Does anyone know which year the Organisation first counted unbaptised publishers as Jehovah's Witnesses?
Giles Gray
JoinedPosts by Giles Gray
-
4
Unbaptised Publishers
by Giles Gray indoes anyone know which year the organisation first counted unbaptised publishers as jehovah's witnesses?.
-
-
Giles Gray
-
25
Eating of blood prohibition specifically not forbidden for non-Jews
by peacefulpete indeut 14:21 you shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.
for you are a people consecrated to yhwh.... it seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the deuteronomist as binding only on jews..
-
-
Giles Gray
@ peacefulpete
I recently had an online exchange with a JW who claims to be on the HLC. We touched on the point you are making with regards to the scripture in Deuteronomy 14:21.
Here is an excerpt from one of my comments which you may find helpful/interesting:-
The Mosaic Law states that it was forbidden to eat unbled meat only to those who were under obligation to observe the Law. For others there was no prohibition.
Deuteronomy 14:21 clearly shows that Jehovah stipulated that meat with blood in it was to be given or sold to the Gentiles who were ‘inside their gates’ and it was to be eaten as food.
According to the Law, only natural Israelites and proselytes (Gentile converts) were under obligation to abstain from the consumption of meat with blood in it. The Law states that Gentiles were not restricted in what they ate.
This scripture has a huge significance when considering the events that took place in the lead up to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts.
Under the direction of Jehovah through Holy Spirit, Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius. As a Gentile, Cornelius and his household were not required to observe the Law and were completely at liberty to eat unbled meat. However, according to the Law, Peter should never have entered the house of an unclean Gentile such as Cornelius and certainly should not have eaten a meal under his roof. (Acts 10:28 ; 11:2). Nevertheless Peter was sent there by the Holy Spirit.
To confirm His approval, Jehovah made it known that He accepted the ‘people of the nations’ as anointed Christians by giving those Gentiles the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Crucially, God accepted them into the congregation without imposing on them the need to observe the Law, including any dietary restrictions that the Jews were obligated to observe. This point is vital to bear in mind.
If it really was Jehovah’s intention for Gentile Christians to ‘ABSTAIN’ from eating unbled meat, that moment would have been the time to make His will known.
The fact is that GOD DIDN’T STIPULATE ANY SUCH COMMAND, either then or at a later date.
Not only that, but Jehovah continued to accept the Gentiles into the Christian congregation under those conditions for 13 YEARS before the issue of the Law came up at the Council of Jerusalem. During that time, Gentile Christians were totally at liberty to eat unbled meat and Jehovah demonstrably anointed them as ‘spirit adopted sons’ on that basis. (Romans 8:15)
It wasn’t until the unauthorised Jewish Christians started to insist that the Gentile Christians observe the Law that the issue was raised and as a result, the Gentile Christians were told to ‘abstain…from things strangled’. (Acts 15:1,5,24 ; Compare: Galatians 6:12)
This was not because God expected Gentile converts to permanently refrain from eating unbled meat, otherwise He would have administered His wishes 13 years previously. The bible makes no mention of Jehovah’s commands on this matter. The only reason that the Gentile Christians were told to refrain from eating unbled meat was to appease the overly fragile sensibilities of certain easily offended Jewish Christians, who took it upon themselves to impose the Law onto the Gentile converts.
-
33
Would you leave the Watchtower if you woke up at age 80 plus, or just stay in for the rest of your life.
by pistolpete inso yesterday while i was doing some work for a customer, i noticed the wt mags on the sofa.
and i asked the elderly man if he was a jehovah witness?.
he said that he and his wife and all his children were raised in the religion, but only he and his wife attend the meetings or zoom.
-
-
Giles Gray
I had a similar(ish) experience when I was exiting.
I used to talk to a family friend who was 86 years of age. I would chat to her about a few of my concerns, mainly about the Society's failed eschatology. She was one of very few people who was tolerant of hearing negative things said about the organisation.
In the end I left and took her beliefs in the process. She continued going to the meetings because she didn't wish to lose her friends.
Even though she was devastated, having spent over 50 years as a JW, she told me that she was glad that she found out that it wasn't the truth, even at the age she was.
Even so, if I was to go back, I don't think I would do it again. She gained nothing from knowing the truth. She just spent the last few years of her life feeling lost, though she did retain her belief in God and the bible.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Giles Gray
@ jhine
" Thank you for all your effort Giles ."
You're welcome Jan. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.
