I agree with you on something: historical context (and context of culture in general) is an important element to interpret a text, and it widens our understanding of the details.

But we can’t use historical context to contradict something that is already there in the linguistic context. Linguistic context (or co-text) has priority, not only to interpret the Bible, but any written work. In this case, the Bible itself gives the reason to abstain from blood, as I mentioned in my previous post.

And we also must consider the immediate co-text: there was a controversy about circumcision, and the apostles and elders in Jerusalem informed all the congregations that Gentile Christians don’t have to get circumcised. And, as a kind of an aside, they mention that they do have to observe other rules of the Mosaic Law, such as abstaining from sexual immorality and blood.

Since they had ruled out circumcision, it was appropriate to remind them that they hadn’t ruled out everything. So, I don’t think there’s a reason to circumscribe this passage only to obscure pagan rituals about drinking blood in honor of other gods, in which Christians were extremely unlikely to take part anyway.

If you like historical details, you might find interesting that among the ancient practices involving eating and drinking blood there were some medical practices. Here you can see that turtle or dove’s blood, and even the blood of a slain gladiator was believed to cure epilepsy.

Yes, blood transfusions didn’t exist in Bible times, but the underlying principle applies. For example, Jesus once said, "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." (Matthew 26:52). In Roman times there was a group of extremist “Christians” (Circumcellions) who decided that this maxim wouldn't apply to using clubs; so they sought out social reform and justice, as well as their own martyrdom, by actually provoking fights with others with clubs. Others might think that the principle doesn’t apply to guns, since guns weren't around then, anyway. 

That's silly. Jesus is speaking to an underlying principle at work here regarding violence that goes beyond the exact method and/or instrument of violence being employed. 

In the very same way, the underlying principle behind the scriptural prohibition on blood cannot be so easily dismissed by any thoughtful person in regards to blood transfusions merely because the modern procedure is not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

When you say that we ignore the OT, I suppose you mean the Mosaic Law, which we understand is not effective after Christ. So, in that sense, you are right. But again, I’m not aware of any NT rules that we ignore.

P.D.I feel this discussion might be out of place here. If you'd like to continue, we may do it in private.