JW Insider

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

That's the way I had always took it for myself. I think I've explained before that when I first heard about the compromises on fractions I kept it to myself but decided that I would refuse fractional blood, too. After all even the 4 components of blood that the Watchtower still condemns are also fractions. As MM pointed out there is no "natural" separation into these 4 fractions that makes them somehow equivalent to whole blood. And though other fractions are considered conscientiously acceptable, one or more of the acceptable fractions are much closer to whole blood than the condemned fractions. But then I thought about the possibility that many lives are lost that could otherwise be saved by some of these uncondemned fractions. And although we hate to admit it, there are times when the administration of condemned fractions also saves lives. [Even though we'd love for that number to "relatively tiny."] So when Jesus said that the sick need a physician, and that the law could (and should) be broken to save a life, was he saying that, even under the Mosaic Law, Jews should treat saving lives as more important than the letter of the Law? I still kept my own feeling against any and all fractions, but decided that it was not up to me to impose my conscience on my children or others. More recently, I also changed my own view on fractions. But you asked about whether God changed his very character. Just like the Greek gods as represented in Homer, Jehovah liked the smell of smoking meat. He liked the smell of the fatty pieces smoking on the altar. Did Jehovah change his character when allowing people to finally eat fat? Or does Jehovah still not allow people to eat fat? (Genesis 8:21) And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma. So Jehovah said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground on man’s account. . . (Exodus 29:18) You must burn the entire ram, making it smoke on the altar. It is a burnt offering to Jehovah, a pleasing aroma. It is an offering made by fire to Jehovah. ["pleasing aroma to Jehovah" is a phrase also repeated 16 times in Leviticus] (Leviticus 3:17) “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” And that term "lasting statute" is elsewhere translated with the idea of permanence or "forever." (Leviticus 3:17, ESV) It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

I think that MM's questions here to Thinking were pertinent. Did the elders in Jerusalem mean it in Moses' terms, Noah's terms, or some new terms that was different from both of those? And, per Paul's explanation for at least 2 of the terms of that decree, was it possibly only a necessary but temporary injunction to allow the congregation to accommodate coexistence with gentiles for the time when Jewish Christians were still "condemning" themselves to live by the Law. (Acts 21:20, 21) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21  But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to . . . follow the customary practices. (Galatians 2:11-14) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned.* 12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself,. . . 14  But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?” *The 2013 NWT decided not to translate the Greek of Galatians 2:11 (as was done previously) with "Peter ... stood condemned." They decided to water it down a bit and say that only that "Peter . . . was clearly in the wrong."

True. It says something more like "flesh with its nephesh,blood" where "nephesh" can often mean breath/life/self/being). I tried to overstate the point as part of the odd "kill-it-first" interpretation that says they could not eat living, moving, breathing animals that still had breath,blood flowing in them. So when verse 4 mentions "flesh with its soul,blood," that's the reason that if you go here, for example, https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/9/1/t_bibles_9004 you only see the word life [that is] blood and life-blood as a translation of nephesh,blood. (Except one of the Spanish translations has "alma [o vida])." You had said: "Animals" are like "man". Each is "soul". That is not the meaning in the context of Genesis 9. Verse 4 is not using "soul" [nephesh] in the same way that Genesis 2:7 and the most of the Hebrew Bible uses the term. (Even the NWT stopped using the term "soul" as a consistent translation for "nephesh" in the 2013 NWT.) We are always taught that the living animal or human does not HAVE a soul but it IS a soul. It is different here. Here the animal is not a soul, but it HAS a soul. (Leviticus 20:25) You must make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean and between the unclean bird and the clean; you must not make your souls loathsome by means of an animal or a bird or anything that creeps on the ground that I set apart for you to regard as unclean. Or "psyche" (soul) in Greek: (Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert your souls . . . [NWT leaves out the term souls, here and just says "trying to subvert you."] (1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. It's similar to the term "spirit" here in Ecclesiastes: (Ecclesiastes 3:21) Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth? So, I'm arguing, as most translators also do, that this is a special case of "nephesh" just as the NWT often treats special cases of nephesh and psyche without translating it as "soul."

There is no reference to "souls" in that context of Genesis 9, just all living animals and food and meat and blood.