Let's hope the JW gets back to me soon. The exchange should prove interesting.
Vidiot- "..and they'd rather gargle with broken glass."
How nicely put...
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Giles Gray
@ Rocketman
“Realistically the No Blood doctrine was devised out of personal opinion that should have never have been constituted as a you must do this or you will be disfellowshiped as a JWS”
I think the Watchtower is stuck with this doctrine. If they were to step back from that position now, and make their stand on blood a conscience issue, the lawsuits against them would be overwhelming. I believe that they know their position on blood is incorrect but they need to maintain that stance for fear of litigation.
The reason I say that is because during my research I had a brief look into their apologetics regarding 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10, and how the Watchtower defends the fact that food sacrificed to idols was optional. If abstaining from food offerings isn’t mandatory, it stands to reason that the scripture in Acts 15:29 cannot possibly be compulsory.
As far as I could find, the last time that the Watchtower addressed the contradiction of food offerings to idols was way back in the late 1970s. The spin they put on those chapters in 1 Corinthians is all too evident. They claim the food offered to idols was only to do with the taking part in the ceremonial eating of the meat.
This didn’t seem logical. Taking part in that kind of ceremony would have been considered idolatry. The scripture in Acts specifically states to refrain from eating the food offered to idols. If idolatry was the issue, why not just state to abstain from idolatry? Though Paul does address the eating of meat and taking part in idol worship, the Watchtower article doesn’t harmonise with the context of the rest of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, or his letter to the Romans.
I believe the Watchtower knows that their stance on blood is questionable. If that is true it means they are knowingly promoting a prohibition that needlessly risks people’s lives. They are putting their member’s live at risk for the sake of protecting themselves from the backlash of a doctrine they know is not upheld scripturally.
@ TD
Many thanks for making such an interesting post.
I think I will have to go back over it a few times. It’s been a while since I have considered an ‘intransitive verb’ and a ‘finite verb’. Grammar was not my best subject.
Another very simple point I am itching to ask an apologist is to do with the motivation of why the Council of Jerusalem was called for in the first place.
The only reason why observance of the Law was being considered was because of the insistence of the Jewish Christians, demanding that the Gentile brothers follow the Law. Noteworthy is the fact that these Jewish Christians were speaking out of turn.
The bible says:-
“Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions…” (Acts 15:24)
The decisions in Jerusalem were only made because the Jewish brothers were going against the leadership of the apostles.
Had the Jewish Christians not stirred up trouble in the congregations, the issue of the Gentiles and the Law would never have been addressed, which means that the Gentiles would not have been asked to follow those parts of the Law. They would have continued alongside the Jewish brothers as they had for the previous 13 years.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Giles Gray
@ BluesBrother
“Others have reasoned that this was restrictions on diet only, and should not apply to medical use of blood.”
I agree that it couldn’t have been anything to do with medical use. As far as I’m aware, it is only human blood that is used for medical purposes. The scripture in Acts 15:29 refers only to animal blood.
Considered in context, it stands to reason that the reference to blood was only applicable to ceremonious/symbolic applications, similar to the sacrificial meat also mentioned in that verse.
Many thanks for your consideration of my research and your positive feedback.
@ Bobcat
“…medical blood use is a moot issue. JWs will often fall back on that because the WT often uses that in their argumentation. But it is a red herring.”
That is exactly what I said to this JW, verbatim. It threw him completely. I think they have totally forgotten that the only reason why they don’t accept blood transfusions is because of how they translate Acts 15:29, and not because of the health risks/benefits associated with medical blood procedures.
The only reason they like to debate blood transfusions is because they believe it is an argument they can win. I only mentioned blood once and had three of them wanting to give me a lesson on the benefits of bloodless alternatives.
“One thing JWs don’t appreciate is the fact that in the Bible (both the Noah Covenant and the Mosaic Law) blood is only a symbol for life when the source of blood has been killed. God gave Noah and his descendants permission to eat animal meat on the proviso that they pour out the blood in recognition of the fact that the life belonged to God.”
That’s a really interesting point.
I must confess that up until now I didn’t appreciate that perspective either. It makes perfect sense though, especially considering the paradox of Deuteronomy 14:21.
If the instruction given to Noah was a mandate for all humans, as the JWs insist, the fact that the Law allowed the Israelites to sell food with blood in it to the Gentiles is a contradiction.
However, if those instructions were given for symbolic reasons, as you are suggesting, there would be no issue at all to sell meat with blood in it to the People of the Nations who were not under the Law. It now makes perfect sense.
