JW Insider

Trolls-R-Us: @BTK59 @BillyTheKid-55 @George88 @Allen Smith @AllenSmith35 @Alphonse and many more.
What would this forum be like without them?

Wait. What? BTK59 is a troll? I've been engaging with a troll for a few days? Guess I don't get out enough.

“Iceberg! Dead ahead, captain! A six-pointer!”
“Not a problem, mate. Full speed ahead. I’m sure there’s nothing more below.”

Trolls-R-Us: @BTK59 @BillyTheKid-55 @George88 @Allen Smith @AllenSmith35 @Alphonse and many more.
What would this forum be like without them?

Whoa.
I would never say we are dealing with typ/antitype here, but clearly we are dealing with a ‘this reminds me of that.’
And since we’re speaking of eating here, and I’m not following closely enough to make a contribution, but wish to make a contribution nonetheless, if only to placate the Librarian (that old hen), here is an observation of 300 lb G.K Chesterton interacting with rail-thin George Bernard Shaw:
GKC: “To look at you, anyone would think a famine had struck England.”
GBS: “To look at you, anyone would think you had caused it.”

Decay begins at death. Decay escalates to a point where flesh becomes inedible for humans yet still edible for other creatures. Some animals, like maggots, thrive on putrified flesh. Eating flesh is a sort of food from creation.

This subject reminds me of an incident from probably 35-40 years ago.
In very sincere, humble yet solemn form, an older sister approached me to report that her husband had eaten some birthday cake that had been baked by his workplace peers in celebration of his birthday, and worse he was refusing to come forth and confess this sin on his own so it fell to her to report it. As she put it, she knew a judicial committee needed to confront him. (Disclaimer: we don't hold judicial hearings over a person simply opting to celebrate their birthday)
To make her feel heard, I asked whether her husband participated in the celebration event. She said he had not participated in the party but his peers had wrapped up leftovers from the cake after his birthday party, and gave the leftover cake to him in tinfoil, which he brought home. He ate some of the cake for a late night snack that night. This was his sin.   
I don't need to go further into the experience, but this was an incident that did not involve a person engaging in any celebratory birthday event, but they did eat some perfectly good food left over from a celebratory birthday event. One should not confuse perfectly good food with an event, unless eating the food is part and parcel to the event. But weak minds do sometimes confuse the two as though equal.

There is a word in Hebrew that's used in Genesis 1:28 that might have a bearing on the argument about whether Jehovah may have always had in mind that humans could eat meat, just as many animals had apparently been doing for thousands or years. 
(Genesis 1:28) . . .Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
 
The word for subdue in Hebrew is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3533/kjv/wlc/0-1/
כָּבַשׁ kâbash, kaw-bash'; a primitive root; to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard; positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate:—bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.
Other examples are here translating exactly the same word in the New World Translation:
It can even indicate "devour"
(Zechariah 9:15) Jehovah of armies will defend them, And they will devour and subdue the slingstones. They will drink and be boisterous, as if with wine; And they will be filled like the bowl . . ,
Or ravage, rape:
(Esther 7:8) 8 The king returned from the palace garden to the house of the wine banquet and saw that Haʹman had thrown himself on the couch where Esther was. The king exclaimed: “Is he also going to rape the queen in my own house?” . . .
Other ideas, are put into bondage, conquer, etc.
Therefore, a basic idea behind subduing the earth, could include "devouring" it. How would one go about conquering the fish, putting the flying creatures into bondage? For what purpose would one subjugate sheep and oxen, if not to also make use of them as resources? 
 

