Is It Ok To Consume Food That Has Blood?

[Deborah_]

The Acts 15 prohibitions relate specifically to mixed Jewish/Gentile churches and are the concessions that Gentiles should make in order to enjoy full fellowship with their Jewish brothers and sisters. That's why food figures so prominently; we have to be able to eat together.

But it's a relatively rare situation today, which is why we no longer pay much attention to the food rules. Yes, Christians should still avoid sexual immorality - but not because of Acts 15.

[((Michael))]

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

The Acts 15 prohibitions relate specifically to mixed Jewish/Gentile churches and are the concessions that Gentiles should make in order to enjoy full fellowship with their Jewish brothers and sisters. That's why food figures so prominently; we have to be able to eat together.

But it's a relatively rare situation today, which is why we no longer pay much attention to the food rules. Yes, Christians should still avoid sexual immorality - but not because of Acts 15.

Thanks for the response Deborah. Do you believe the council of Jerusalem who wrote these churches to abstain from strangled meat, fornication, idolatry and blood was concerned about pleasing Christian Jews or the Almighty? I see throughout scripture God is more concerned about us following Him than worrying of what others think. The blood issue goes back to Noah in Genesis 9:4. This idea that we structure church to make it a comfortable environment, rather than following God's word is what I view as a problem in mainstream churches today. I went to a discipleship class last night, and the statement was made the 10 commandments no longer apply. I can understand why one would say the Sabbath is honored through rest in Christ, but to just boldly proclaim the 10 commandments don't exist, it didn't feel right to me. As Butero said above, for myself, this is a black and white issue. I would just have to see an argument presented in scripture to convince me this commandment is no longer valid.

[kwikphilly]

Quote

…13A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" 14But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."…                            Acts 10:13-14

Blessings Michael,,,,,,

     It is always a good & important thing to read in full context,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the Apostles were not concerned with anything except pleasing God,as was shown to them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,by God                                                  Love,Kwik

[Deborah_]

1 hour ago, ((Michael)) said:

Thanks for the response Deborah. Do you believe the council of Jerusalem who wrote these churches to abstain from strangled meat, fornication, idolatry and blood was concerned about pleasing Christian Jews or the Almighty? I see throughout scripture God is more concerned about us following Him than worrying of what others think. The blood issue goes back to Noah in Genesis 9:4. This idea that we structure church to make it a comfortable environment, rather than following God's word is what I view as a problem in mainstream churches today. I went to a discipleship class last night, and the statement was made the 10 commandments no longer apply. I can understand why one would say the Sabbath is honored through rest in Christ, but to just boldly proclaim the 10 commandments don't exist, it didn't feel right to me. As Butero said above, for myself, this is a black and white issue. I would just have to see an argument presented in scripture to convince me this commandment is no longer valid.

In their own words, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." (Acts 15:28)

You're right: it's more important to please God than to worry about what other people think. But there is a strong New Testament principle not to give unnecessary offence to other believers who may have different opinions on how to put one's faith into practice (e.g. Romans 14; I Corinthians 8) 

Regarding Genesis 9:4... If this applies to Christians today, do you not think it strange that Paul tells the Corinthians that it's OK to eat meat from the pagan market (which would contain blood)? (I Corinthians 10:25) The prohibition on eating blood may have been related to the fact that the blood of animals was used to make atonement for sin (Leviticus 17:10-12). Now that is no longer the case; atonement has been made for us by the blood of Christ.

Incidentally, I do believe that the Ten Commandments still apply today.  https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/the-ten-commandments/

[Ezra]

2 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

The Acts 15 prohibitions relate specifically to mixed Jewish/Gentile churches and are the concessions that Gentiles should make in order to enjoy full fellowship with their Jewish brothers and sisters.

Since that is your own spin on it, we will simply disregard it.  From the time of Noah to the first century AD, it was the same prohibition. 

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:3,4).

