eating blood

[Marilyn_James]

In Acts 15 eating blood is forbidden. Please is it a sin to eat rare meat or blood?

 

[jmcrae]

In Acts 15 eating blood is forbidden. Please is it a sin to eat rare meat or blood?

This prohibition must have been lifted by the Church, because I know lots of good Catholics who eat blood pudding, and rare meat, and I have never heard anyone speak out against it.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I’m assuming you are talking about this verse:

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

But it needs to be taken in context with otherverses int he new testament:

1 Corinthians chapter 8

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Also 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 corinthians 10:23

“Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.

Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive.

The point of the verse in Acts is to give rules to the gentiles who are coming in to the church through Christ so that the mingling of Jew and Gentile goes smoother. Basically, all the laws of OT were fulfilled. This is why we’re allowed to eat pork and wear mixed fabrics now. This is one of those laws. The Jews still observed them, the gentiles did not. When gentiles came in through Christ, there was a huge problem with them not following traditional law. Acts 15 is an example of how they tried to work it out, and St. Paul later clarifies it in Corinthians.

 

[Fidelis]

Great answer, Whitacre_Girl!

 

[kepha1]

In Acts 15, Peter addressed the entire Church. All fell silent. James waited until Peter, Paul and Barnabus were finished.

James was the bishop of Jerusalem. His prohibitions did not address the whole Church, but his diocese of Jersalem, and what he said was not doctrinal, but disciplinary. The Church has the authority to change disciplines, and this prohibition of eating strangled meats was rescinded after all the scriptures were written.

James was not wrong in enforcing a Judaic law, which seems to contradict what Peter had just finished saying:
10] Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
The error that is sometimes made is turning a temporary, local disciplinary ruling and imposing a Mosaic law, which happens with one verse theology. James is in agreement with Peter and Paul, because the real issue is not to offend your Jewish Christian brother by eating meat, in keeping with the higher law, the law of Christ. Peter is advocating for the Gentiles, James is advocating for the Jews in his diocese, and they all teach in harmony for the benefit of all. The structure and function of the Church at the Council of Jerusalem operates much the same as all the councils through history.

 

[mfj]

This is a cut from; Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Ver. 20. Things strangled and from blood. In these prohibitions, the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the reasons, which gave rise to it. (Menochius) — The Jews had such a horror of blood, that they considered those who eat it as defiled, and violators of the law of nature. The Lord had in effect from the beginning forbidden the use of blood to Noe [Noah], (Genesis ix. 4.) which he likewise reported in the strongest terms in Leviticus viii. 26.[vii. 26.?] By this we see the great authority of God’s Church, and Councils which may make permanent or temporary decrees, such as are fitting for the state of the times or peoples, without any express Scripture at all, and by this authoritative exaction, things become of strict obligation, which previous to it, were in themselves indifferent. (Bristow)

 

[Cashue]

This prohibition must have been lifted by the Church, because I know lots of good Catholics who eat blood pudding, and rare meat, and I have never heard anyone speak out against it.

This is correct, the bible may say this but the church as overridden this. The church has authority over the bible and can declare any law in the bible null and void. The holy church has declared this particular law out of date so you may eat or drink blood or you can eat blood sausages or use blood in any way you like thanks to our Holy mother the church removing this restriction.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

This is correct, the bible may say this but the church as overridden this. The church has authority over the bible and can declare any law in the bible null and void. The holy church has declared this particular law out of date so you may eat or drink blood or you can eat blood sausages or use blood in any way you like thanks to our Holy mother the church removing this restriction.

No, this is not true. The church can’t just take out rules as it sees fit, she is bound by those rules!! THis is why the teachings like artificial contraception still stand despite their unpopularity.

As you can see in my above post, scripture already defined for us why we don’t have to follow mosaic law. The church absolutely doesn’t throw out biblical law or even have authority over scripture. The church is the protecter and sevant of the true scriptures.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Great answer, Whitacre_Girl!

aw…thanks!

 

[Ron_Conte]

The New Covenant contains doctrine and discipline. The doctrines are unchangable truths. The disciplines are changable practices. The Old Covenant similarly contained doctrine and discipline, and the disciplines are changable. Even though God gave these disciplines in the OT, they are changable and they have been changed, into the disciplines of the New Covenant.

None of the Old Testament disciplines are still in force.

The Council of Florence: “It [the holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments [mysteries, not Sacraments per se], because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the Sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning.”

“It [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 [in Acts 15], 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 practicing 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 [1 Corinthians 6:12].”

The Council of Florence, Session 11 (4 February 1442).

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

No, this is not true. The church can’t just take out rules as it sees fit, she is bound by those rules!! THis is why the teachings like artificial contraception still stand despite their unpopularity.

As you can see in my above post, scripture already defined for us why we don’t have to follow mosaic law. The church absolutely doesn’t throw out biblical law or even have authority over scripture. The church is the protecter and servant of the true scriptures.

