What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Pudgy]

Two can play THIS WORD SALAD, Annie.

In the perplexing realm of circular discourse, where words pirouette without purpose and sentences meander aimlessly, we find ourselves trapped in a linguistic labyrinth of unparalleled absurdity. Picture a discourse so circuitous that it makes a dizzying carousel seem like a straight line. As we embark on this linguistic rollercoaster, we must prepare to navigate the convoluted contours of verbosity.

In the grand tapestry of talking in circles, the artistry lies in crafting sentences that orbit meaning without ever daring to land. Words, like mischievous acrobats, perform feats of linguistic gymnastics, contorting themselves into shapes unfamiliar to logic. It's a parade of paradoxes, where coherence is the elusive unicorn and clarity the rarest of gems.

As we delve into the heart of this linguistic carnival, one may be tempted to believe that profundity resides in the obscurity of expression. Alas, it's a masquerade where the emperor wears robes woven from the threads of ambiguity, and the courtiers nod sagely, pretending to decipher the indecipherable. Verbose vortices suck meaning into their whirlpools, leaving behind a vacuum of understanding.

Each sentence, a maze with no exit, beckons the listener to wander in perpetual confusion. It's a dance of diction where the music is composed of vague allusions and the choreography an intricate ballet of equivocation. Attempting to grasp the central theme is akin to chasing shadows, for just when you think you've caught hold of meaning, it slips through your fingers like ethereal mist.

In this topsy-turvy world of circular dialogue, the destination remains elusive, and the journey becomes an endless loop of linguistic acrobatics. It's as if words have donned roller skates, careening wildly through the terrain of syntax, leaving punctuation in disarray and grammar in a state of disrepair. A sentence may start with the promise of lucidity, only to spiral into the abyss of convolution.

To converse in circles is to revel in the absurdity of language, to embrace a carnival of confusion where coherence is sacrilege and simplicity a heretical notion. So, let us celebrate the linguistic mayhem, where words frolic in a field of lexical anarchy, and meaning is but a distant echo in the cacophony of circumlocution.

Wah de do DAH!

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, George88 said:

The interpretation of the Genesis account on the fifth day relies on individual perspective. When it says "Then God saw that it was good," it raises the question: Was God affirming the goodness of the animals, or was he affirming the goodness of his creation as a whole? Considering that God instructed Adam to subdue the animals, it implies that the animal kingdom would have a distinct role in life. Perhaps their lifespan would follow a cyclical pattern, unlike human life, which would endure forever. 

Well, we can also "play" in this way. But should we expect a perfect God to have a single flaw in his creation?

Did the dinosaurs have a disadvantage? If so, then with a certain purpose, for example to become extinct after a while. But is death really a shortcoming and proof of imperfection? Judging by the dinosaurs and today's animals, death is a very good thing. Just as it is a good thing that there are animals that eat other animals. So if it was God's intention for death to exist, then death is not a disadvantage to be avoided.

God created life and God created death as an expression of his perfect act of creation. Not only animals and humans die. Stars and galaxies also die.

We all avoid death, even animals that are "destined" to die. How can it be explained that God destined animals to die in one way or another? If man thinks he must live "forever" while the animal is destined to die, and God intended it that way, where does the struggle and resistance of both rational humans and irrational animals to preserve life at all costs come from? How is it possible that a human created "in God's image" has the same primitive, instinctual feeling as an animal created "not in God's image" when it comes to basic things like food, mating and life/death?

Has God forgotten to impress upon the consciousness of animals that death is normal, while he has not forgotten to impress upon the consciousness of humans the desire for eternity?

10 hours ago, George88 said:

When considering baby dinosaurs, another thought to ponder is how they could have been preserved on Noah's Ark as God instructed Noah along with his family and all the animals to stay alive. Given their rapid growth and insatiable appetite, one can only imagine the measures Noah would have had to take. Perhaps he would have ingeniously suspended the baby dinosaurs at the side of the Ark, allowing them to feast on fish and carrion. A whimsical solution, indeed!

