Simple. The Church was in the midst of a great debate about the Jewish Law. How much of it was it necessary to observe? Notice that the Council of Jerusalem reduces observance of the Law to a bare minimum. Later, Paul led the movement to put aside ALL of the Jewish ritual law—even circumcision.
So, what was determined by the Council of Jerusalem was a compromise. It was not for all time.
Also: the reference to not drinking blood concerns ANIMAL sacrifices, not the blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. In fact, at this time, Christians sometimes ate meat sacrificed by Jews, and sometimes by pagans.
St. Paul writes about receiving the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. He says that one who receives unworthily is “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
Later??? The meeting in Jerusalem was ABOUT circumcision and about what the requirement for New Testament Christians was to be.
>>So, what was determined by the Council of Jerusalem was a compromise. It was not for all time.<<
So show where it was rescinded.
>>Also: the reference to not drinking blood concerns ANIMAL sacrifices,<<
Oh please Arthur. Acts 15:29 says "to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom.
Nowhere would you find a reputable linguist that would claim the blood and the idol are tied in that passage.
Even if the above were not true, which it is, you are still assigning sin to Jesus if the last supper was true flesh and blood. Jesus and the apostles were Jews born under the law and still subject to it. If Jesus had tempted the apostles to actually drink blood and in fact drink it Himself He would have been sinning.
>>St. Paul writes about receiving the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.<<
You still have Jesus sinning.