 

[Cashue]

As you can see in my above post, scripture already defined for us why **we don’t have to follow mosaic law. **The church absolutely doesn’t throw out biblical law or even have authority over scripture. The church is the protecter and sevant of the true scriptures.

Yes, you are absolutely right, the people speaking in Acts 15 were Jews and the words they wrote were for Jews (not christians) therefore you are right, the church was just removing what had already been removed in scripture. When the Jews in Acts said not to eat blood or to fornicate that was part of the mosaic law and only applicable to Jewish people until the Lord? Then they met together to discuss the Jewish law and came to the unanimous descision as the scripture said that ALL of the law was to be abolished, and none of the laws in the hebrew scritptures were to be applied to christians. That is what Acts 15 clearly says.

Blood was only significant for the Jews, eating or drinking blood is fine for christians as Acts proves. I didn’t mean that Our mother the church changes anything it’s all there in scripture.

Sorry, you explained it much better than I did, thank you for your post.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Yes, you are absolutely right, the people speaking in Acts 15 were Jews and the words they wrote were for Jews (not christians) therefore you are right, the church was just removing what had already been removed in scripture. When the Jews in Acts said not to eat blood or to fornicate that was part of the mosaic law and only applicable to Jewish people until the Lord? Then they met together to discuss the Jewish law and came to the unanimous descision as the scripture said that ALL of the law was to be abolished, and none of the laws in the hebrew scritptures were to be applied to christians. That is what Acts 15 clearly says.

Blood was only significant for the Jews, eating or drinking blood is fine for christians as Acts proves. I didn’t mean that Our mother the church changes anything it’s all there in scripture.

Sorry, you explained it much better than I did, thank you for your post.

Actually the fornicate and all of that are things that are renewed in other NT biblical passages where they call us to live holy and pure before God. To refrain from sexual immorality. SOME Mosaic law is renewed, some is fulfilled. I know the church has an actual definition for this, I just can’t remember what it is called.

 

[peary1]

Wow, I guess as a Pole I’ll have to give up eating kishka and charnina

What about rare steak and burgers? What do you think makes the meat ‘red’?

 

[Mailman]

Long before Moses and the covenant with the House of Israel, we find this injunction from the Lord to the patriarch Noah: “The one thing you must not eat is meat with blood still in it…” (Gen. 9:4).

Now, why would God forbid Noah to eat blood? God gave only one reason why. He said, “I forbid this because the life is in the blood” (same verse).

THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. That was God’s only reason for forbidding the eating of blood.

Moving forward to the time of the Old Covenant and the House of Israel, we find Moses giving this instruction coming from the Lord: “By a perpetual law for your generations, and in all your habitations: neither blood nor fat shall you eat at all” (Lev. 3:17).

Now, what is God’s reason this time for not allowing the eating of blood? Listen: “For the life of all flesh is in the blood. Therefore I said to the children of Israel: you shall not eat the blood of any flesh at all, because the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:14).

God’s one and only reason has not changed. THE LIFE OF ALL FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD, that’s why blood cannot be eaten.

Now, fast forward in time to the New Testament era and the NT Church, we see this instruction from the Apostles to the Gentile converts: “But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood” (Acts 15:20).

Remember this happened many years after Christ’s death and resurrection. At this time, we still find the law against the eating of blood practiced among the believers. Now, did the Apostles say why the eating of blood was still forbidden? They certainly did. Here’s what they said, next verse: “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath” (verse 21).

So, Moses [that is, the Law of Moses] was read in the synagogues every Sabbath that’s why they were not to eat blood, among other things. In other words, the Gentiles converts had to abide by whatever was written in the Law of Moses [which includes prohibition on certain foods] because it was the law binding to the NT Church, being the law read in the synagogues, the House of God.

Clearly, God’s reason for the prohibition had not changed during those early years of the Church. The life of all flesh was still in the blood that’s why blood cannot be eaten. Has that truth changed now? Is life not in the blood anymore so we can now eat blood?

But what if the life of all flesh is in the blood? Why can we not eat it? It’s like this. All living things – animal life as well as human life – have, what the Bible calls, “the breath of life.” This is what keeps animals and human beings alive. When this “breath of life” is taken away, death takes over. In the Noachian Flood we are told that, “all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth: and all men. And all things wherein there is the breath of life on the earth, died” (Gen. 7:21-22).

God is the Giver of this “breath of life” which imparts life to all creatures on earth. When God formed man out of the dust of the earth, man was a lifeless being until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). The same holds true for all animal life.

The life of all living things therefore is symbolically in God’s hands: “in whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the spirit [breath of life] of all flesh…” (Job 12:10).

When we die, the Bible tells us that our breath of life will go back to God who gave it: “Our bodies will return to the dust of the earth, and the breath of life will go back to God, who gave it to us” (Ecc. 12:7). This is true for all animal life as well.

Now we can see why God forbids the eating of blood. God is the Giver of life (the breath of life) and will take it back when a creature dies. Since the life of all living things is in the blood, eating the blood is like taking away the breath of life that was supposed to go back to God, who is the Giver and Sustainer of it.