Possibly. Some scientists say that dinosaurs laid eggs, others say that living dinosaurs were born. If we accept the egg theory, Noah could have collected a few eggs. I think that would be a tough assignment, but "all things are possible with God", right? lol

I used InstaText to improve the Google translation. Please tell me if the text is more readable? I do not accept criticism of the content, lol.

[Pudgy]

… I forgot to mention Carrion Penguins.

[Many Miles]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to meat.

I'm sure whoever wrote the account had a reason for however they wrote it. Whatever that reason was (or not!) unless we have a provable proposition regarding it then we just have to take what's written and work from that, which includes what is not written. In rational (logical) terms, silence means only silence, unless there is a provable proposition that says it means something else.

Here are two questions for you:

Do you believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to milk?

If yes, does that suggest milk was not a food that should have been eaten by early humans?

Continuing, take a look at these two statements:

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So all moving, living creatures could eat green vegetation.

On 11/17/2023 at 12:04 PM, JW Insider said:

I believe there is plenty of good evidence that animals were eating other animals for epochs of time prior to the Bible's timeline for Noah and Adam.

As the author intentionally wrote the account, the "ideal diet" expressed for animals was vegetation. Right? Yet the natural created world testifies (as you admit) that animals were eating meat at the very time addressed by the author of the Genesis account.

Do you accept the biblical notion that creation testifies to God's will? (Ps 19) If you do, then we know animal flesh was being eaten as food as long as there have been animals. Hence, though I'm sure the writer of the Genesis account had reasons for writing what was written, I have no need to think that writer's intent was to deny what nature tells us. For all I know the writer of the Genesis account was employing some kind of self-invented prose to paint a tapestry of nature's elegance. Who knows? And, so what? I can't read a writer's mind. But I can read what they wrote, which also discloses what they didn't write. And, unless there's provable reason to think otherwise, from a logical perspective, silence means no more than silence. In other words, the absence of an express permission suggests neither permission nor prohibition.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

At this point, any astute reader would wonder about meat. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about meat? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about it?

Please read what you wrote there, and I'm going to substitute a single word:

'At this point, any astute reader would wonder about milk. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about milk? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about milk?'

Since the most essential nutrient needed by humans is water, here the same query worded another way:

'At this point, any astute reader would wonder about water. Why only mention fruit trees, green vegetation, and vegetation of the field including grain? Is there a command about water? Is it allowed? Is it forbidden? Why don't we see anything about water?'

A logical thinker would just see silence on meat (or milk or water) and not read anything into that as though it meant anything more than silence. That is, unless there was provable reason to think otherwise.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And then we finally see it. After the Flood. We see something about meat!

And, there's another example of potentially reading something into the text regarding silence. As it is true of meat, it is also true of milk. I could say, "And then we finally see it. After the Flood. We see something about milk!" (Gen 18:8) And, in response to MYSELF I'd say, so what? That an account is silent until it's not does not mean an initial silence means anything other than silence, unless there is provable reason to think otherwise.

And, by the way, even in the instance you refer to in the comment above (Gen 8 and 9) there is still no mention of eating non-soulical flesh (animals dead of natural cause), though both soulical and non-soulical flesh have already been mentioned in the Genesis account. The accounts you refer to above speak to the use of soulical flesh.

 

[Many Miles]

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Another simple example is this: Did God tell the earliest humans before Noah that they could eat meat? Yes or No

if one answers that it doesn't say, therefore he might have, then one could just as easily say that we must also not know what else God might have forbidden --because it also doesn't say.

Answer to the initial question is, no. 

In this case, the absence of permission only means there was an absence of permission.

Then you go on to say "therefore he might have [forbidden eating meat]", which means we would also have the reductio ad absurdum conclusion saying "therefore he might have [forbidden eating milk]."

