Some creatures, such as locusts and oysters, have hemolymph that serves the same purpose as what we normally call blood. Do any historical sources (from early church history, for example) address whether hemolymph qualifies as lifeblood, which Genesis 9:6 and Acts 15:20, 28–29 forbids from consumption?

In Matthew 15 , we read: > [Jesus] called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." We see in Mark's account that "thus He declared all foods clean." Now, when we move to James and the church elders in Acts 15, we find them writing a letter in which, among other things, they impose food requirements on the Gentile churches: > For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Do these statements contradict, or can they be correlated? If they contradict, then who gave James and the elders the authority to overrule the teachings of Jesus?

According to the [Catholic Encyclopedia](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) , a question about the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) I have read that the Council of Jerusalem is labeled as a "General Council." Furthermore, it is my understanding that the terms "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" are synonymous. If that is correct, then why is the Council of Jerusalem (50 A.D. or thereabouts) not considered to be the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church?

Acts 15:28 and 29 tells us that basically all of the old law covenant is no longer to be observed except: >Acts 15:28 KJV For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Are Christians under obligation to avoid any or all of those 4 things today? >Acts 15:29 KJV That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Most religions are in agreement that sexual immorality (fornication) should be avoided. Of particular interest is what it meant in ancient times to abstain from blood and what it means now in modern times to abstain from blood. As far as I know only the Jehovahs Witnesses refuse blood transfusing for religious reasons. I would like **an overview of mainstream Christian groups' interpretation of this scripture**, in light of the vastly different conditions we have now with most of us never being involved in the slaughter of the animals we consume, in addition to the many medical therapies that involve blood and fractions thereof. **Edit** Answers should specifically state what various denominations teach regarding abstinence from blood. What must adherents of denomination X do or not do to demonstrate they are abstaining from blood?

In Acts 29 the Jewish Christian Elders in Jerusalem sent a letter to the gentile believers throughout the world, instructing them to be at peace, and stating that they were not required to follow Jewish tradition. > For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. **Acts 15:28-29 ESV ** This is obviously in response to the circumcision party, and it's fairly obvious that they're saying circumcision and the dietary laws were not required of gentiles, but it doesn't seem to saying anything about the laws we still consider core (murder, covetousness, stealing, etc). **Was there some implicit set of laws that was not referenced, but would be understood by both parties to be in effect?**

Acts 15 tells us the story of the Jerusalem Council and the importance that the Holy Spirit had in arriving at a final resolution, which was issued to the Gentiles, concerning their obligations toward the Mosaic Law: > 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 **For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us** to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” [Acts 15:22-29 ESV] As you can see, verse 28 (in bold) reveals the role of the Holy Spirit as an active part of the final agreement. Now, we all know that the history of the Church has been full of doctrinal debates about myriads of controversial topics, where the intervention of the Holy Spirit would have been as relevant and needed as it was at the Council of Jerusalem. Hence the question: are there any documented instances of a council settling a doctrinal debate with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, following the example established by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

How much do we know about the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD? I just bumped into a source that claims that Irenaeus, Eusebius and Saint Clement of Rome all mentioned that council. Is it that meeting that took place when Paul came back to Jerusalem in the book of Acts 21:18: > And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the > elders were present. (KJV) or is it a council that took place much later? (I don't know the year when Paul returned to Jerusalem) How much do we know about that council, what decisions were made? Wikipedia has no article on the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD.

What are the 'things offered to idols' written about in Acts 15:29 and the 'things polluted by idols' of Acts 15:20? How was this understood by the Apostles and their followers? On what laws in the Old Testament is this 'rule' based? Can Sunday be a religious day for Christians if it was already a religious day offered to the pagan sun god?