple accounts of this decree (from various early church traditions, i.e., Western, Alexandrian and Caesarean text), most likely both abstain from "blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree.
So what do we gather from both these being in in the apostolic decree?
Jewish Christians would have to dig deeper than their ritualistic traditions constructed around Mosaic Law, the temple and all that these entail. And, they had a new faith in Jesus that moved them! Holy spirit helped them out. Acceptable worship included essential things aside from Mosaic Law and beyond what natural law would dictate. One item that would fall into this gap had to do with Noahide law. It addressed a prohibition in relation to killing and blood. According to Noahide law, to "abstain from blood" would include abstention from "things strangled" by human hand. So why was "things strangled" included in the decree? It would be repetition. So why include it?
I can't be dogmatic about answering the question. I would say, though, that invoking Noahide law as essential would basically require the notion of abstain "from blood". (I.e., blood of slaughter) So that aspect was a given within the decree. When it came to "things strangled" there could be something practical going on. As a practical matter, the fresher and cleaner the meat the more preferable. Keeping an animal alive until it was sold kept its meat fresher. At the time, meat sold for dietary purposes, if it was killed at the point of sale, would often be strangled then and there. Killing a critter made the carcass more manageable. Killing a critter by strangulation aided in protecting its flesh from external contamination, which is initially helpful. (Modern processing houses for wild game much prefer an animal to be intact as possible. Field dressing, for example, tends to introduce all manner of contaminants that would not otherwise be there to have to deal with.) Hence, the notion of abstain from "things strangled" could arguably be no more than addressing a practical matter that contemporary Christians would find themselves confronted with.
In short, including "abstain from blood" and "things strangled" may mean nothing more than one is statutory language and one addresses a practical matter.
PS: Nothing about this presentation is intended to construct a logical argument. It's no more than sharing potential.

The "big freaking deal" is the part of Genesis 9 that holds individuals responsible for deaths caused for teaching something that is false. That falls squarely in the realm of bloodguilt.
You've just put words into God's mouth. Under Mosaic Law Jews were to treat blood as a sacred substance that should not be used for anything, with the sole exception of using it for sacred sacrifice, and Jews were required to use blood in that way.
Aside from Mosaic Law God has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance. Noah was not required to waste blood onto the ground. Of living animals he would kill to eat, Noah was not required to pour the animal's blood onto the ground. Noah could do with that blood anything he wanted to do, except for eating it. That was the sole abstention required of Noah in respect to the substance of blood.
Oh, and, before I forget to mention it, God didn't not say anything to Noah about "all blood". The only blood he talked to Noah about was blood of living animals and the blood of human's who were killed for unjustified reason. To Noah, at no time did God address 1) blood of animals dead of natural cause, or 2) donor blood.
One more thing. Christians are not under Mosaic Law. They never have been.

That's a perspective I've not really explored, as least not that I can recall at the moment. In English translation from different original languages, we have:
Gen 2:17: you must not
Gen 9:4: YOU must not
Acts 15:20: abstain from
Could be the difference between you can't versus you shouldn't.
It's subtle. But it's a curiosity. I'm gonna give this more thought.

I just came across this title:
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion? - Włodzimierz Bednarski
https://www.academia.edu/41133507/Are_Jehovahs_Witnesses_competent_to_resolve_the_issue_of_blood_transfusion?email_work_card=view-paper

That's a perspective I've not really explored, as least not that I can recall at the moment. In English translation from different original languages, we have:
Gen 2:17: you must not
Gen 9:4: YOU must not
Acts 15:20: abstain from
Could be the difference between you can't versus you shouldn't.
It's subtle. But it's a curiosity. I'm gonna give this more thought.

That's a perspective I've not really explored, as least not that I can recall at the moment. In English translation from different original languages, we have:
Gen 2:17: you must not
Gen 9:4: YOU must not
Acts 15:20: abstain from
Could be the difference between you can't versus you shouldn't.
It's subtle. But it's a curiosity. I'm gonna give this more thought.

abstain
verb [ I ]
US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/
to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:
Some families abstain from eating fried food.
If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.
to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol
abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong
to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs
I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.
 

No matter the language a person speaks, everyone knows an infant suckling its mother teats is eating, and milk is the food.
Perhaps my statement you respond to here was too precisely worded. I was borrowing the phrase "green vegetation" and I did spell out photosynthesis, but in my head the real point is that I don't know of many creatures that dwell in the deep sea whose primary source of eating is vegetation.
Also, the fact that we know the Bible account fails to give every detail about available nutritional resources that humans and animals likely and legally (meaning God was okay with it) made use of is only one more reason to defer to what we see in the natural created world and accept what we find there as additional testimony of God's will. Ever heard of a salt lick? Natural salt licks provide animals with essential mineral nutrients. These are not vegetation, yet animals will seek out these mineral deposits because they need them. Just look at the tremendous effort that some mountain goats go to in order to get to these minerals, which they're not getting from vegetation alone. Yet Genesis is totally silent on this subject. Good thing the written testimony of the Bible tells us that we also have the unwritten testimony of creation that also tells us of God's will.

No need to apologize. I didn't mean to sound too serious. It was merely a setup to be able to say that I will "stop kicking against the goads" which I decided to skip saying anyway.
I don't mind the overlapping meaning of eating with drinking on a technical level, but regarding Bible commentary, Hebrew and Greek both had separate terms for eating chewable food and drinking liquid food. So I don't know how much we could ever expect the term to overlap in Hebrew (or Greek).
(Deuteronomy 9:9) . . .I remained on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, eating no food and drinking no water. 
(Luke 17:26-28) Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27  they were eating, they were drinking,... and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28  Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.
True. You can't expect a Bible account to give every detail we might wonder about. Much of the text is poetic shorthand. Also although the term does mean "green," the exact same term will often just mean grass/leaves/stalks etc. For example, both of the following are good translations:
(Numbers 22:4) So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the grass in the field.”. . .
(Numbers 22:4) 4 So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the green in the field.”. . .
This reminded me that the term "devour" is actually the NWT choice for a word that technically means to "lick up" which is the way the KJV and others translate it. But I mention it because the usual term for "eat" is the same word often translated "devour," especially when it comes to beasts. It would be odd, but a translator would thus have the right to say that Adam and Eve were given every tree to "devour." Or to Noah "You must not devour [flesh with its] blood." That potential connotation could refer to the fact that the mouth is chewing something up and therefore smashing and crushing with teeth, for example. That may be part of the reason that the word is never used of milk, water, or alcohol. 

No matter the language a person speaks, everyone knows an infant suckling its mother teats is eating, and milk is the food.
Perhaps my statement you respond to here was too precisely worded. I was borrowing the phrase "green vegetation" and I did spell out photosynthesis, but in my head the real point is that I don't know of many creatures that dwell in the deep sea whose primary source of eating is vegetation.
Also, the fact that we know the Bible account fails to give every detail about available nutritional resources that humans and animals likely and legally (meaning God was okay with it) made use of is only one more reason to defer to what we see in the natural created world and accept what we find there as additional testimony of God's will. Ever heard of a salt lick? Natural salt licks provide animals with essential mineral nutrients. These are not vegetation, yet animals will seek out these mineral deposits because they need them. Just look at the tremendous effort that some mountain goats go to in order to get to these minerals, which they're not getting from vegetation alone. Yet Genesis is totally silent on this subject. Good thing the written testimony of the Bible tells us that we also have the unwritten testimony of creation that also tells us of God's will.