We don't even know if the Genesis account provides an exhaustive record of what God thought was okay to use as food and what was prohibited as food. We only have the record as it is. There could have been permissions that the Genesis account failed to include. Again, we don't know. Silence just means silence, unless there is a provable proposition suggesting otherwise.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Or this example: Did God ever give the first man and woman a directive about what they could eat? Yes or No.

Or this: Did there come a time when God did bring up the subject of diet again with Noah? Yes or No. And did God mention that there would be something in addition to vegetation this time? Yes or No.

When God first mentioned a diet that included both vegetation and something additional, did God use use the word "NOW" as if it was now something he had not added previously? Yes or No.

In order, yes, yes (twice!), yes, and yes (but the "NOW" may not be what you suggest it means).

Initially humans were given express permission to eat vegetation AND they were expressly forbidden to eat of one food item, the tree of life. So, God did bother to tell them not to eat of something He didn't want them to eat. It wasn't meat.

To Noah, on two occasions he raised the subject of diet. Once pre-flood and once post-flood.

- Pre-flood Noah was given permission to gather from every food eaten to use it as he saw fit to feed the animals. Whether Noah sampled trillions of variations of whatever was then eaten there is no record, but likely not. Likely he gathered what was most handy to him that fit the need. But he was given permission to gather from every food eaten and to use it as food for himself and the animals. (Gen 6)

- Post-flood Noah was reminded again about the vegetation and then he was told he could kill animals as food so long as he didn't eat blood of that killing, and if he was going to use an animal's flesh as food he had to kill it first. There was no mention made of eating non-soulical flesh (or blood thereof).

After the  flood, there existed a reason Noah would have had to have express permission to kill animals for his own purposes (consumption, whether by eating or anything else). God had instructed Noah to keep the animals taken through the flood alive. Hence, the "NOW" you refer to could easily be God referring to the fact that NOW that you've done as I said and preserved these animals alive, NOW you can kill some for food BUT, for the very first time, humans were told not to eat the blood of slaughtered animals, and that to use their flesh as food they had to first kill the critter.

Additionally, the "NOW" statement may also have been no more than a restatement of human dominion over animals that was first expressed in the Genesis account in the same context of the food of vegetation. Also, that initial dominion over animals could easily be understood to include using animals as a food source. The question on that point is, when God said to humans "To YOU let it serve as food" was He referring only to the clause of man's dominion over vegetation, or also to the clause of dominion presented immediately before that too of the animals?

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. ³ Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 

If this were a reading test, given to elementary school students, which of the following two paraphrases would reflect the most likely meaning of the verses quoted above?

A. You have always been able to eat animals, birds and fish, but I am now giving them to you again, and just as you have always eaten green vegetation before, I am now giving you a reminder that you can still eat the meat of animals.

B. I am now giving you permission to eat animals, birds and fish, just as I had previously given you green vegetation to eat.  

I think the straightforward way to read it is fairly obvious to most of us, even though it doesn't seem to match a very probable view of what would happen more naturally. But there could be a different reason that the Bible wants to emphasize Jehovah's view of what should have been the original ideal purpose of a world where killing and slaughtering would have been unnecessary, yet sin and the fall of man resulted in concessions to our fallen, sinful nature. As @Thinking implied much earlier, this could have been a somewhat symbolic reason for the "animal skins" that Jehovah provided for Adam and Eve after sin entered the world. It could be the reason that two major accounts of bloodshed were highlighted (Cain/Lamech) and animal sacrifice became closely associated early on with bloodshed and then atonement and appeasement (Abel/Noah/Abraham/Moses).  