To me, a distinction without a necessary distinction. Dead of natural cause could include a cow, sheep, horse, goat, or snake that had been strangled around the neck by a lion that ran off or was chased off before eating it. Genesis 9 is also open to interpretation: (Gen: 9:3,4) Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. Technically, it doesn't say anything about bleeding an animal before eating it. Although that's a common-sense way to interpret it, especially in light of the Mosaic Law. One odd, but possible interpretation is this: You may now eat anything that lives and moves, but just don't eat it while it is still living and moving. You must kill it first. (or, even more technically: It must have died first.) Some of the rabbis interpreted this to mean that you couldn't strangle off a portion of meat to eat it while keeping the poor animal alive. If you had a goat giving good milk, or raising a baby goat (kid), you couldn't strangle off a leg just because you were starving. You had to kill the whole goat. You couldn't have your cake and eat it too. By the way, I knew a Witness who killed their chickens by strangling them: wringing their neck until the neck twisted off.

For me the issue is still a bit too complex: I would agree with the Watchtower publication quoted earlier that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that, as far as blood is concerned, we are being held to a LOWER standard than what the Mosaic Law stated concerning blood. The primary basis for the Acts 15 stance on blood was not the Mosaic Law, but the decree that Jehovah gave to Noah regarding eating animal blood and bloodguilt. By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal that was not bled. According the Mosaic Law, a Jewish person could still make money off an unbled animal and would have no qualms of conscience about selling it to a gentile living in their midst, for them to make any use they wanted of that unbled animal, including eating it. But then there is the question about whether we are really held to that same lower standard that the gentile had. When the congregation and the elders at Jerusalem wanted to solve the problem of gentiles and Jews coming together as Christians, they agreed with the elders' statement that gentiles should "abstain from blood, things strangled, from things sacrificed to idols, and from fornication." Some commentators have said that this was a necessary solution until the Jewish Christians realized they no longer needed to follow the Mosaic Law which was still keeping them separate, not even eating at the same table as gentiles. That temporary nature would seem to fit Paul's statements in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians about it being OK to eat things sacrificed to idols, and OK to eat anything set before them by a gentile (which could apparently even include unbled meat, of from a strangled animal). That would mean that Paul might have thought Christians were still held to the LOWER standard of people under Jehovah's decree to Noah (with respect to blood and things sacrificed to idols). In Galatians, Paul dealt with the matter of Jews eating at the same table with gentiles. But Paul still argued against those who thought their liberty and freedom under Christianity could include fornication. But for those other things, Paul said it only held for the times when Jews around them were still "weak." Of course, this isn't the only way to interpret why Paul said Christians could eat anything a gentile set on the plate in front of them making no question about it.

I've weighed in on the blood issue discussions before, but I don't feel competent to add anything of value. Just opinions. Miles seems to have given it more thought and had more direct experience with it, so I'm glad to hear him out. It happens too rarely these days but now and then someone stops by ready to share and discuss information in more depth on a topic. I'm always happy for that even if I end up with nothing to offer, or end up being unconvinced about a position, because I always learn something. I'm not sure exactly what Miles' position is but I'd like to go back and catch up with what's going on in this topic. And why is the blood topic in a discussion that started out about Malawi anyway?

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active). Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.] Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

Exactly right. No one should ever embrace deception. Fortunately, for me, but unfortunately for the reviler, the predictions invariably came true. Truth is not the same as deception, although there are deceptive truths. At any rate, it doesn't matter to me any more, it was just a fun experiment in psychology, but it becomes boring when simple predictions become too easy so I moved on to other things.

Exposing your predictions can keep them from coming true. The opposite of self-fulfilled prophecy. I often place my predictions in 'white on white' text so that most browsers will make the text disappear completely. All you have to do is highlight the hidden text by selecting and you can read it clearly. In the olden days, when I cared enough, I had a lot of fun adding a sentence or two to the end of a post. They often would have embarrassed a certain reviler person who, under multiple disguises, couldn't help but bring up my name to cause some kind of dissension every few days. But then at the last minute I always decided it would be more Christian not to point them out, but some of the "hidden text" is still posted and can even show up in the site-search tool.

Rutherford had given talks and written booklets that I thought attempted to rework this doctrine into a kind of court case. (He sometimes had a theme of God's Plan as seen through the eyes of an attorney.) I think this is related to his repeated use of Isaiah 43:9.10 which finally became the very motto for the name Jehovah's witnesses in this universal court case. Let all the nations assemble in one place, And let the peoples be gathered together. Who among them can tell this? Or can they cause us to hear the first things? Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right, Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’” 10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed,

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states: 8. Great Controversy: All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)[4]

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural: (Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4  But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5  For each one will carry his own load. The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth. Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite: (Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime.

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God.

I signed almost precisely the same oath on my first passport. And yes I noticed it but it was easily explained away by my parents as just a necessary part of doing business in this world, and that all the brothers who need a passport sign it. Still, it felt funny when reading this scripture: (Matthew 5:36, 37) . . .Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. 37  Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one.

