F
Fuego
Guest
God did not say blood is impure/unclean that’s why we should not eat it. He said blood is the life in all living creatures that’s why we are not to eat it.
- Status
C
chefmomster2
Guest
The D-R does contain the translation of this phrase as “purging all meats”.
purge [purj] Show IPA
verb (used with object), purged, purg·ing.
1.to rid of whatever is impure or undesirable; cleanse; purify.
2.to rid, clear, or free (usually followed by of or from ): to purge a political party of disloyal members.
3.to clear of imputed guilt or ritual uncleanliness.
4.to clear away or wipe out legally (an offense, accusation, etc.) by atonement or other suitable action.
5.to remove by cleansing or purifying (often followed by away, off, or out ).
(Dictionary.com)
This sentence was added to the bible during the redaction of the scriptures in the first few centuries of the Bible. It is not a new insertion.
Certainly there are some translations that do not include the phrase in any incarnation. Your point that it was not originally in scripture prompted my search.
I am not sure what you mean by the D-R being the “Official Bible of the Church”. It was once used for the liturgy of the Mass, but that ended in 1960. (USA) Once the NAB was released it replaced the D-R in this use. The NAB Revised is currently the official bible for the Lectionary and before that the NAB was used. (1970-2002). In fact the bishops ruled the NAB and afterwards the NAB-R to be the only bible used for lectionaries. The D-R is the original English bible, but The NAB is certainly officially approved. Since there appears to be official sanctioning of them both, I don’t believe preference of the D-R is necessary.
Now back to the main topic…
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Then let’s approach this from another direction…
(Are you a member of the Catholic Church? As you know, I am. This gives you important information about my beliefs and biases. You haven’t indicated your faith and it would be helpful to know. What faith, if any, do you espouse? Are you a member of Iglesia ni Cristo? That should be disclosed since that faith is the one which holds the belief stated by the OP)
The Catholic Church holds with Transubstantiation. It is not necessary to try to prove the validity of the belief, but only that it is held dogmatically.)
CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
Let us, for argument’s sake, say that the Church of the Early Fathers did not release Christians from this prohibition.
The self-same Church declares that the Eucharist which we consume contains the actual body and blood of Christ. This is a Dogmatic Doctrine of the Catholic Faith.
**"The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successos. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change."r **
catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines
So, since the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot have changed from the deposit of Faith revealed by the apostles to their successors, and since this doctrine of Transubstantiation includes the doctrine that in consuming the Eucharist we CONSUME the ACTUAL BLOOD of Christ, then, it must hold that the consumption of blood, in this case the Blood of Christ, must certainly have been acceptable in the teachings revealed by Christ to the apostles.
Therefore: Consumption of blood is permitted and the assumption that the Apostles continued to prohibit its use is disproved.
(I will NOT argue the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I do NOT question any Dogma of my Church.)
F
Fuego
Guest
The phrase “purging all meats” is in the original languages and therefore scripture.
The sentence “Thus he declared all foods clean” is not. It is the conclusion drawn by the translator of the repercussion of Jesus’ discourse. Since “nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him” therefore Jesus, in effect, has now declared that all foods are clean. It is an interpretation, not a translation of the original texts and could mislead if wrong.
Sorry, I meant “original official Bible.” You are right, the NAB has now replaced the DRB as the official English Bible, but only because the DRB uses Archaic English.
F
Fuego
Guest
No, I am not with the group mentioned by the TS. I have no church affiliation yet. However, I do believe that the Bible is God’s written word and that the Church Jesus Christ built still exists today.
I’m afraid you would have to prove the validity of your premise (Transubstantiation) first from the pages of the Bible. Remember, my affirmation was that it is not possible to defend the eating of blood using the Bible.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Transubstantiation or Symbol, the argument is equally valid.)
Scripture says blood is life.
Christ said, “This is my blood.” (1)
Christ says that His blood is life. (2)
Christ asks and advises us to consume His blood and body. (3)
—God-Christ would not ask us to do something strictly prohibited by God.
—Nor would He ask us to symbolically act out something intrinsically evil.
Therefore:
—Christ, through His own Words in Scripture, allowed the consumption of blood.
—Blood is not prohibited.
John 6
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (2, 3)
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (2, 3)
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. (1)
56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (3)
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. (2, 3)
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (2)
(Mt 26:26-28; cf. Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:17-20, 1 Cor 11:23-25)
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (1, 3)
Read this: It summarizes my argument.
catholic.com/quickquestions/is-jesus-command-to-drink-his-blood-a-violation-of-gods-law
Thanks for the lively debate!
