Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $20 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 3,316
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,544
Posts50,743
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,307
Tom 3,316
chestnutmare 2,864
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 18
Recent Posts
Christian Leaders Behaving Badly
by Anthony C.. Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:56 PM
Sexual harrassment fraud
by PerpetualLearner. Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:01 AM
Israel
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:21 AM
Classical vs.Presuppositional Apologetics
by Pilgrim. Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:45 AM
Trying to understand the Confessions
by Tom. Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:29 PM
Question I read
by Tom. Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:04 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#33248 - Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:12 AM Meat and blood  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
CJari Offline
Newbie
CJari  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Finland
Hello,
I have been lately studying the meaning of blood in the flesh and as I understand we should not eat blood. But how exactly should we deal with blood and meat?

As far as I know the most significant scriptures regarding this topic are Gen 9:4, Deu 12:16 and Lev 3:1.

Thanks for your time.

In Christ,
Jari.

#33249 - Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:29 PM Re: Meat and blood [Re: CJari]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 21
Brother Bret Offline
Journeyman
Brother Bret  Offline
Journeyman


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 21
Florida, U.S.A.
I think this would fall into the conscience catagory. We know that all meats were made clean, and we can eat Pork etc. I think the bigger concern would be if it was raw. I imagine that there may be some out there that want their meat cooked "well done" for those reasons. I eat meat "medium" most of the time, so there is some "blood/juices" from that. I would just use the principals from Rom.14; 1Cor.8 & 10 to guide you and how you apply that for yourself and around others could "stumble" over it. This is just an "off the top of my head" response on this while on my lunch break from my job outside of the church :-). Thanks....

Bret


Brother Bret Lovitz

#33250 - Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:18 PM Re: Meat and blood [Re: CJari]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
In Genesis 9:4 we see God laying down a restriction—not to eat blood. The restriction is in the terms that a beast must first be slaughtered and then the blood drained from it before it may be eaten (kashrut, or dietary laws).

The kashrut is laid out for us in Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12. The Hebrews believed that blood is the source of life and the means by which life is perpetuated (i.e. the blood is in the soul—Deut 12:23; Is 53:12). To remove blood was to remove life. Thus, the blood is understood to be distinct and unique (even sacred) from the other parts of animals. In addition, the setting apart of the blood stems from the belief that it is principally used for the purpose of expiation and atonement—it is too sacred to be eaten.

In the NT, Paul shows that the Christian has no “clean or unclean” food laws in a ceremonial sense; “All things are indeed pure” (Rom. 14:20; cf. Col 2:16; Tit 1:15; 1 Tim 1:1-4). However, for health reasons some (like myself) should not eat blood.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#33251 - Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:43 PM Re: Meat and blood [Re: Brother Bret]  
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Peter Offline
Old Hand
Peter  Offline
Old Hand

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
Wait a minute while I get some of this blutwurst off my fingers. Whew! For a minute I thought you guys were going to say I couldn't enjoy black pudding any more but I agree all foods are now clean and it is a matter of conscience (or health concerns) that dictate our habits.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
#33252 - Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:50 AM Re: Meat and blood [Re: CJari]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
CJari Offline
Newbie
CJari  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Finland
Well the way I look at this is that if it tastes like blood it's wrong to eat. Because the meaning of blood is significant, it is a sacrifice for the remission of sins and like we know Christ's blood was shed as the blood of perfect sacrifice, a lamb without blemish and without spot.
So I feel that it should be at least respected and I avoid eating anything raw.
Also I believe the important point is that even the meat may have blood when you cook it most of the blood should not be there since the animal is butchered.

#33253 - Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:43 AM Re: Meat and blood [Re: CJari]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
Quote
CJari said:
Well the way I look at this is that if it tastes like blood it's wrong to eat. Because the meaning of blood is significant, it is a sacrifice for the remission of sins and like we know Christ's blood was shed as the blood of perfect sacrifice, a lamb without blemish and without spot.
So I feel that it should be at least respected and I avoid eating anything raw.
Also I believe the important point is that even the meat may have blood when you cook it most of the blood should not be there since the animal is butchered.