This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55  and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. 
First, you say:
I'm assuming this could have been an innocent mistake, probably because you saw: "(Genesis 3:21) . . .And Jehovah God made long garments from skins . . ." and you looked up the wrong word. You appear to have looked up the Bible lexicon word(s) for "garment[s]" instead of "skin[s]."
What seemed odd though is that in other forum topics you have praised the scholarly abilities and translation abilities of the GB and the WTS, yet here you simply reject the Watchtower's view:
*** w54 7/15 p. 427 May Christians Eat Meat? ***
Nor can Jesus’ words, “Happy are the merciful,” be used to advocate vegetarianism, for then Jesus himself would have been unmerciful, for he certainly ate flesh, as we have seen. Jehovah glories in the fact that he is merciful, kind and loving, and in view of all his commands, to eat the passover lamb and to offer animal sacrifices, and his own use of the skins of animals to clothe Adam and Eve, it must be apparent that being merciful does not require man to refrain from using lower animals for his benefit.—Matt. 5:7, NW.
As an aside, and in line with the Watchtower's comments just quoted, how "savage" do you think it would have been for God to clothe them with animal skins, and yet the same God, who does not change, demanded that if His priests were vegetarian, they would have to be disfellowshipped or perhaps even put to death. In fact, even for the average Hebrew, they MUST eat meat by God's command:
(Exodus 12:8-14) . . .“‘They must eat the meat on this night. . . . “‘This day will serve as a memorial for you, and you must celebrate it as a festival to Jehovah throughout your generations. 
(Leviticus 8:31-35) . . .: “Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and you will eat it there . . . just as I was commanded, ‘Aaron and his sons will eat it.’ . . . Jehovah commanded that we do what we have done today in order to make atonement for you. . . . and carry out your obligation to Jehovah, so that you may not die; for so I have been commanded.”
However it happened, your argument as quoted above, ends up talking about the word "garment" and then takes a turn to tunics and linen, and argues that the word had a different meaning from the one it later came to be used for. And you have also diverted to fig leaves in Genesis 3:7 instead of the question about the "skins" in Genesis 3:21.
Because Friberg said a "garment" could be made not necessarily of linen but also of skins, you are apparently concluding that these particular garments in Genesis 3 must not have been from skin but could have been from linen. By that fallacious reasoning, if Friberg had said that garments were not necessarily made from frilly lace but also from skin, you could have concluded that Jehovah made those garments from frilly lace. 
Actually, it's pretty simple when you look up the corerct word used in Genesis 3:21:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5785/kjv/wlc/0-1/
Outline of Biblical Usage [?] skin, hide
skin (of men)
hide (of animals)
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend) עוֹר ʻôwr, ore; from H5783; skin (as naked); by implication, hide, leather:—hide, leather, skin. Here's how it's used elsewhere in Genesis, Exodus and I stopped in the middle of Leviticus, but you can get the picture:
TOOLS
 Gen 27:16
And she put the skins H5785 of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck: TOOLS
 Exo 22:27
For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: H5785 wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. TOOLS
 Exo 25:5
And rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, H5785 and shittim wood, TOOLS
 Exo 26:14
And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. H5785 TOOLS
 Exo 29:14
But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, H5785 and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering. TOOLS
 Exo 34:29
And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin H5785 of his face shone while he talked with him. TOOLS
 Exo 34:30
And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin H5785 of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. TOOLS
 Exo 34:35
And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin H5785 of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him. TOOLS
 Exo 35:7
And rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, H5785 and shittim wood, TOOLS
 Exo 35:23
And every man, with whom was found blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, and red skins H5785 of rams, and badgers' skins, H5785 brought them. TOOLS
 Exo 36:19
And he made a covering for the tent of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and a covering of badgers' skins H5785 above that. TOOLS
 Exo 39:34
And the covering of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and the covering of badgers' skins, H5785 and the vail of the covering, TOOLS
 Lev 4:11
And the skin H5785 of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, TOOLS
 Lev 7:8
And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin H5785 of the burnt offering which he hath offered. TOOLS
 Lev 8:17
But the bullock, and his hide, H5785 his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses. TOOLS
 Lev 9:11
And the flesh and the hide H5785 he burnt with fire without the camp. TOOLS
 Lev 11:32
And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, H5785 or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. TOOLS
 Lev 13:2
When a man shall have in the skin H5785 of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin H5785 of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: TOOLS
 Lev 13:3
And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin H5785 of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin H5785 of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. TOOLS
 Lev 13:4
If the bright spot be white in the skin H5785 of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, H5785 and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days: TOOLS
 Lev 13:5
And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; H5785 then the priest shall shut him up seven days more: TOOLS
 Lev 13:6
And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, H5785 the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. TOOLS
 Lev 13:7
But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, H5785 after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again:
 

There is a word in Hebrew that's used in Genesis 1:28 that might have a bearing on the argument about whether Jehovah may have always had in mind that humans could eat meat, just as many animals had apparently been doing for thousands or years. 
(Genesis 1:28) . . .Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
 