[Qnts2]

18 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

In their own words, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." (Acts 15:28)

You're right: it's more important to please God than to worry about what other people think. But there is a strong New Testament principle not to give unnecessary offence to other believers who may have different opinions on how to put one's faith into practice (e.g. Romans 14; I Corinthians 8) 

Regarding Genesis 9:4... If this applies to Christians today, do you not think it strange that Paul tells the Corinthians that it's OK to eat meat from the pagan market (which would contain blood)? (I Corinthians 10:25) The prohibition on eating blood may have been related to the fact that the blood of animals was used to make atonement for sin (Leviticus 17:10-12). Now that is no longer the case; atonement has been made for us by the blood of Christ.

Incidentally, I do believe that the Ten Commandments still apply today.  https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/the-ten-commandments/

Lev 12:23Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.

The blood was used in sacrifices, but only the blood of animals being sacrificed. The blood of animal used for food is to be removed and poured out on the ground. So, there is no relationship between blood from food and blood in sacrifices.

 

 

[Deborah_]

42 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Since that is your own spin on it, we will simply disregard it.  From the time of Noah to the first century AD, it was the same prohibition. 

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Genesis 9:3,4).

 

Who is 'we'?

Of course you may ignore my opinion, just as I may (and often do) ignore yours . But if there is no difference of opinion, then there is no discussion - which would make the forum rather boring.

 

Nobody has responded to my question:  "Regarding Genesis 9:4... If this applies to Christians today, do you not think it strange that Paul tells the Corinthians that it's OK to eat meat from the pagan market (which would contain blood)? (I Corinthians 10:25)"

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ((Michael)) said:

Thanks for the response Deborah. Do you believe the council of Jerusalem who wrote these churches to abstain from strangled meat, fornication, idolatry and blood was concerned about pleasing Christian Jews or the Almighty? I see throughout scripture God is more concerned about us following Him than worrying of what others think. The blood issue goes back to Noah in Genesis 9:4. This idea that we structure church to make it a comfortable environment, rather than following God's word is what I view as a problem in mainstream churches today. I went to a discipleship class last night, and the statement was made the 10 commandments no longer apply. I can understand why one would say the Sabbath is honored through rest in Christ, but to just boldly proclaim the 10 commandments don't exist, it didn't feel right to me. As Butero said above, for myself, this is a black and white issue. I would just have to see an argument presented in scripture to convince me this commandment is no longer valid.

The issue had to do with Judaism under Roman rule. Obedience and non offence to the ruling powers is preached in many passages. Rome gave exemptions to Jew's as legalized religion but were exempt from IDOLS. The Gentiles which attended synagogue services were classed as God fearers, and were exempt as well. That is why Moses being preached every Sabbath was brought up.

This concerned the continuing of that class of Gentile, under the Roman government as a SECT of Judaism. Therefore Gentiles were to continue in their legal status in the eyes of Rome. Exemption from Idol's for Christian Gentiles, legally existing as God fearers among the sect of Jewish Christian.

Ac 25:8  While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
2Co 6:3  Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:
 

 

[Willa]

Do All to the Glory of God

1Co 10:23  “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are profitable. “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things build up. 1Co 10:24  Let no one seek his own, but each one his neighbor’s good.

1Co 10:25  Whatever is sold in the butcher shop, eat, asking no question for the sake of conscience,  10:26  for “the earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.”

1Co 10:27  But if one of those who don’t believe invites you to a meal, and you are inclined to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no questions for the sake of conscience.

1Co 10:28  But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” don’t eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for the sake of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”

1Co 10:29  Conscience, I say, not your own, but the other’s conscience. For why is my liberty judged by another conscience? 10:30  If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced for something I give thanks for?

1Co 10:31  Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.  10:32  Give no occasion for stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the assembly of God;

1Co 10:33  even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.

 

So if you don't know, don't worry about it.  When I am informed and my liberty might cause someone else to stumble, I need to not eat it.  Just do all to the glory of God.  

On the other hand I would have difficulty eating blood pudding or live octopus. I don't even like the taste of a lot of south eastern grown chicken.  It may be the way it is killed, butchered or even fed.  But I choose chicken grown elsewhere.  

 

[missmuffet]

I like a nice juicy t-bone steak cooked medium. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that in the eyes of God.