Eating blood and strangled animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter ferdie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

ferdie

Guest
I am a Filipino catholic and having a hard time explaining the words of the apostles concerning the eating of blood, or of strangled animals ( Acts 15:29). In the Philippines Catholics are allowed to blood. It is a poor country and the poor will eat almost anything just to get by. But according to Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ founded by Manalo) It is forbidden in the Old testament and also in the New testament. I know that this is a dietary law. But how do I answer that charge? What do they mean by strangled animals? Were these animals eaten or offered to idols?

I was poorly educated about my catholic faith and in my youth, I wondered to Iglesia Ni Cristo, Southern Liberty Baptist, Evangelical Fundamental Church and then back to Catholic Church. One thing that is common about these churches, they love bashing the catholic church, which intrigued me at that time and gave mo the opportunity to study my own church. The books and catholic tracts of Kreeft were very helpful of my return to the catholic church. Pardon my English grammar but I hope you understand my question and I hope that you will answer it too.
 
Why not put this post in the “Apologetics” or “Ask an Apologist”?

There’ll will be more viewers there and it would be much more appropriate.

BTW, I’m Filipino too,
 
What “eating of blood, or of strangled animals” means from my interpretation is that when you want to eat an animal, that animal has to be killed for the purpose of eating. So, when you go and get your meat the animal should be killed or hunted for eating.

The animals that you should not eat (including drinking thier blood) are ones that you find dead on the road because a car ran over it. You should not eat animals that died of old age(or any natural courses). You should not eat animals that died of disease. If an animal attacks you and you kill it in self defence(strangled), don’t eat that animal.

And NEVER eat any animals that was offered to Idols. Some Chinese in Philippines practice thier tradition religion where they offer food to thier ancesters(Roast Pig and fruits). Other pagan religions might do something similiar. If you know that an animal was made as offerings to Idol make sure that you don’t eat it.

I suggest that you talk to your Priest or Bishop Regarding Acts15:29 if this is a general practice in this area. But from my general opinion, an animal’s blood may not be very clean and may contain diseases.
 
This prescription of food laws is consider an early example of church discipline and not doctrine. The doctine, for lack of a better word, is that there is no dietary restictions on Christians, the discipline was to refrain from eating blood and strangled animals etc. in the early church.

The purpose of the rule was to avoid offending the cultural sensibilities of Jewish converts when they would eat with Pagan converts. It is not intended that in any way eating snared rabbit or eating a blood pudding or a rare steak for nourishment was or is sinful. It was an instruction on par with proper manners for the time.

As less and less Jewish converts became Christians this rule over time ceased to be be meaningful. An example of this type of thing in our time is not eating meat on Fridays. The Church no longer expects everyone to follow this prescription because in many Catholic communities this rule was meaningless since many normally didn’t eat meat regularly.

The Church still accepts meat fasts as proper but is more interetested in a disposed heart to penitential acts on Fridays. Similarly the discipline found in Acts can clearly be adopted as a form of penance but the church is always interested in us being a wise, charitable and gracious when we dine with your Christian bretheren.

God Bless
 
40.png
Micky:
What “eating of blood, or of strangled animals” means from my interpretation is that when you want to eat an animal, that animal has to be killed for the purpose of eating. So, when you go and get your meat the animal should be killed or hunted for eating.

The animals that you should not eat (including drinking thier blood) are ones that you find dead on the road because a car ran over it. You should not eat animals that died of old age(or any natural courses). You should not eat animals that died of disease. If an animal attacks you and you kill it in self defence(strangled), don’t eat that animal.

And NEVER eat any animals that was offered to Idols. Some Chinese in Philippines practice thier tradition religion where they offer food to thier ancesters(Roast Pig and fruits). Other pagan religions might do something similiar. If you know that an animal was made as offerings to Idol make sure that you don’t eat it.

I suggest that you talk to your Priest or Bishop Regarding Acts15:29 if this is a general practice in this area. But from my general opinion, an animal’s blood may not be very clean and may contain diseases.
Click to expand...
This answer is not in accord with Catholic teaching. Deacon 2006’s is.