The word for subdue in Hebrew is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3533/kjv/wlc/0-1/
כָּבַשׁ kâbash, kaw-bash'; a primitive root; to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard; positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate:—bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.
Other examples are here translating exactly the same word in the New World Translation:
It can even indicate "devour"
(Zechariah 9:15) Jehovah of armies will defend them, And they will devour and subdue the slingstones. They will drink and be boisterous, as if with wine; And they will be filled like the bowl . . ,
Or ravage, rape:
(Esther 7:8) 8 The king returned from the palace garden to the house of the wine banquet and saw that Haʹman had thrown himself on the couch where Esther was. The king exclaimed: “Is he also going to rape the queen in my own house?” . . .
Other ideas, are put into bondage, conquer, etc.
Therefore, a basic idea behind subduing the earth, could include "devouring" it. How would one go about conquering the fish, putting the flying creatures into bondage? For what purpose would one subjugate sheep and oxen, if not to also make use of them as resources? 
 

I have some trouble with your reasoning here. You can't put new wine in old wineskins. The New Covenant should not borrow principles from the Old in the creation of laws and rules. The book of Hebrews appears to me to show how there are principles that can help explain the full transition from Old to New. We can find shadows in the Old that hinted there was going to be something new and better. But the Old covenant was a matter of "do this, do that, don't touch this, don't touch that." This is precicely what the "law written on the heart" changes from the "law written on stone."
The New Covenant does not require us not to murder, for example, as part of a continued rule to follow. Christians don't follow a rule that tells us not to murder. We simply do not murder because it is not a reflection of our love for God who even extends love to enemies, and it is not loving to our neighbor. 
(1 John 3:15-20) 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him. By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.  But whoever has the material possessions of this world and sees his brother in need and yet refuses to show him compassion, in what way does the love of God remain in him?  Little children, we should love, not in word or with the tongue, but in deed and truth. By this we will know that we originate with the truth, and we will assure our hearts before him regarding whatever our hearts may condemn us in, because God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. . .
 
(1 John 4:20, 21) . . .If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Thought I could. Typed a brilliant response, then woke up and the screen was blank. 

Yes. I saw it, and I agree with almost all of it. That's why I used the term pollution here. But it misses a very important point I think. Right now I'm babysitting an 8 month old wiggle-worm [grand-daughter] and am having trouble typing. But will respond in a couple hours or naptime whichever comes first.

Thought I could. Typed a brilliant response, then woke up and the screen was blank. 

Thought I could. Typed a brilliant response, then woke up and the screen was blank. 

Whose? Can you type in your sleep?

Ok. I posted this on the other thread yesterday. What do you think about the reasoning?
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90798-what-is-our-scriptural-basis-for-refusing-transfusion-of-products-rendered-from-blood/?do=findComment&comment=189274
 http://truetheology.net/forum-bkup/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172

Rotherham:
"Some have presented the notion that the Apostolic Decree to “abstain from blood” and the other abstinences mentioned were not commands for Christians to adhere to indefinitely, but were simply concessions made for the sensitivities of the Jewish populace among them. These ones appeal to 1 Corinthians 8 to prove this claim. We will take a closer look at this to determine the truth of the matter.

The topic in Acts 15 specifically addressed what some JEWISH Christians felt the Gentiles had to do to be saved. That WAS the backdrop of the entire conversation as is clearly spelled out in the first verse and the verses to follow. Follow it through and you will see this clearly demonstrated.

Notice the following that is interspersed throughout this chapter 15:
Verse 1: The supporters of the circumcision claim that Gentile Christians must be circumcised AND observe the Law of Moses in order TO BE SAVED.
Verse 2: The dispute escalates and they decide to take it to the Apostles and older men in Jerusalem.
Verse 5: Again the Jewish faction states it is NECESSARY for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. In what sense were they using the word NECESSARY? In keeping with the context as established with verse one they were stating that is was necessary for their SALVATION to get circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.
Verse 11: Peter clarifies the Christian position regarding SALVATION which is through the undeserved kindness (grace) of the Lord Jesus.
Verses 23-29: After a decision is made regarding the issues, a letter is drawn up to inform the Gentiles what would be NECESSARY for them to do that had a bearing on the principles found in the Mosaic Law. Again, in keeping with the context, the word NECESSARY is used in regard to SALVATION as that is the entire backdrop to the dispute as is shown from verses 1, 5 and 11. To deny a connection with salvation is to deny the context.