God bless you!
F
Fuego
Guest
Yes, you are right. I did not see that. The argument is equally valid for either one.
So, your argument is this:
Scripture says blood is life.
Christ said “This is my blood.”
Christ said His blood is life.
Christ tells us to eat His blood [and body].
Therefore, Christ, in Scripture, allowed the eating of blood.
Here’s how that can be refuted.
Why did Christ instruct us to eat His blood? Is it not, so that we may have eternal life (John 6:54)?
And the only reason why we would have eternal life if we eat Christ’s blood is because His blood is not just life [as in all other creatures on earth], but eternal life. Blood is life, as the Scripture says, but Christ’s blood is eternal life.
Jesus’ instruction is for us to eat the blood that is eternal life. He did not tell us to eat the blood that is not eternal life.
Your argument is not valid because Jesus is talking specifically about blood that is eternal life. However, when the Scripture says blood is life, it is speaking about mortal life, as the subject matter is the blood of animals. But even if the Scripture is speaking about life in general terms (mortal as well as eternal life), your argument is still not valid because your succeeding premises refer to only that kind of life that is eternal. They do not cover both.
I don’t think you can use that argument if you are a Christian. The conclusion drawn from your argument is that you can also eat the blood of human beings. Does your faith allow you to do that?
Thank you, too, for these viewpoints. They are new to me.
God bless.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Nope. Blood is blood. Leviticus does not distinguish a difference between blood from clean animals and the blood of unclean animals, a common and powerful theme for them. There is no concern shown about the potential effects of the blood as a result of it being from clean or unclean. Their concern is merely that it is life-giving
The effect of Christ’s blood is likewise of no consequence for the purpose of this argument.
His blood is fully blood, no less than the blood of animals and is life-giving.
The consuming of the blood of other people is not permitted, but it has nothing to do with this argument. The human body is possessed of a soul. The soul is created in God’s image and likeness.
"It is a core teaching of Catholicism that the body does not exist as merely a separate entity that is detached from the soul. The classic understanding is that the body and soul make up the whole human person, therefore, the body needs to be treated with the utmost respect, both while we are alive and even after death, “for we are fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps 139). " Catholic Answers
The body including any of its parts is not to be used for any purpose that is disrespectful of the body. It is respectful and permissible to use blood from the body for a blood transfusion, medical testing, donation, or as a treatment for a medical purpose. All of these uses are respectful because the are done in support of life and life-giving care.
Drinking human blood would not be respectful of the body. It would be a grave matter because it is not done to promote the health and dignity of the person.
“In addition, serious moral concerns arise when the gift character of donation is negated through commercialization, or when the use of the body or its parts is only remotely related to the benefit of others, if at all, or when due reverence is not shown to the body and its parts.”
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZBODPRTS.HTM
CCC 2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.
F
Fuego
Guest
I agree.
No, I don’t agree. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.
Yes, it does, because your conclusion would allow for that. Anyway, since we can’t agree on this, we’ll end the discussion here.
Now, if you don’t mind, may I ask you which part of this explanation I offered before is wrong and why.
God says not to eat blood because the life of the flesh is in the blood.
God is the Giver of life. The life of all living creatures belongs to Him as the Giver of life. His written revelation tells us that when a creature dies, its “dust return to the earth from whence it was,” while the life God gave to it – “the spirit” – “return to God, who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7).
The reason why God does not allow us to eat blood is because we are not the givers of life. God is. And He wants that life back when it dies.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
I agree with all of the above [with the indicated changes]! But that law was given to the Jews, not the Christians, It was later removed by Christ.
Mark 7:14-23
‘Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean’? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.’
Peter and Paul prevailed and determined with others to end this requirement. James decided to continue the practice not because it was prohibited, but as a matter of custom so as not to insult the Jews. So, to this day, the Church allows us to eat meat without koshering, a process to remove the blood, and the also the blood itself.
All the best!
P
patrick457
Guest
Yes, dinuguan. It’s really the slightly-more liquid relative of black pudding, kaszanka and blutwurst.
F
Fuego
Guest
Thank you.
Wasn’t the law was given to the Gentile Christians as well, by an Apostolic Decree at the Jerusalem Council around 50 AD?: “Writing by their hands: the apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles… That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood…” (Acts 15:23-29). “But, as touching the Gentiles that believe, we have written, decreeing, that they should only refrain themselves from that which has been offered to idols and from blood…” (Acts 21:25).