No. That was my own typo. Sorry. It was the phrase "So held me God" instead of "So help me God." And Pudgy was only highlighting the part that says "Port of departure" instead of "Date of Departure" where part of the word "ALLEGIANCE" appeared writ large. However, I note that Elizabeth's 1922 application (above) also contains "Port." I now suspect you are right however because I searched such images on Google and have now seen several different versions of the application form from the early 1900's, and I have now seen a few versions with typos in other places, although this is the only one I saw with the word "held". It was a ripe place for a typo however because some versions changed the font to italic only at that sentence. Some highlighted different words in that sentence. I brought it up, however, because major ex-JW sites are usually super-careful about never faking anything, especially because Witnesses so often claim that ex-JWs and non-JWs "always" fake things or take them out of context. Even claiming that photocopies of the literature have been faked. I have been through large portions of jwfacts.com, RF's CoC, COJ's GTR, etc., looking for exactly that kind of thing, and have never found a claim that could be countered with these common complaints. And where evidence exists elsewhere, it has ALWAYS supported the claims in those particular places. I can't say as much for ALL the ex-JW sites, because I haven't checked, but I know there is also a lot of misinformation out there from all sides.

I believe there must have existed a real document with similarities to this one on his actual passport application, and the signature matches that of JFR in other places. But I find it hard to believe that a document like this one would have contained such a blatant typo: So held me God. I have seen some other 1922 U.S. passport applications and had not seen one with this typo. Also the OATH OF ALLEGIENCE is in a different font on some of the others I have seen.

I have never held one, and don't recall the exact wording, although I vaguely recall seeing a picture. I recall finding some material in a University Library on Malawi, from a huge UN-sourced publication, in the very late 1970s and it tried to give a completely different impression of what had happened in Malawi and why. I chalked it up to governmental propaganda. Banda propaganda. I never thought about it much until I saw it brought up again in RF CoC. Then it struck me as something I should have looked into, because as a Southern Californian, we used to visit Mexican congregations as a child, and their meetings still stuck out as something that needed more explanation, which my parents tried to explain to me as best they could. Do you have a copy to share? Or a link to a picture of one?

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

Not a great source. Just a friend with connections in Germany (and Poland, actually) who has often been right about some things. It's pretty obvious to me that he had serious mental problems, but I didn't remember that from his website. I read two initial articles and then saw something rather stupid on a blog comment that "you just KNOW it must be because of JW shunning policy." Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of our version of shunning is unscriptural, and even the Watchtower's PR and Legal team must agree that it's bad based on how they have to deny it in front of authorities or courts. (Otherwise it creates liabilities for suicides etc.) But I just thought that if this is true, at least it takes some of heat off the Organization and puts it more squarely on the guy's mental state.

I just read that Shinzo Abe's alleged killer assassinated Abe (2020) because he thought that Abe had ties to the Unification Church (aka "Moonies") and because the killer's mother had given so much money to the church that he says it brought his family to ruin. This reminded me to ask if anyone here knows if there is any evidence for the rumors that the killer/murderer who shot and killed so many Witnesses in Hamburg was also angry that he had given so much money (millions?) to the Witnesses before becoming disillusioned. (Someone said that he had asked for his contribution back and was refused.)

A lot of great points brought up by several people on ths topic. Wish I had more time to go through and consider them more carefully. Unfortunately for me I need to take another couple of weeks off from commenting. Carry on! Till we meet again to "chew the fat" as it were. (I might just go to France to take in some Paris-sites.)

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.

I hoped to get back more directly to the topic of Acts 15. It seemed to me that the "James decree" had treated "abstain from blood" as if it had a more specific meaning that might not have included "things strangled." Otherwise why would it need to be added if it were already included in items that were not properly drained, for example? Today we think of the abstain from blood prohibition as already including "things strangled." Another thing I noticed is that Ezekiel seems to refer back to a rabbinic style Noahide list in Ezekiel 33, and if so it apparently breaks down the Noahide "blood" reference to some additional ideas related to blood, too. (Not that Noah directly mentions idolatry and fornication/adultery although some rabbis derived this from Noah's proper sanctioned sacrifice, and the command for moral sanctioned sexual relations that would "be fruitful and fill the earth." Note that passage mentions blood, idolatry, and fornication/adultery, more similar to Acts 15, but appears to expand "no blood" to unbled meat, murder/bloodshed, and reliance on the sword. (Ezekiel 33:25, 26) . . .Therefore say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “You are eating food with the blood, and you lift up your eyes to your disgusting idols, and you keep shedding blood. So why should you possess the land? 26  You have relied on your sword, you engage in detestable practices, and each of you has defiled his neighbor’s wife. So why should you possess the land?”’