At this point I would like to address further the claim that this is merely a command given out of regard for Jewish sensitivities. There are a number of things which speak against such a conclusion. First, as I have demonstrated, the backdrop of the discussion was SALVATION. How could it not be in regard to Acts 15:1, 5 and 11 in the immediate context?

Secondly, consider this: If such a command to abstain from things sacrificed to idols and things strangled and from blood was merely for the sensitivities of the Jews one could ask why the Apostles and older men did not recommend “circumcision” for Gentile Christians which was a MUCH MORE burning and divisive issue of that day? The circumcision issue was the CAUSE for the conference of the body at Jerusalem and the moving cause for writing the letter! There was strong opposition to the decree about circumcision by those Jews who falsely claimed to be Christian and insisted on staying under the Law. Notice the following passages: Galatians 5:3-6, 11, 12; 6:12-15; Romans 2:25-29; 4:9-12; Philippians 3:2-4. If anything should have been considered in regard to Jewish sensitivities it should have been that one, yet, why would the apostles conciliate them on the point of blood and things sacrificed to idols and raise greater opposition to circumcision, since we know that Paul in the very next chapter was willing to let someone BE CIRCUMCISED out of regard for the JEWISH SENSITIVITIES? (Acts 16:3) Surely, if the list in Acts 15 was merely for their sensitivities, circumcision would have been included since the next chapter shows how they handled circumcision in regard to Jewish sensitivities. With that considered and with the backdrop of the entire council being a connection with salvation, this should dispel the notion in anyone’s mind that it was not binding and lasting MORAL LAW. It WAS binding and lasting moral Law. The sensitivity argument does not fit the context and neither does the claim that the issues did not have to do with salvation.

Furthermore, consider the following information in Insight on the Scriptures under “Blood” (published by Jehovah’s Witnesses):
Noah and his sons were allowed by Jehovah to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood, but they were strictly commanded not to eat blood. (Ge 9:1, 3, 4) God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on, because all those living since the Flood are descendants of Noah’s family.

Concerning the permanence of this prohibition, Joseph Benson noted: “It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.”—Benson’s Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43. …
[The Apostolic] decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter [sic] than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—Italics his.
…The Jerusalem council sent its decision to the Christian congregations to be observed. (Ac 16:4) About seven years after the Jerusalem council issued the decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Ac 21:25) And more than a hundred years later, in 177 C.E., in Lyons (now in France), when religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating children, a woman named Biblis said: “How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals?”—The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.
Early Christians abstained from eating any sort of blood. In this regard Tertullian (c. 155-a. 220 C.E.) pointed out in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): “Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.” Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., made the same point, writing: “For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals used for food.”—Octavius, XXX, 6.

Surely “fornication” was not being forbidden for the sake of Jewish sensitivities. It was forbidden absolutely, and the word “necessary” in verse 28 would certainly mean necessary in the same sense. The word “necessary” is applied equally to each thing in the list.

Fornication in ANY form would not only cause offense, but would be a death-dealing sin against God. Likewise with the rest of the list. The word “necessary” would not apply to one item in the list differently then it would apply to the rest.

Therefore, one of those things in the list is unquestionably a sin that if committed without repentance could cost us our salvation. What about the others though that are in that list? Do we see indication that those things are “sin” as well, or are they simply issues of sensitivity?

Let’s take a look at the very word that others use to establish that what was really spoken of was just a sensitivity issue and not a sin that could cost us our salvation. That word used is “eidolothuton,” generally translated as “things sacrificed to idols.” Also another very pertinent phrase that we must include in this examination is “alisgema eidolon,” generally translated as things “polluted by idols” or “pollution of idols,” found at Acts 15:20.

We will note first that the phrase “pollution” of idols in verse 20 is equated with the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” in verse 29. So, in this context, whatever was meant by the “pollution” of idols was also meant by what was stated in verse 29. It should also be noted that the word “meat” as is found in many translations of verse 29 does not occur there, which is a bit misleading to the overall context. The Greek word there used simply means “things sacrificed to idols.” There is no “meat” specified at all. So what was spoken of in verse 29 was a “pollution” of idols as is stated in verse 20, they being parallel statements.