Answering that would be influenced by how one understands Gen 1:26-30. In this text God gives dominion of animals and vegetation to humans. Afterward when specifically addressing humans God DOES NOT SAY 'I have given you vegetation as food'. Rather, when initially addressing humans alone, the record has Him saying to humans, "To YOU let it serve as food." Was the "IT" just the vegetation, or was the food everything placed under human dominion? Noteworthy, speaking in language that would include both humans and animals we have God saying to humans AND animals, "I have given all green vegetation for food." Hence humans AND animals were given permission to eat vegetation, of that there's no doubt. But the initial clause addressing food to humans only could have included everything placed under their dominion.

Answering that would also be influenced by Noah 1) having been given permission to gather and eat of every food eaten in conjunction with 2) a command to keep alive the animals he took onto the ark. After the flood, if God wanted to restrict what he'd already given him permission to eat, NOW was the time. After the flood, if God was going to relieve Noah of the instruction to preserve those animals alive, NOW was the time. Arguably, at the time of the flood God took dominion of animals away from humankind that had originally been granted in Eden. After the flood God handed dominion of animals back to man, with stipulations that didn't exist beforehand out of respect for life, including animal life.

[Many Miles]

The biblical Abel killed an animal. Based on His response, God was okay with that.

What gave Abel permission to kill an animal in the first place?

[Pudgy]

hunger?

[Many Miles]

"And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth. And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into YOUR hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU." (Gen 9:1-3, underlining added)

Of interest here is the clause "As in the case of...I do give it all to YOU." This is said of green vegetation.

Note that the eating of vegetation is not explicitly permitted in this text but, rather, it is implicated by the antecedent "I do give it all to YOU".

As it turns out, once before God had given vegetation to humankind, and dominion of all the animals and "all the earth".

If, as this text presents, the notion of having given something is antecedent to the consequent of permission to eat that thing (and probably much more too), then permission to eat animal flesh as food is present by implication in the creation account of Genesis 1 where dominion of animals is given to humankind (vs 26) just as eating vegetation is implicated in the text of Genesis 9 by it being given.

So,

At Genesis 9 we have this:

- Humans are given dominion of animals, and they can be used as food.

- Humans are given vegetation, which by implication means vegetation can be used as food.

At Genesis 1 we have this:

- Humans are given dominion of animals, and they can be used as [what is the implication here?]

- Humans are given vegetation, and it can be used as food.

 

[Pudgy]

… I forgot to mention Carrion Penguins. That’s why cartoon dogs can eat and drink, but they never have to pee or poop. 

The logic of it is self evident.

[Many Miles]

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Genesis 9:2-20) . . .every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. ³ Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 

If this were a reading test, given to elementary school students, which of the following two paraphrases would reflect the most likely meaning of the verses quoted above?

A. You have always been able to eat animals, birds and fish, but I am now giving them to you again, and just as you have always eaten green vegetation before, I am now giving you a reminder that you can still eat the meat of animals.

B. I am now giving you permission to eat animals, birds and fish, just as I had previously given you green vegetation to eat.  

JWI, given my responses above, I don't want you to think I missed that you're asking that I answer a simple question here.

To answer your question, were I a child I'd probably go with B.

But I'm not a child. I think you've presented a bifurcation that is false.

As an adult, I'd have to go with C.

C. Just as when I gave you vegetation, I am now giving dominion of animals back to you with a result that you can kill and eat them as food.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Do you believe the implied ideal diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to milk?

Yes, but it's just an unfounded opinion of mine. It's clear that a lot of details we might be interested in were left out of Genesis, and the entire Bible, for that matter. For example: did either Adam or Eve have a belly-button? We can assume that if something was left out, even if we are interested, then it was not considered important enough to include, nor does it mean that every detail included is of absolute importance either. How important, for example, is it for us to know that it was A'dah who gave birth to Ja'bal?

On 11/17/2023 at 8:34 PM, JW Insider said:

(Genesis 4:20) Aʹdah gave birth to Jaʹbal. He was the founder of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.