1) Since you have decided it is "wrong" to eat anything that has to do with "blood", then it would be sin for you to do otherwise. (Adiaphora)

2) In the Old Testament, the use of blood in the ceremonial acts, were foreshadows/types of the sacrifice of Christ. There was nothing inherently holy (sacred) in the actual blood used nor even in the Christ's own blood which ran through His veins. The blood symbolized life itself.

3) In the New Testament, we are taught that those "types" symbolized in the Old Testament in regard to the ceremonial law were fulfilled in the coming of Christ and His atoning sacrifice. Thus, the symbols no longer have attached to them their former significance.

4) We are further taught that since the ceremonial and civil laws have been fulfilled in Christ, they are no longer applicable. Thus the Lord told Peter, who still held on to at least some of the dietary laws, that they are passed (fulfilled) in Christ and thus ALL food was "pure" and could be consumed without violating any law or one's conscience in regard to those laws. Paul likewise wrote that no food or drink is "unclean" (Rom 14:14). (cf. 1Cor 8; Rom 14). Therefore, today, believers are free to eat whatever they wish, with the only restrictions being, (a) their own conscience, (b) the conscience of one's brother.

For more on this see these articles:

The Weak and the Strong by John Murray

Liberty of Conscience by Donald MacLeod

Freedom in Christ by G.I. Williamson

Christian Liberty by A.W. Pink

In His grace,

Last edited by Pilgrim; Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:40 PM.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#33254 - Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:26 PM Re: Meat and blood [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
CJari Offline
Newbie
CJari  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Finland
Quote
Pilgrim said:
1) Since you have decided this it is "wrong" to eat anything that has to do with "blood", then it would be sin for you to do otherwise. (Adiaphora)


That is not what I said. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
I'll read of your post later when I have more time, for now I just wanted to correct that.

In Christ,
Jari.

#33255 - Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:40 PM Re: Meat and blood [Re: CJari]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
Quote
CJari said:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
1) Since you have decided it is "wrong" to eat anything that has to do with "blood", then it would be sin for you to do otherwise. (Adiaphora)


That is not what I said. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote here: Your post where you said,

Quote
Well the way I look at this is that if it tastes like blood it's wrong to eat.

Perhaps you could explain where I misunderstood, "it's wrong to eat" in my words, "Since you have decided it is 'wrong' to eat . . . blood"??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#33256 - Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:06 AM Re: Meat and blood [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
CJari Offline
Newbie
CJari  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Finland
Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
CJari said:

Quote
Pilgrim said:
1) Since you have decided it is "wrong" to eat anything that has to do with "blood", then it would be sin for you to do otherwise. (Adiaphora)


That is not what I said. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote here: Your post where you said,

Quote
Well the way I look at this is that if it tastes like blood it's wrong to eat.

Perhaps you could explain where I misunderstood, "it's wrong to eat" in my words, "Since you have decided it is 'wrong' to eat . . . blood"??? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,


Heh, you said:
Quote
Since you have decided it is "wrong" to eat anything that has to do with "blood"


I did not say it's wrong to eat anything that has to do with "blood".
What I was saying is that if something tastes like blood, it's either raw meat or plain blood. And those I wont eat but instead I cook the meat so that it doesn't taste like blood.

Sorry for the confusion! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In Christ,
Jari.

#33257 - Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:28 AM Re: Meat and blood [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
CJari Offline
Newbie
CJari  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Finland
I agree with you on all of the four points you have made but the reason why I am asking about this is because of what the apostoles decided in acts:

- Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

In Christ,
Jari.

#33258 - Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:29 AM Re: Meat and blood [Re: CJari]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
Quote
CJari said:
I agree with you on all of the four points you have made but the reason why I am asking about this is because of what the apostoles decided in acts:

- Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

CJari,

I think it is prudent to understand the of that passage in the overall context of the chapter where the issue before the Apostles was the problems involved between the scruples of Jewish converts and those of Gentile converts. In short, some/many of the Jewish converts to Christianity brought with them much of the old covenant ceremonial and civil law which no longer applied and in some instances came into conflict with practices of the Gentiles, which in and of themselves were not sinful. Thus, the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council was to bring peace within the Church during this interim period of the Church's infancy on matters of conscience. I do like how J.A. Alexander handles this text:

Quote
James proposes, therefore, to en¬join upon them the most careful abstinence from every semblance of this sin, as well as from the more indifferent and in itself innoxious practice of eating flesh which had been sacrificed to idols. This combination of an essential with a ceremonial sin has led to much dispute respecting the two last particulars, or rather to the one which is expressed in two forms. Strangled i. e. killed without shedding the blood; so that this clause denotes flesh with the blood still in it, as the next does blood itself, either separate from the meat, or in a generic sense, including both. That blood here means bloodshed, i.e. homicide, is a notion which appears to be confined to one or two of the Fathers (such as Cyril and Cyprian); as the application of the ancient prohibitions to the use of flesh from the living animal appears to be peculiar to the Jewish Rabbins. The use of blood for food had been forbidden, not only in the law of Moses, but in the covenant with Noah, as being the vehicle or seat of life, which some regard as a physiological fact attested by divine authority, while others understand it as an arbitrary designation of the blood as the appointed representative of life for sacrificial purposes, without affirming or denying their physical relation in the animal economy. Connected with the first of these hypotheses is the belief, that the use of blood is here forbidden on the same ground with the practice of licentiousness, to wit, that both are necessary and intrinsic evils. In accordance with this view, the prohibition is enforced as a perpetual one by some of the ancient Fathers and Councils, and in the practice of the Greek Church to the present day. The Western Churches, both reformed and unreformed, adhere, with individual exceptions, to the doctrine of Augustine, that the prohibition was prudential and temporary, founded on no natural necessity or principle, the Old Testament restriction having ceased with the sacrificial services to which it had relation, and the one before us being merely an expedient for maintaining peace between converted Jews and Gentiles, during the anomalous and doubtful interval between the organization of the Christian Church and the outward as well as inward abrogation of the Jewish one. This is now commonly regarded as the import and design of all these prohibitions, which as being purely negative could not be regarded even as a temporary “yoke” imposed upon the Gentiles. (Acts, J.A. Alexander, Banner of Truth [Geneva Series Commentaries] vol. 2 pp. 83, 84


Thus, the pronouncement made by James as spokesman for the Church at Jerusalem was only a temporal in scope and has no application to us today. The more extensive treatment of Adiaphora is to be found in the epistles of Paul, e.g., 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14.

Oh..... I wanted to ask you about something you wrote in another reply. You put this restriction on yourself that you prefer to eat nothing that "tastes like blood". My question is, What does blood taste like? I've eaten a substantial amount of beef and pork over the years but I can't recall there being any "blood" when I ate it. And I must say I do prefer to have my beef cooked rare to medium rare. There have been occasions when I have sustained an injury where I was bleeding and as a youngster licked the wound, e.g., on my finger. But then again, that was many years ago and I can't remember exactly what "blood" tasted like.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#33259 - Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:45 AM Re: Meat and blood [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
CJari Offline
Newbie
CJari  Offline
Newbie

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Finland
Pilgrim,
I believe you are right about this and I think I see now why apostoles said/wrote that, it makes sense.

So I was wrong to think that it would be sin to eat blood and I now see that it is not.

But why do you ask how blood tastes? I am surprised that you haven't ever bite on your tonque or lips? I think it would be right not to speak how blood tastes (1Co 10:25) so let's just forget this whole thing, ok? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I need to correct some things I've said to people about blood...

God bless you.

In Christ,
Jari.

#33260 - Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:03 AM Re: Meat and blood [Re: CJari]  
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 277
doulos Offline
Enthusiast
doulos  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 277
I'm pretty sure I recall Peter facing this same dilemma in the Tanner's house but the Lord straightened him out. Eating wise, all things are clean just some folks can't tolerate them. *shrug 'Sup to you chum.

BTW, regarding the steak issue, that red stuff that leaks from a fine Medium cooked steak (maybe a Black Angus New York strip about an inch and half thick, Mmmmmm....) is actually tissue and interstitial fluid from the flesh itself, not blood. Carcasses are drained quite well before butchering these days. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />


Josh
"...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 107 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
663,082 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.047s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 2.6628 MB (Peak: 2.9699 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-11 07:22:04 UTC