Acts 15:19-20. Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
I believe that Paul was reneging on the first part of that passage in 1 Corinthians 8:4 when he said, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that "An idol is nothing at all in the world" and that "There is no God but one."”
If Paul had shown that the first part of that passage about food offered to idols was not important, just because he did not mention abstain from blood, which food offered to idols would still contain, the last part about abstaining from blood would also not be important.
Food offered to idols was not killed in the normal way and only some of the blood was used to put on the alter but the food was never drained as required by law when the meat was to be eaten in OT times.
While Christians had stopped sacrificing animals to appease God as Christ had paid the full price unconverted Jews and pagans still practiced this and Paul told the churches that it was OK to eat the meat still containing blood as an idol only represented a god to those sacrificing and nothing to Christians.
Update:@CF, as with @gatita, a lot of facts totally unrelated to the question.
Millions of Philippine Christians eat blood in the form of dinuguan on a regular basis, this has no bearing on God's living word about blood so why bring up your unrelated facts.
Answers & Comments
Christians did not stop animal sacrifice to appease God. This practice is no longer necessary since Jesus is the sin offering God demanded. "Behold The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Jesus is our Paschal Lamb who, like the ones sacrificed for the sins of the Israelites, took upon Himself the sins of mankind and became the ultimate sacrifice for us. He is the unblemished lamb, the pure, the spotless, the immaculate, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world;” and in him there is no sin.For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. (1Co 5:7) He was the perfect Lamb of God who sacrificed Himself for our sins. Animal sacrifice was a substitution until the Lamb of God was crucified. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 1 John 3:16
Do Jews offer sacrifices today? No Jews today offer any kind of animal sacrifice or offerings, nor have Jews offered sacrifices since the second century C.E. The practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time. The last place appointed by G-d for this purpose was the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Temple has been destroyed and a mosque has been erected in the place where it stood. Until G-d provides us with another place, we cannot offer sacrifices. There was at one time an opinion that in the absence of an assigned place, we could offer sacrifices anywhere. Based on that opinion, certain communities made their own sacrificial places. However, the majority ultimately ruled against this practice, and all sacrifice ceased.
The practice of sacrifice stopped in the year 70 C.E., when the Roman army destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the place where sacrifices were offered. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 C.E., but was ended permanently after that war was lost. There were also a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time. (Jewish beliefs)
gatita
Baptized in Jesus Name according to Acts 2:38
My faith in the One who died for me
Eusebius, a third century writer who is considered the “father of Church history,” relates what occurred in Lyons (now in France) in the year 177 C.E. Religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating infants. During the torture and execution of some Christians, a girl named Biblias responded to the false accusation, saying: “How can we eat infants—we, to whom it is not lawful to eat the blood of beasts.”
Similar false charges moved the early Latin theologian Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) to point out that though Romans commonly drank blood, Christians certainly did not. He writes:
“Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”
Also, referring to the decree of Acts 15:28, 29, he says: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be [an interdict] much more upon human blood.”
Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., makes the same point, writing: “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”
The historical evidence is so abundant and clear that Bishop John Kaye (1783-1853) could state categorically: “The Primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in abstaining from things strangled and from blood.”