Many thanks for all the great points you have highlighted.
@ stan livedeath
“once you stop and realise god doesn’t exist-all the forgoing becomes meaningless twaddle. Why anyone would want to deliberately set out to debate it with an active jw is beyond me.”
I would usually agree with your sentiment, but it is the circumstances that makes this exchange with a JW worthwhile.
The debate is taking place in front of other JWs, as well as other interested people. It should receive good exposure and you never know who is looking on and taking note.
Considering that the Watchtower’s blood prohibition policy actually kills people, I thought that putting the information out there that challenges such a harmful teaching might reach someone who could use the information to save their own life, or the life of someone else who is affected.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Giles Gray
Thanks Neat Blue Dog.
Those points stood out to me too. It's so obvious when examined objectively.
The most profound point for me was the fact that there was no mandate specified when the calling went out to the Gentiles. It took God 13 years to inform the Gentile Christians that they were subject to part of the law.
Why on earth would God wait all those years?
Think how much time & effort that it took to inform all the Gentiles who had been converted in the mean time. All of that work could have been avoided by informing the Gentiles of God's wishes right from the start.
Makes no logical sense.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Giles Gray
@ Vidiot
You are absolutely right. My writing is far too long and I’m sure this JW was overwhelmed. I just found his attitude patronising. He just couldn’t let it go and seemed compelled to air his ‘superior’ position.
I thought I would give him something to think about.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Giles Gray
Part 5
“Abstain from blood”?
Taking a balanced view, it would in all honesty be presumptuous to conclude that Paul’s attitude towards food sacrificed to idols was necessarily equally applicable to the other requirements listed in Acts 15:29. After all, abstaining from fornication was upheld in Paul’s council to the congregations. (1 Corinthians 6:18) Jesus also reflected this position. (Matthew 5:32 ; 19:18)
Consequently, it would not be even-handed to automatically assume that abstaining from blood must be considered in the same vein as food sacrificed to idols, and rationally, it can only be concluded that there is no definitive answer either way, as the bible leaves its readers with a degree of doubt about the matter.
Depending on one’s hermeneutics, it could be considered that the bible’s ambiguity is evidence that Christians are still under obligation to follow the direction at Acts 15:29.
However, an alternative conclusion could be to reason that as modern-day Christians no longer find themselves in a position where Jews or Gentiles could be easily offended or stumbled, there is consequently now no valid reason to abstain from blood.
Considering that…
—God accepted and anointed with Holy Spirit the People of the Nations for thirteen years without ordering them to observe the Law, and did not even mention it…
--It was acceptable even according to God’s Law for the Israelites to sell un-bled meet to unconverted Gentiles who lived in their cities (Deuteronomy 14:21)…
—The only reason that the subject of the Law regarding Gentiles was raised was because of the presumptuousness of Jewish brothers who were not approved, and it was not because God had required it…
—Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James all argued that the Gentiles were not under obligation to the Law…
—The reason given for the direction of the Council of Jerusalem was because on every Sabbath, the part of the Law in question was read out and would have been familiar to the Jews and proselytes who attended the synagogues in every city…
—Food sacrificed to idols was permissible unless it was a cause for stumbling…
…then the more logical conclusion is that the prohibitions in Acts 15:29 were only promoted to maintain harmony and avoid giving offence to delicate Jewish sensibilities at that time, and consequently were never considered to be permanently binding for future Christians.
The question remains… if Christians are no longer in a position where they are required to consider those bound by the Law, are they still obligated to respect the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem? If they are not, there would be no necessity for Christians to follow a blood prohibition mandate, such as that observed by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
With no definitive answers, this topic remains highly debatable, leaving the acceptance of blood as a matter of conscience.
-
35
An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.
by Giles Gray ini recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.
he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.
i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.
-
-
Giles Gray
Part 4
“Abstain from food sacrificed to idols” (Act 15:29)
Around the year 55 C.E., the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols was specifically addressed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthian congregation.
1 Corinthians 8:4,7-13:-
“4 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.”…
7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.” (NIV)
Another translation paraphrases verse 8 as:-
“Just remember that God doesn’t care whether we eat it or not. We are no worse off if we don’t eat it, and no better off if we do.” TLB
It is clear from the verses above that Paul, writing to the brothers in Corinth, did not in fact consider it mandatory to abstain from ‘food sacrificed to idols’. In fact, the only reason why Paul recommended that someone forfeit their right to eat meat that had been offered up to an idol was purely in order to avoid stumbling the sensibilities of a fellow Christian, a recurring theme with regards to what is deemed lawful and not stumbling one’s ‘brother’.