 

[juliamajor]

It has nothing to do with eating a rare steak.It has to do with how the animal was dispatched so it was/is Kosher.

 

[Fidelis]

…Now we can see why God forbids the eating of blood. God is the Giver of life (the breath of life) and will take it back when a creature dies. Since the life of all living things is in the blood, eating the blood is like taking away the breath of life that was supposed to go back to God, who is the Giver and Sustainer of it.

Hi Mailman-

Since you did not address it, I think you must have totally missed how Whiteacre_Girl addressed this question in Post #3 above. I would only add to that Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 7:

1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) – 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”

14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” 16 * [No text]

17 And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” **(Thus he declared all foods clean.) **20 And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

 

[peary1]

It has nothing to do with eating a rare steak.It has to do with how the animal was dispatched so it was/is Kosher.

Gentiles are not under Jewish Law, so i don’t think it matters. Besides, the early Church decided that Gentiles did not have to obey Jewish laws on unclean foods.

 

[Mailman]

Hi Mailman-

Since you did not address it, I think you must have totally missed how Whiteacre_Girl addressed this question in Post #3 above. I would only add to that Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 7:

Hi Fidelis,
I did not address Whiteacre_Girl’s post because I wanted to hear from the posters how the eating of blood can be justified when the reason God gave for the prohibition was that the life of a creature is in its blood – that since He is the Life Giver, that life should go back to Him. I believe finding a credible answer to this question is crucial to the whole issue of whether or not blood can now be eaten.

To address the point you brought up, please note that the so-called “dietary laws” was not the subject matter of Mark 7. What started the controversy was the Pharisees’ condemnation of the disciples’ practice of eating bread without going through ritual washings (v.1). The context of the entire controversy has to do with “unwashed hands” against the many ceremonial washings of the Pharisees. The eating of blood or meats deemed unclean by God was not the subject.

Notice what Christ said: “You leave the commandment of God and hold fast the tradition of men” and then He proceeds to point out some of their [men’s] traditions which make void the laws of God. Christ makes a distinction between traditions of men and laws of God – that our traditions should not compromise our keeping the laws of God. Now, Jesus could not have referred to His “dietary laws” as men’s traditions because those are laws that came from God Himself.

What Christ spoke about was only how dirt or some foreign matter which might become transferred from one’s hands to one’s food can be “purged” in the digestive process, and although getting into the person’s body, does not defile the man. The lesson here is that evil thoughts defile a man spiritually, whereas any chance encounter with an inedible substance in the food is “purged” in the digestive process. Carried even further, even in the extreme case of ingesting poison accidentally, and even if death should occur as a result, this would not defile a man spiritually, or cause him to lose his salvation.

The text you highlighted (Thus he declared all foods clean) is not found in the original Greek. This can be confirmed by consulting the Douay-Rheims Bible, the most accurate English translation of the Bible according to Catholic Bible scholars because it was translated in the old way, that is, word for word, from the Latin Vulgate. This is also not found in the King James Version, the most accurate translation if you ask the Protestant Bible scholars, being a word for word translation from the original Hebrew and Greek writings. You will not find this text either in any other non-modern translations that use the old way of translating, especially literal translations like the Young’s Literal Translation.

Interestingly though, even if Jesus had declared all foods clean in Mark 7, the taking of blood would still be a no-no. Here’s the proof: Notice that during the time of Moses when animal sacrifices were commanded, only “clean” animals can be offered for sacrifice. Yet, in spite of these animals being “clean”, the instruction was still to “pour all the blood… at the bottom of the altar” (Lev. 4:7), because, as God said: “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, THAT YE NEITHER EAT FAT NOR BLOOD” (Lev. 3:17).

But there’s one very convincing argument why Jesus, in Mark 7, could not have meant all foods can now be eaten. If you will notice, His disciples asked Him what He meant by saying nothing that enters a person can defile him and Jesus promptly explained the matter to them. Now, do you think His disciples got Jesus’ point? There’s no doubt that they did, right? And they were with Jesus a few more years after the incident, being personally taught by Him, so there’s no question they were well aware what Jesus’ position was regarding the eating of foods God had declared “unclean.”

But notice this. Many years after Christ left His disciples to ascend to the Father, Peter was shown a vision by God of “all manner of four-footed beasts [unclean animals]…” and instructed, “Rise Peter, kill and eat.” What did Peter say? Listen: “Not so, Lord; for I have NEVER eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:13-14). Peter refused to eat even when instructed by God, not once, not twice, but three times! After the third time, Peter still “doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean” (v. 17).

What does this whole incident tell us, in relation to Christ’s teaching in Mark 7? Doesn’t this show that what Peter learned from Christ then has nothing to do with the law on unclean foods? Think about this. Had Christ given even just a little hint to His disciples that it was ok to eat unclean meats, Peter would have eaten the very first time he was instructed to eat. But he did not, not even after the third time he was instructed to eat.

God bless.

 

[adstrinity]

You’ll get my khema when you pry it from my cold dead hands.