Related history comes up in regard to the blood issue as well. The east and
west areas of believers
Both views knew the verses about blood resulted from discussions with the Jew-
ish leaders in Jerusalem when
Christianity was still considered a branch of
Judaism debated in temples yet Gentiles were now becoming Christians.
views figured "things strangled" were animals that hadn't been normally slaugh-
tered and would contain a higher
degree of blood (likely found in some nearby
One view saw the rule on blood as being a basic food (if not transfusion) ban.
The other view figured the rule was about Christians being told not to do cer-
tain things the Jewish leaders
worried that many Gentile Christians did, things
which would cause the Jewish leaders not to permit them in temples.
thing the Jewish leaders wanted the Gentile Christians to be told was to not eat
meat with a higher blood content
than found in the meat the Jewish people ate.
The Jewish people koshered blood from meat and wouldn't want those who ate
that had the higher blood content, which is the way it was generally found oth-
erwise (most in Corinth came from
idol temples, for example), people seen as un-
clean to them, around them debating about belief in Jesus. The Jewish
also worried about Gentile Christians eating meat from idol temples since Chris-
tians had a rule against idolatry
but not things offered to idols as a general
ban whereas the Jews considered someone who ate idol temple meats to be unclean.
Jewish leaders also worried that some Christians were breaking the rule not
rule not to fornicate (probably a problem in
any phase of history....). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council#cite_ref-1
Beyond that, some here or there took the rule about things offered to idols as
a general ban of those foods
in the Jewish law way--unclean foods that made the
partaker of them unclean. We can safely dismiss that interpretation
apostle Paul's later writings (1 Cor.8-11:1,17-33; Col.2:16-23).
Christianity wasn't considered a branch of Judaism, and wasn't debated as a
branch of Judaism in temples, after
Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. The historical ad-
vantage of the view that the blood rule was addressed to Gentile Christians
have them not offend the Jewish law followers is that a diplomatic concern to
appease non-Christian Jews would be
more likely to be lost to some after the
situation it was for didn't exist anymore. After 70 AD, as Christianity
away from Judaism and into areas farther from Israel and Jewish temples found
otherwise, a section would be more
liable to get the wrong idea about it, and
schisms about what it meant resulted. If it was a food ban that applied
where regardless of the Christians proximity to Jewish people, it would have
been more consistently maintained.