Doesn’t the CC consider the Jerusalem Council a prototype and forerunner of their Ecumenical Councils? If so, what Catholic Council overturned this Apostolic Decree and allowed the eating of blood by Gentile Catholics?
Is this the Scripture that proves Christ removed the prohibition? You need to distinguish between unclean meats and blood. Blood is not “unclean.” Please read Leviticus. Those who offer animal sacrifices get blood on themselves all the time. Sometimes they intentionally dip their hands in blood or place blood on different parts of their body, yet they don’t become “unclean.” The rituals for cleansing lepers even involve the sprinkling of blood for purification from the disease. In contrast, a person who touches a dead body of an “unclean” animal becomes unclean.
What about a person who is found to have eaten blood, what would happen to him? God says, “I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Lev. 17:10). It is a grave sin. God will disown that person and separate him from those God calls His people.
Where does it say that Peter and Paul ended the requirement?
May I know how you found out that James only decided to continue the practice as a matter of custom so as not to insult the Jews?
Are you saying that James [and not only him but all the other Apostles who were at the Jerusalem Council, including the CC’s first pope, Peter], compromised the truth for the sake of unity? That is very un-Christian I believe, especially so when these people were the lead ministers of the Church.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
You have asked a lot of questions here, so I will answer in several posts over the coming days. There’s a lot here!
The Law was given by God the Father to the Chosen People, the Hebrews, in the Old Testament. They were judged by adherence to the Law. In some of the letters, the writers declare that the Law was necessary to teach what sin is. For the Jews, sin is legalistic. It is about a checklist. Obey, and you are pleasing to God and He will bless you. Disobey and you are displeasing and can incur His wrath. It was impossible to prove yourself worthy because it was impossible to follow the law to perfection.
The Christians were living at the time of the fulfillment of the Law, Jesus. The old was washed away in the blood of Christ and they now have a new law. They are judged by faith. Christ tells us that they could never have found salvation through the Law. (If they could there would have been no reason for Christ to suffer, die and be resurrected.)
GALATIANS 2:19 Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels…20 Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one. 21 Is the law then opposed to the promises [of God]? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law. 22 But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.
The new law consists of this:
“YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”
St. Paul says, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom 13: 8-10)
***In addition to other things I have cited, there is also the experience of Peter previous to the Council.
ACTS 11 The Baptism of the Gentiles Explained.
1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers confronted him, 3 saying, “You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them.” 4 Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying, 5 “I was at prayer in the city of Joppa when in a trance I had a vision, something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me. 6 Looking intently into it, I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky. 7 I also heard a voice say to me, ‘Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But a second time a voice from heaven answered, **‘What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.’\B] 10 This happened three times, and then everything was drawn up again into the sky.
11 Just then three men appeared at the house where we were, who had been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 The Spirit told me to accompany them without discriminating. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 He related to us how he had seen (the) angel standing in his house, saying, ‘Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon,… 14 who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning,…17 If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?” 18 When they heard this, they stopped objecting and glorified God, saying, “God has then granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too.”**
So important was this story to the author that he includes it twice! See also, Acts 10. The Gentiles who have never followed the law and who, being pagans would have been condemned by God for disobeying those very laws mentioned by James, were saved by the Spirit!
Next installment coming soon…
*
There’s a lot here!No. The conclusion of the leaders at that council was that Christians are not bound by Mosaic law. (I’ll deal with James in another post.)
The Law was given by God the Father to the Chosen People, the Hebrews, in the Old Testament. They were judged by adherence to the Law. In some of the letters, the writers declare that the Law was necessary to teach what sin is. For the Jews, sin is legalistic. It is about a checklist. Obey, and you are pleasing to God and He will bless you. Disobey and you are displeasing and can incur His wrath. It was impossible to prove yourself worthy because it was impossible to follow the law to perfection.
The Christians were living at the time of the fulfillment of the Law, Jesus. The old was washed away in the blood of Christ and they now have a new law. They are judged by faith. Christ tells us that they could never have found salvation through the Law. (If they could there would have been no reason for Christ to suffer, die and be resurrected.)
GALATIANS 2:19 Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels…20 Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one. 21 Is the law then opposed to the promises [of God]? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law. 22 But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.