Quite probably the ideal (or even the idealized) diet for Adam and Eve did not include milk, but not because milk was forbidden. It is probably because the important diet for them was all provided within the Garden of Eden where there was no mention of livestock being cared for. And the primary point of the garden was that Jehovah was providing them with a diet that did not even require them to break a sweat. And this was best represented by focusing on low-hanging fruit, as it were. Also, it would probably be considered so commonplace for children of all humans and mammals, that mother's milk need not be mentioned for the diet of Cain, Abel, Seth, daughter(s), etc.  A major purpose of livestock was for milk as we see from later scriptures, and although Abel evidently had access to some livestock, it's not pointed out as a "thing" until Gen 4:20 quoted above. 

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

If yes, does that suggest milk was not a food that should have been eaten by early humans?

Not at all. But we don't know if Adam and Eve ever tried it, or if they were supposed to try it. As I said before, we don't even know for sure if meat was supposed to be forbidden to early humans prior to Noah. But I still think it was purposeful that meat and even milk were not specifically included in the ideal "garden-variety" diet provided to Adam and Eve.

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Do you accept the biblical notion that creation testifies to God's will? (Ps 19) If you do, then we know animal flesh was being eaten as food as long as there have been animals. Hence, though I'm sure the writer of the Genesis account had reasons for writing what was written, I have no need to think that writer's intent was to deny what nature tells us.

Yes. Although technically Psalm 19 says nothing about the earth's animal life or ecosystem. It's about the heavens and the firmament (under which God measured out a place to place the earth). "Heaven" by this time in Hebrew cosmology had evidently moved above the dome of the firmament where Jehovah kept the earth's waters separated from heaven's waters. The usual way in which earth's wildlife testified to God's will is something you already alluded to in 2 Peter (and therefore also Jude). They provided a good testimony about God's will that man aspire to something much higher than unreasoning beasts born naturally to be caught and destroyed. Man was ideally much higher than the beasts and would therefore have them in subjection, subdued.

(2 Peter 2:12) . . .like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed. . .

(Jude 10) . . .And in all the things that they do understand by instinct like unreasoning animals, they go on corrupting themselves.

(Ecclesiastes 3:18-21) . . .I also said in my heart about the sons of men that the true God will test them and show them that they are like animals, ¹⁹  for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. ²⁰ All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust. ²¹ Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth? 

(Psalm 73:22) . . .And I was unreasoning and I could not know; I became as mere beasts from your standpoint.

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

In other words, the absence of an express permission suggests neither permission nor prohibition.

Yes. A very important point that I agree with and have also expressed.

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

A logical thinker would just see silence on meat (or milk or water) and not read anything into that as though it meant anything more than silence. That is, unless there was provable reason to think otherwise.

Mostly true. At least up to the point where we find a set of statements to Noah very similar to the original statements given to Adam and Eve about their purpose and their diet that changed in only one important way. Because this time it includes an express permission for meat that we didn't see before, along with the idea that there is something new in this version of the statements ("now" I give you meat), and something that would be recognized as having already been given in the earlier statements about diet (just as I [previously] permitted vegetation). The way it was expressed should therefore give us food for thought.

Of course, I'm still not saying that any specific position regarding meat is "proven" but the very fact that it is not proven one way or another is the reason I don't see any reason to try to build a further step of logic onto such a weak, unproven foundation.

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

That an account is silent until it's not does not mean an initial silence means anything other than silence, unless there is provable reason to think otherwise.

And that is the same point I am making about not being able to make mush use of any unproven reasoning about the actual diet of early humans or the ideal diet expressly spelled out for the first pair in the garden.

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

even in the instance you refer to in the comment above (Gen 8 and 9) there is still no mention of eating non-soulical flesh (animals dead of natural cause),

Same point again. No mention. Therefore no specific position (with respect to this discussion) is provable from a purely Biblical standpoint.   

