In chapter sixteen we have a type, a shadow, of God’s redemption, which, at the time this book was written, was still to come. According to God’s concept and in His divine economy, there is the need of redemption.

Because the Old Testament time was not the time for redemption to take place, a type, shadow, of the coming redemption was needed. This shadow is the propitiation in Leviticus 16. In this propitiation four of the five basic offerings presented in chapters one through seven are involved: the burnt offering, the meal offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering. The one offering not involved yet is the peace offering. Later, particularly in chapter nineteen, we shall see that the propitiated people enjoyed the peace offering. Therefore, in chapter sixteen, the propitiation is fully applied, but the result of the four offerings-the peace offering-is not yet applied.

At the end of chapter sixteen, everything is wonderful. In type, this chapter signifies that we have been propitiated and that we may now enjoy Christ as the burnt offering and live on Him as the meal offering. Furthermore, we have come out of the camp to follow Him, the suffering One, bearing His reproach. What else do we need? It seems that we are not in need of anything. Using New Testament terms, we have been redeemed and, to some extent, replaced. We are living Christ as the life that is absolute for God (burnt offering), we are enjoying Him as our daily life supply (meal offereing), and we are following Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach and living a godly life. With us, everything is fine, but the situation around us is still very complicated. For this reason, there is the need of chapter seventeen.

Leviticus 17 is a reminder and a warning regarding the abuse of the sacrifices. To abuse the sacrifices is to apply them wrongly, improperly.

To take care of the blood is to take care of and to treasure the blood of Christ.

Verse 11 signifies that the blood of the Lord Jesus was shed on the cross for our redemption.
Verse 12-13 is showing us different bloods typify different beliefs. Every kind of blood signifies a belief. And we should reject other bloods (beliefs) other than the Lord Jesus. 

For example: in v15
  a) blood of that which dies of itself signifies the blood of one who sacrifices himself for the good of others, which blood cannot redeem us from our sins.
  b) blood of that which is torn by beasts signifies the blood of one who is martyred by wild people, who are like beasts, which blood also is unable to redeem us from our sins.
 
You will realized almost every religion is based on  either on one who sacrificed himself for the good of others, or on one who was martyred. To form a religion on such a basis is to receive a different blood.

Yet, the primary problem remains: our inward sin nature and nothing can redeem it except the Lord's blood.

Unfortunately, this solution could not have been satisfactory to Paul, who says in Galatians 2:19, “I through law have died to law that I might live to God.” In contrast to such a word, James’ fellowship causes the New Testament believers to return to considering the law. This indicates that the concluding word given by James was still under the influence of the Mosaic law, due to his heavy Judaic background. As we shall see, the influence of this background still remained even at the time Paul paid his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:20-26).

At the end, whether one abstain from blood (which is biblical and consistent) or not, it is really irrevelant ... rather one lived to God and have the reality of God.

We tend to fall into this trap: that there are two different kinds of people: one kind does evil, and the other kind does good. According to good and evil, these two kinds of people are absolutely different. Yet in the matter of putting God aside and not giving God any place, they are absolutely the same. Just as those who do evil put God aside, so those who do good also put God aside. Just as those who do evil do not give God any room, so those who do good also do not give God any room. These two kinds of people behave differently-one does good and the other does evil; nevertheless, they have exactly the same kind of attitude toward God. Those who do evil give up the law, thereby rejecting God, and those who do good keep the law, thereby also rejecting God. The former forsake God by violating the law, while the latter forsake God by observing the law. Both groups of people have problems because of the law. The first group of people give up God because they have broken the law, whereas the second group forsake God because they consider that they have kept the law. Hence, we can see that both these conditions of rejecting God are related to the law.

Rather, God desire that man  be filled with the God as his or her reality. Then the living out of this inward spiritual reality is "counted" in the eyes of God be in may in his or her action in abstaining from blood or not. For one could abstain yet inwardly be void of the reality of touching or gaining God. Then it is vanity!.

Yes, it is true that the first group of apostles and elders in Jerusalem should have taken care of this heretical teaching before it had the opportunity to spread to the Gentile churches. The fact that it was not dealt with in Jerusalem indicates that there were certain shortcomings with Peter and James. They must be held responsible for the situation. By the time this heresy spread to Antioch, it was too late for Paul and Barnabas to deal with it. This made it necessary for them to go up to Jerusalem in order to touch the source of the problem.

BUT, in Acts 15 we have the unique conference held by the apostles of the universal church and the elders of the local church in Jerusalem. Both were the leading ones in the Lord’s New Testament move on earth. There was no chairman. This conference was under the presiding of the Spirit (v. 28), the pneumatic Christ, the Head of the church (Col. 1:18) and the Lord of all (Acts 10:36). Acts 15:7 says, “Much discussion had taken place.” This indicated that everyone in the conference had the freedom to speak. The decision made was based on the testimony shared by Peter (vv. 7-11), the facts related by Barnabas and Paul (v. 12), and the concluding word given by James, who was the leading one among the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (12:7; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9) because of the influence he exercised over the believers through his piety.

Although he was deeply influenced by the Jewish religion, under the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, he shut Judaism out of the church. Acts 15 opens the eyes of the church and allows the church to escape the bondage of Judaism and the rule of Jerusalem. Thus, the church can spread freely. Satan wanted to use Judaism and Jerusalem to control, limit, prohibit, and restrict the spread of the church. But God wanted to spread to the Gentiles, to the uttermost part of the earth.

It is a nice view of the early churchlife where all problems can be solved by proper fellowship in the Spirit under the leading of the Lord. There is no head, only the Lord Himself is.

So, let's drop  the Paul vs James ... Paul vs Peter (later) ..... XD XD Even later ... Paul himself also falls to the same trap ...  in Acts 16 ... If Paul had not been subdued by the Holy Spirit, the church could not have spread to Europe ...