This is reiterated later on in Paul’s letter:-
“I have the right to do anything”, you say – but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything” – but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God…” (1 Corinthians 10:23-32) NIV
The verses above indicate that Paul was stating that eating the food sacrificed to idols was perfectly acceptable. However, he specifically forbade the eating of those foods when it would stumble a fellow believer whose receptivity to change had been weakened due to their past when they worshipped such idols by eating those food offerings. Paul also cautioned against stumbling Jews and Gentiles, harmonising perfectly with the decision made at the Council of Jerusalem.
This again demonstrates that in context with Acts 15:29, those requirements were only a concession made for functional reasons. Abstaining from food sacrificed to idols was purely to give an appearance of compliance with the Law. It was not a Christian law of itself and was never binding on the Gentile Christians.
Had the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem been mandatory, Paul would have simply rebuked the Corinthian brothers who were eating the meat offered up to idols. Instead, Paul makes no such admonition, a fact which contradicts the understanding that the Council’s decisions were compulsory.
Paul’s letter to the Romans conforms with 1 Corinthians 8,10 in its counsel about food sacrificed to idols.
It says in Romans 14:1-4:-
“Accept the person whose faith is weak. Don’t argue with them where you have differences of opinion. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything. But another person eats only vegetables because their faith is weak. The person who eats everything must not look down on the one who does not. And the one who doesn’t eat everything must not judge the person who does. That’s because God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? Whether they are faithful or not is their own master’s concern. And they will be faithful, because the Lord has the power to make them faithful.” NIRV
It is again important to acknowledge the attitudes of the people involved.
Similar to the division between the Christians in Jerusalem, the Gentile brothers who abstained from eating meat which had been offered to idols, resented the brothers who did eat it. And similar to Peter’s words at the Jerusalem Council, Paul explained that the brothers who ate meat had already been ‘accepted’ by God through Holy Spirit.
However, Paul later wrote:-
“Let us stop judging one another. Instead, decide not to put anything in the way of a brother of sister. Don’t put anything in their way that would make them trip and fall. I am absolutely sure that nothing is “unclean” in itself. The Lord Jesus has convinced me of this. But someone may consider a thing to be “unclean.” If they do, it is “unclean” for them. Your brother or sister may be upset by what you eat. If they are, you are no longer acting as though you love them. So don’t destroy them by what you eat. Remember that Christ died for them.” NIRV (Romans 14:13-15)
Here once again we can see that even though Christians were free to eat the meat offered to idols, they were to abstain from it for the sake of the brothers who would be easily upset, for fear these brothers would ‘trip and fall’ from the faith.
This is exactly the same remedy decided on in Acts 15:20-21. In order to avoid offending the Jews, the Gentile brothers would do what was necessary to not stumble the Jews. This theme recurs time and time again in Paul’s letters.
Paul finishes this section of his letter by saying:-
“So let us do all we can to live in peace. And let us work hard to build up one another. Don’t destroy the work of God because of food. All food is “clean”. But it’s wrong to eat anything that might cause problems for someone else’s faith. Don’t eat meat if it causes your brother or sister to sin. Don’t drink wine or do anything else that will make them sin.” NIRV (Romans 14:19-21)
In other words… because your brother will be stumbled if you do, ‘abstain from things sacrificed to idols’… which is exactly the same conclusion arrived at by James in Jerusalem.
The rule was not that you can’t eat meat. The rule was to not stumble your brother.
(It is interesting to note that the counsel from Paul in both passages - 1 Corinthians 8,10 and Romans 14, slants away from predominantly addressing issues with the Jewish sensitivities, and focuses more on the fragility of the Gentile brothers in those congregations, though both letters do give a token mention to the Jewish brothers. This could be a result of the fact that both Corinth and Rome were predominantly populated by Gentiles, as they were on the other side of the Macedonian/Galatian border. However, the intention of Paul’s counsel to avoid stumbling one’s brother remains, and when read in context, it parallels the account in Acts 15:29 regarding the easily stumbled Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.)
The scriptures considered above heavily suggests that the list of prohibitions in Acts 15:29 were compromises implemented uniquely and specifically for that time, to keep the congregations strong. They strongly imply that these prohibitions were never intended as strict rules to be imposed on all Christians in future times when the issue of stumbling Jewish brothers would become irrelevant.