[Many Miles]

On 11/17/2023 at 1:27 PM, JW Insider said:

I personally think that what is stated in Acts 15 and 21 need not rely on some specific interpretations and conjectures about natural law, Noahide law or the Mosaic law. The term in Acts is "abstain from blood." It's a good translation, yet it doesn't say only to abstain from eating or drinking it. It just says abstain. That MIGHT have meant only abstain from drinking blood or from eating products made from blood, and it probably was meant to refer in some way back to the Noahide and Mosaic references to blood. But it might even go beyond those, or it might just be a simple command for Gentiles to avoid making it difficult to join in fellowship with their Jewish Christian brothers by avoiding blood when fellowshipping with those who would be disgusted by the idea. Paul seems to interpret the Acts 15 idea as not blatantly or flagrantly flaunting the freedoms that Gentile Christians have that those Jewish Christians were not ready to accept. The very idea of eating or even transfusing blood already seems disgusting to many people, even some inside the medical profession. It seems disgusting to most Jehovah's Witnesses who have repeatedly reviewed the Mosaic laws about it and the Acts 15 statement and have also heard so many negative stories about blood transfusion. So imagine how disgusting "taking" blood would seem for those Jewish Christians whose families and ancestors had been steeped in anti-blood doctrine for thousands of years. 

Paul never repeats the idea that we should not eat unbled meat. In fact Paul very clearly says:

(1 Corinthians 10:25-27) . . .Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, ²⁶  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” ²⁷ If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 

(1 Corinthians 8:1-8) . . .Now concerning food offered to idols: . . . ⁴ Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.  . . . ⁷ However, not all have this knowledge. But some, because of their former association with the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. ⁸  But food will not bring us nearer to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we eat. 

(1 Timothy 4:3-5) . . .They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. ⁴For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵  for it is sanctified through God’s word and prayer over it.

And Jesus too: (Matthew 15:11) . . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”

So I think a much more relevant discussion would skip the interpretations and conjectures about Noah and Moses and go straight to trying to understand why there is an apparent contradiction between the Acts 15 view of blood and things sacrificed to idols (which definitely could include blood) and Paul's view of potentially bloody meat and things sacrificed to idols.
 

For me, that is the starting point. 

For starters, the notion that the Christian biblical decree to "abstain from blood" is a resurrection of provisions of Mosaic Law is a nonstarter. The intra-Acts account of Cornelius demonstrates this. For a moment, we can set aside potentially conflicting teachings Paul wrote by just focusing on the same (and sole!) biblical text containing the decree to "abstain from blood", and we need look no further than the account of Cornelius at Acts 10. This man was gentile. He was not worshiping God according to Mosaic Law. According to the vision Peter beheld, Cornelius was doing things that would make a proper Jew puke! Yet his worship was acceptable to God. The text says in relation to Cornelius, "in every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to [God]."

Based on the biblical record we have, looking through God's eyes, Cornelius would have been bound to extra-Mosaic Law standards, which would have included everything of the Genesis account but not much afterward. Hence, in relation to blood, how would Cornelius have demonstrated "fear" of God and evidenced works of "righteousness"? He would have had to show respect for life by abstaining from unjustified homicide, which might have been tough as a soldier. Out of godly "fear" he also would have respected life by taking care not to eat an animal without killing it first, and when he killed it for food he would have refrained from eating it's blood. THAT is how he would have demonstrated "fear" of God and evidenced works of "righteousness" in respect to 'abstaining from blood'. That was it.

In respect to things Paul taught, and given that we find the decree "abstain from blood" nowhere but in the text of Acts, issues arise as you suggest. But, in my mind, unless someone points out something I've not thought of (entirely possible, if not likely!), the account of Cornelius is sufficient to determine that the decree to "abstain from blood" is answered in the text of Genesis. The Genesis text tells us what blood to abstain from, and what abstention is required of that blood.

I'm not intending to truncate a discussion you might want to pursue, and I'm willing to pursue it because I have every reason to think I can learn from you. But, in the case of the decree to "abstain from blood" I think information within the text of Acts is sufficient to narrow down what is required.