Nevertheless, abstaining from drinking blood is the same as not pouring the blood out(so you don't drink the blood). You didn't resolve the issue of your interpretation of that verse as being the same direction to not drink blood. Both "commands" are talking about the same thing if your interpretation is correct. I suggest it is not. I suggest that "things strangled" is different than "the blood.". The only question is, what does it mean and why command those 4 things and not just command Circumcision right away if it is still required of us? Circumcision is the sign of the covenant. It was the entry point into the Old Covenant. It held a supreme position in all of the commandments in the Torah, along with the Sabbath, as signs of the covenant. If it was so important, and it obviously was to the Pharisees who believed, since it was the direct topic of conversation of the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15. If it was that important for the new converts to enter into the covenant, why would James and the Holy Spirit not command it to be done right away? Even if, as you claim, it is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary to receive the blessings and promises given to Abraham and to his seed, why would they just state that right then and therw?
Please answer that question.
For if it is still necessary to be circumsized, as you claim it is, then why didn't they state it in the beginning commands given to new converts?
RE: Contending for the Faith: part 1 of ?