The new law consists of this:
“YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”
St. Paul says, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom 13: 8-10)
***In addition to other things I have cited, there is also the experience of Peter previous to the Council.
ACTS 11 The Baptism of the Gentiles Explained.
1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers confronted him, 3 saying, “You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them.” 4 Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying, 5 “I was at prayer in the city of Joppa when in a trance I had a vision, something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me. 6 Looking intently into it, I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky. 7 I also heard a voice say to me, ‘Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But a second time a voice from heaven answered, **‘What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.’\B] 10 This happened three times, and then everything was drawn up again into the sky.
11 Just then three men appeared at the house where we were, who had been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 The Spirit told me to accompany them without discriminating. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 He related to us how he had seen (the) angel standing in his house, saying, ‘Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon,… 14 who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning,…17 If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?” 18 When they heard this, they stopped objecting and glorified God, saying, “God has then granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too.”**
So important was this story to the author that he includes it twice! See also, Acts 10. The Gentiles who have never followed the law and who, being pagans would have been condemned by God for disobeying those very laws mentioned by James, were saved by the Spirit!
Next installment coming soon…
*
C
chefmomster2
Guest
It is classified as a pre-ecumenical counsel and it is part of the apostolic tradition of councils in the CC.
P
PJM
Guest
Genesis 1:26-30
And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying:Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.”
Genesis 9: 1-5 [AFTER THE FLOOD]
And God blessed Noe and his sons. And he said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand.** And everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:** [4] Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat. For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man”
Haydock’s Commentary on verse Four:
Ver. 4. “With blood. This was a matter of indifference in itself, like the forbidden fruit. But God gave the prohibition, to keep people at a greater distance from imbruing their hands in the blood of others, which nevertheless we know some have drunk! He would also assert his dominion over all things;*** the blood or life of animals being reserved to be offered in sacrifice to him, instead of the life of man, ***Leviticus xvii. 11. Blood of brutes is gross and unwholesome. (Menochius) — The apostles required this law to be observed by the first Christians, that the Jews might not be disgusted: but, after a competent time had been allowed them, the Church thought proper to alter this discipline. (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xxxii. 13.)”
Hope this clarifies it for you?
God Bless,
Patrick
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Peter’s Statement:
Acts 15:6-11 “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them,. 'Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make a trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’”
- [2:4]False brothers: Jewish Christians who took the position that Gentile Christians must first become Jews through BOTH circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law in order to become Christians; cf. Acts 15:1.
*[2:5]The truth of the gospel: the true gospel, in contrast to the false one of the opponents(Gal 1:6–9); the gospel of grace, used as a norm (Gal 2:14).
6 But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing.
Paul insists that the gospel he preaches remained intact. He had preached the Gospel of faith through grace and faith rather than the Law, and none of those there, including James, prevailed upon him to add the 4 laws of James’ letter. (Gal 2:6)
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised,… 9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
[9]**The right to proclaim the gospel without requiring circumcision and the Jewish law is sealed by a handshake. ** James is included in this act.
Paul’s Statement:
GAL 2 Faith and Works. 15 We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles,16 [yet] who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified…18 But if I am building up again those things that I tore down, then I show myself to be a transgressor.
Note that Peter, apostle to the Jews, and the first pope, and Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, and the most important writer in the Early Church had the widest sphere of influence in the Church at that time. James was important but his role as Bishop of Jerusalem, which happens after this meeting and once Peter has left, is more limited.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Let me clarify. I mean the Jewish-Christians who were intent on maintaining their Jewish traditions.
Notice these verses:
Acts 15: 11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”12 The whole assembly fell silent, …
*They all fell silent. The debate had ended. The ruling had been decided upon.
12…and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.
*They do not return to the topic, but rather begin to listen to Peter and Barnabas describing their work.
James on Dietary Law. 13 After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me.
*Now this topic is complete as indicated by: they had fallen silent. The story turns to James’ letter.
Acts 15: * 23 This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings…28 ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, 29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.*
So, why was this letter sent?
First, the rules were supplied to the gentiles. It must be remembered that they had been pagan. Just like the Jews, the pagans had certain requirements of faith which defined and identified them. Each of those four chosen laws was in opposition to their former life. Since they wished to be seen now as Christian and to change their way of life, it would be best that despite the change proclaimed at the Council, they cease these former markers of their previous faith.
Second, you will recall that Paul was particularly vehement about seeing the Gentiles freed from the Law. He certainly believed that salvation comes through Christ, not the Law. But he also writes of the same prohibitions:
Acts 21: * 25 As for the Gentiles who have come to believe,\B] we sent them our decision that they abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage.”