This aspect of the Jerusalem decree was merely disciplinary, so as to make less stumbling blocks for Jewish converts to Christianity. Paul himself modifed the command in one of his Epistles (to the Corinthians?), when he said that food sacrificed to idols may be eaten, so long as idolatry isn’t intended, as long as it doesn’t bring scandal to one’s Christian brother.
 
"[The holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel.

"It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased.

“It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.”

(Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442, Paragraph spacing added)
 
40.png
Vincent:
"[The holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel.

"It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practising the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased.

“It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.”

(Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442, Paragraph spacing added)
Click to expand...
Wow! I never knew that this has actually been settled by an Ecumenical Council! Awesome! Reputation points coming your way!

:clapping:
 
After reading Vincent’s post (Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442, Paragraph spacing added)

I must admit that Vincent and Deacon2006 is correct !
 
Wow! Thank you so much. These are all helpful.I can also use this answers for refuting JW and Seven Day Adventist.
 
40.png
ferdie:
Wow! Thank you so much. These are all helpful.I can also use this answers for refuting JW and Seven Day Adventist.
Click to expand...
Just a word of caution:

JWs, SDAs and INCs aren’t going to recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, so it’s best to just summarize the arguments without mentioning that they’re from Florence.
 
One set of scriptures that comes in handy to refute the position of the JWs and the SDAs is found in Acts chapt. 10

The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.” But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.” The voice spoke to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane."
Acts 10: 9-15
 
40.png
Vincent:
Just a word of caution:

JWs, SDAs and INCs aren’t going to recognize the authority of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, so it’s best to just summarize the arguments without mentioning that they’re from Florence.
Click to expand...
Sorry, wrong choice of words. Not to refute but to explain and defend my catholic position and maybe to enlighten them of the background on why the eating of blood and strangled animals were prohibited at that time. Again , thank you so much. Dave Armstrong the catholic apologist is right in recommending this forum . I have learned a lot already. This is a good way of relaxing.
 
Hi ferdie, you have been given great info here, but I would like to add to what has already been given to you.
As already stated on this thread, after the death of Christ, we Christians are no longer bound by the dietary laws that governed Israel. Especially after the vision of Peter, but even though we are not bound by them, we are bound to learn from them. Every dietary law given by Moses, (which came from God) had a specific meaning, it was not just given just because.

The main thing one must keep in mind when reading Scripture is that “Clean and Unclean” mean “Holy and Unholy”

Leviticus 10:10 DRB
(10) And that you may have knowledge to discern between holy and unholy, between unclean and clean:

Also, a hint, the animals would not be called Holy or Unholy, because they were not made in the image of God.

But to address your question more directly, the eating or drinking of blood was denied to Israel.

***Leviticus 17:10-13 DRB
*(10) If any man whosoever of the house of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn among them, eat blood, I will set my face against his soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
(11) Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul.
(12) Therefore I have said to the children of Israel: No soul of you, nor of the strangers that sojourn among you, shall eat blood.
(13) Any man whosoever of the children of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn among you, if by hunting or fowling, he take a wild beast or a bird, which is lawful to eat, let him pour out its blood, and cover it with earth.

**Again, the blood has a meaning, one that as Christians, especially Catholics, MUST understand. That the Life of the flesh is in the blood. Fast forward to

*John 6:53-56 DRB
(53) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
(54) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
(55)For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
(56)He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
*
You see, Israel, was a Nation in Waiting, the entire existance of Israel was to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. Israel could not drink the blood of any animal, because it was so that when the Christ came, they would know that the blood of the Lamb of God, is the only one that will give them eternal life.

I have wrttien an essay on my web site. For some further reading.

God Bless, Joao
 
1 Corinthians 10:23-29 and 1 Timothy 3:4,5 make it clear that there is nothing intrinsically sinful about eating these types of foods. This is just an example of the Church using its powers of binding and loosing. The Church bound these meats at Jerusalem to avoid offending Jews. The Church has since loosed them.
 