Therefore, we are not just speaking of “things” sacrificed to idols but the “pollution” that those things would create, which seems a clear reference to the fact this is speaking of “idolatry,” and not just items that might serve as idols to the pagan mind. Do we have any other biblical evidence to help us appreciate that even the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” could be understood in a “forbidden” sense to ALL Christians? Not just for sake of sensitivity issues but because of direct idolatrous connection? Yes we do. In fact, one of those occurrences is in the very chapter that most refer to as the passage that supposedly waters down the Apostolic Decree to a mere sensitivity issue. But first, before coming to 1 Corinthians 8, let’s look at another passage which clearly equates the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” with “sin,” not just an issue of sensitivity.

In Revelation 2:14 and 2:20, it states in regard to the Pergamum congregation and the Thyatiran congregation that they were tolerating that woman Jezebel (obviously a symbolism for a Jezebel-like woman) and holding fast to the teaching of Balaam who leads them to “commit fornication” and to “eat things sacrificed to idols.” Both times the “eating of things sacrificed to idols” is listed with the undeniably deadly sin of fornication. Clearly, in these passages, the “eating of things sacrificed to idols” was the sin of “idolatry” that brought God’s condemnation to those congregations. This is undeniable when one looks up what happened in the incidents that are referred to in Revelation in connection with the teaching of Balaam. (Numbers 25:1-3, 31:15,16)
With it established that the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” and “eating things sacrificed to idols” can be a clear reference to “idolatrous practices”, it would be no wonder then that Acts 15:20 parallels “pollution” of idols with “things sacrificed to idols,” which both could clearly refer to idolatrous practices, especially the phrase involving the word “pollution.”
TrueTheology.net • View topic - Christianity and the Use of Blood

By the way, we look at the decree in Acts 15 and say that because it was "guided by holy spirit" that it becomes some kind of "law" for Christians today. But don't we believe that Paul was also "guided by holy spirit" in writing Timothy?
Yet how many congregations make a list of widows 60 and over and base it on the requirements listed here?
(1 Timothy 5:9, 10) . . .A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband,  having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, . . .
Was this one of those cases where you might think the Pauline decree to Timothy turned out not to be a wise thing to do?

Yes. Those principles do not become rules, however. When the Law is written on our hearts, we don't need rules of any kind.
The imposition of ANY rule is a kind of "judaizing."
There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood. But we don't and won't do either, because we will continually want to know more about God and his love, and try to reflect it wherever possible. If we love God we would want to try to understand, as best as we are able, the Law to Noah and the Law to Moses. Even if we can't figure out all the details behind those laws, we will likely appear to be following rules to those on the outside, but our motivation will be a much higher motivation: love for God, his Son, and love for neighbor. Jesus spoke to actual Jews under Law and was already transitioning them toward this new teaching, showing them that you will never murder because you will work on removing hate, you will never commit adultery or steal because you will work on not even desiring what would take away from your neighbor/brother.  To someone on the outside you might seem like a much stricter rule-follower than they are, but you won't even be thinking about any rules.
However, you are right that a congregation is going to set rules that make sense to keeping order and making it possible for Christians to fellowship, and they are based on mutual agreement. These are mundane things, however, and have nothing to do with the New Covenant or salvation. A congregation can decide through mutual agreement to have a gathering on Sunday at 10am, or Wednesday at 8pm, or Saturday at midnight. Older men and overseers can help preside over such decisions, wisely, and their love and respect for the flock will help them avoid the decision to meet at midnight on Saturday. It would be a hardship on the congregation, and they would waste their hard work preparing to teach when there will be no one to hear. But those "rules" might even claim to be based on Mosaic principles, as we used to emphasize for our 3 conventions a year. They are still mundane, like the "widows on the list who are least 60 years old" in 1 Timothy. 
It's hard for me to imagine it that way. Efficiency is not any part of the purpose of the New Covenant. During a time of transition the Old Covenant served as a model, precedent, and teacher -- but it doesn't make those things a part of the New Covenant. Notice:
(Galatians 3:23-25) . . .However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed.  So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.