*Notice that this reference is to the Gentiles. They are asked to follow these laws. Jewish-Christians are not included in this requirement and need not obey these laws.
ROM 2: * Judgment by the Mosaic Law. **17 Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God 18 and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law, ***23 You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?..**28 One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. 29 Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; **his praise is not from human beings but from God.
*Notice that this letter is addressed to the Jews and it attempts to teach them the folly of relying on the letter of the Law for their salvation. Unlike the previous quote, it shows that circumcision is NOT illicit for anyone (although it is asked of the gentiles).
ROM 14:* To Live and Die for Christ.13 Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. **14 If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died.***17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit; 18 whoever serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God. and approved by others.
*Here is a further explanation for the mixed messages Paul seems to be sending. As Christians we are to act in love. If for instance, eating something now rendered clean would cause disruption to the community, the Christian will agree not to eat it. It is about Christian love.
1 COR 8: * 8 Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. 9 But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak. 12 When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ.* 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.
*This is a further example referring to one item forbidden in James’ letter. Although food from idols may be eaten, it should not be if it will cause a disturbance to those who believe it to be unlawful.
In other words, the Council of Jerusalem did do away with the need for Christians whether gentile or Jews to follow Mosaic Law. However, there were exceptions to this:
- Gentiles were asked to follow the 4 laws described by James as a clearer sign of their conversion, but NOT because the Law had to be followed.
- Jewish-Christians and Gentiles are asked to keep the unity of the community in mind and either follow or ignore the Law in a way that minimizes disruption. This application of the law is meant to address the problems caused by change. It was so traumatic for Jewish-Christians that it became necessary to make allowances for their agitation.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Absolutely not! Christ had declared that nothing that enters your body from the outside can make you unclean. They considered those words along with the hundreds of others He had given them on the subject of the Law. They determined the truth through the help of the Holy Spirit. Christ does not forbid it.
They were not allowing anyone to do something illicit to “keep the peace.” That would be wrong. However, they did ask the gentile-Christians to agree to avoid blood, the meat of strangled animals, and interfaith marriage and to agree to be circumcised. These things were not required by the Law.They did this out of respect for the scruples of the Jewish-Christians. They were accepted by the Gentiles in a spirit of Christian love which is the true fulfillment of the law.
They adhered to the words of Christ. That IS being Christian.
Phew! Got it done! LOL
F
Fuego
Guest
I appreciate that. Thanks.You have asked a lot of questions here, so I will answer in several posts over the coming days.
Let’s focus on the eating of blood because that is the topic of the thread.
I meant to ask this: “Was the law against the eating of blood given to the Gentile Christians by an Apostolic Decree at the Jerusalem Council?”
Two things the question asks: First, was it an Apostolic Decree? Second, did the decree prohibit the eating of blood by Gentile Christians?
About the law of Moses -
The law of Moses was the law of the Old Covenant. But what is this law? The law of Moses was originally the civil law based on the principles of the Ten Commandments. Later, sacrificial laws involving rituals and sacrifices “were added because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19) – until Christ should come.
So, the law of Moses had two parts: the civil and the ritualistic. When the Old Covenant passed, only the ritualistic part of the law was done away, as they were only a “reminder of sin” (Heb 10:3) to teach the people the need of a Savior who would pay the penalty for sin.
Part of the civil law of Moses was the law against the eating of blood. This was not a law added because of sin, and so was not temporary in nature. Moreover, this law existed prior to the Old Covenant (Gen. 9:4). The Old Covenant did not establish this law, therefore it cannot nullify it with its passing.
The Apostles understood this completely. When they declared the rituals as no longer binding in Acts 15, they had to declare the prohibition on eating blood as still binding because some would have thought they were abolished along with the temporary rituals. The controversy did not involve the civil law of Moses. It involved only the ceremonial additions to the law – only customs – added ceremonies or rituals.
F
Fuego
Guest
If you are saying that Peter here included the eating of blood as not applicable to the Gentile Christians, you have made a rather hasty and unwarranted conclusion. How could that be, when Peter was one of those who endorsed the letter decreeing that “they abstain from things strangled and from blood”? Remember, the revelation recorded what ensued after Peter made that statement. It says: “Writing by their hands: the apostles and ancients….” Peter clearly was one of those “apostles” who endorsed the decree keeping that prohibition on eating blood.
- Status