Matt 16 18,
Read on…Verse 28 “…But God has shown me I must not consider any person ritually unclean or defiled.” This tells me he was talking about the vision he has just had. The vision was not about food, but about people.
My brother and sister (both fallen away Catholics) interpret the bible for themselves and this is their argument. I sure hope someone can help on this one. Although eating pork is no big issue for me, I would really like to know what the Church teaches concerning this verse.
Thanks All!
 
Findnmway:
Matt 16 18,
Read on…Verse 28 “…But God has shown me I must not consider any person ritually unclean or defiled.” This tells me he was talking about the vision he has just had. The vision was not about food, but about people.
My brother and sister (both fallen away Catholics) interpret the bible for themselves and this is their argument. I sure hope someone can help on this one. Although eating pork is no big issue for me, I would really like to know what the Church teaches concerning this verse.
Click to expand...
At the risk of sounding too simplistic: single verse - multiple applications.

It is true that this section of ACTS was the opening of “The Way” (as it was first called) to the gentiles was a surprise to Peter and the early (VERY early) Church. But all the other comments are well placed (I also loved the quote from the council in Florence) as explanations.

Most important, though is the quote from DEUT regarding life in the blood. As we know, this was a contentious point between Jesus and many of His disciples, causing many to leave Him with His insistence on drinking His Blood.

But since God gave us to drink His own Blood, the “source” of life coming from animals’ blood, no longer has the significance it once had.

Furthermore, the drinking of blood - as I recall - was often tied to idolatry and gaining the strength or life of the victim for the consumer of the blood. That type of idolatry or superstition is not something we fight anymore, so… the prohibition loses its intention FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW.

Finally, what does your conscience say to you in this regard? If, personally, you choose to hold to the teaching of DEUT, I do not think anyone can or should tell you you are wrong, or being superstitious, foolish, fundamentalist… whatever!

But also recognize that as long as you do not eat with a sense that you are appropriating something of the “spirit” of what you are eating, you are free to eat what you can.

Personally, I can’t drink milk anymore - lactose problem. But I also don’t think I would really like to try blood sausage either. 😦
 
But I also don’t think I would really like to try blood sausage either.
Click to expand...
You must not be:
  1. From Wisconsin, and
  2. 50+ years old.
I satisfy the first, but not the second. How those old people swallowed that stuff I’ll never know!
 
I was drawn to this thread because I will be debating a JW later today concerning Transubstantiation. (Keep me in your prayers. It’s my first stab at apologetics.)

Leviticus 3:17 “This shall be a perpetual ordinance for your descendants wherever they may dwell. You shall not partake of any fat or any blood.” The JWs eat all the fat they want but argue that the Precious Blood violates this “ordinance”. How can the JWs take fat but not blood when they are in the same verse? Leviticus 7:22-27 includes both fat and blood also.
 
40.png
Wathy:
I was drawn to this thread because I will be debating a JW later today concerning Transubstantiation. (Keep me in your prayers. It’s my first stab at apologetics.)

Leviticus 3:17 “This shall be a perpetual ordinance for your descendants wherever they may dwell. You shall not partake of any fat or any blood.” The JWs eat all the fat they want but argue that the Precious Blood violates this “ordinance”. How can the JWs take fat but not blood when they are in the same verse? Leviticus 7:22-27 includes both fat and blood also.
Click to expand...
I’ll keep you in my prayers.
 
40.png
Wathy:
I was drawn to this thread because I will be debating a JW later today concerning Transubstantiation. (Keep me in your prayers. It’s my first stab at apologetics.)

Leviticus 3:17 “This shall be a perpetual ordinance for your descendants wherever they may dwell. You shall not partake of any fat or any blood.” The JWs eat all the fat they want but argue that the Precious Blood violates this “ordinance”. How can the JWs take fat but not blood when they are in the same verse? Leviticus 7:22-27 includes both fat and blood also.
Click to expand...
They will point to Acts where Peter is given the vision that prohibitions against eating unclean animals are no longer in place, but furter Paul will reiterate the prohibition against blood of animals sacrificed on pagan alters (I think). I’ll try to look up the scriptures and find the verse. This is the same arguement they will use against blood transfusions.

Also, in their New World Translation, instead of it being, “Take this all of you… this IS my body,” they change the translation to, “Take this all of you… this MEANS my body.”

Hope that helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top