I have some trouble with your reasoning here. You can't put new wine in old wineskins. The New Covenant should not borrow principles from the Old in the creation of laws and rules. The book of Hebrews appears to me to show how there are principles that can help explain the full transition from Old to New. We can find shadows in the Old that hinted there was going to be something new and better. But the Old covenant was a matter of "do this, do that, don't touch this, don't touch that." This is precicely what the "law written on the heart" changes from the "law written on stone."
The New Covenant does not require us not to murder, for example, as part of a continued rule to follow. Christians don't follow a rule that tells us not to murder. We simply do not murder because it is not a reflection of our love for God who even extends love to enemies, and it is not loving to our neighbor. 
(1 John 3:15-20) 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him. By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.  But whoever has the material possessions of this world and sees his brother in need and yet refuses to show him compassion, in what way does the love of God remain in him?  Little children, we should love, not in word or with the tongue, but in deed and truth. By this we will know that we originate with the truth, and we will assure our hearts before him regarding whatever our hearts may condemn us in, because God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. . .
 
(1 John 4:20, 21) . . .If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Yes. I think that's correct. There are no RULES against engaging in fornication. That doesn't mean it's not sinful, just as murder and theft and creating divisions and contentions are sinful.
No. Paul explained quite the opposite. 
(Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law. For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous.  For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, . . .
But Christians still end up being "doers" of the law by fulfilling the law without written rules, i.e., the "royal law" of Christ. They have the law written in their hearts (their true motivations). 
(James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 
 

Yes. I think that's correct. There are no RULES against engaging in fornication. That doesn't mean it's not sinful, just as murder and theft and creating divisions and contentions are sinful.
No. Paul explained quite the opposite. 
(Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law. For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous.  For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, . . .
But Christians still end up being "doers" of the law by fulfilling the law without written rules, i.e., the "royal law" of Christ. They have the law written in their hearts (their true motivations). 
(James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 
 

By the way, we look at the decree in Acts 15 and say that because it was "guided by holy spirit" that it becomes some kind of "law" for Christians today. But don't we believe that Paul was also "guided by holy spirit" in writing Timothy?
Yet how many congregations make a list of widows 60 and over and base it on the requirements listed here?
(1 Timothy 5:9, 10) . . .A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband,  having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, . . .
Was this one of those cases where you might think the Pauline decree to Timothy turned out not to be a wise thing to do?

Yes. Those principles do not become rules, however. When the Law is written on our hearts, we don't need rules of any kind.
The imposition of ANY rule is a kind of "judaizing."
There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood. But we don't and won't do either, because we will continually want to know more about God and his love, and try to reflect it wherever possible. If we love God we would want to try to understand, as best as we are able, the Law to Noah and the Law to Moses. Even if we can't figure out all the details behind those laws, we will likely appear to be following rules to those on the outside, but our motivation will be a much higher motivation: love for God, his Son, and love for neighbor. Jesus spoke to actual Jews under Law and was already transitioning them toward this new teaching, showing them that you will never murder because you will work on removing hate, you will never commit adultery or steal because you will work on not even desiring what would take away from your neighbor/brother.  To someone on the outside you might seem like a much stricter rule-follower than they are, but you won't even be thinking about any rules.
However, you are right that a congregation is going to set rules that make sense to keeping order and making it possible for Christians to fellowship, and they are based on mutual agreement. These are mundane things, however, and have nothing to do with the New Covenant or salvation. A congregation can decide through mutual agreement to have a gathering on Sunday at 10am, or Wednesday at 8pm, or Saturday at midnight. Older men and overseers can help preside over such decisions, wisely, and their love and respect for the flock will help them avoid the decision to meet at midnight on Saturday. It would be a hardship on the congregation, and they would waste their hard work preparing to teach when there will be no one to hear. But those "rules" might even claim to be based on Mosaic principles, as we used to emphasize for our 3 conventions a year. They are still mundane, like the "widows on the list who are least 60 years old" in 1 Timothy. 
It's hard for me to imagine it that way. Efficiency is not any part of the purpose of the New Covenant. During a time of transition the Old Covenant served as a model, precedent, and teacher -- but it doesn't make those things a part of the New Covenant. Notice:
(Galatians 3:23-25) . . .However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed.  So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.