Drinking of blood

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Thinkingstuff, Jun 6, 2008.

  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    No this is not a Eucharistic question. I have however been struggling with something that has happened some years ago. I was 15 a new born christian living near the Masaii. I was on a cultural studies program and one of the things I participated in is killing a goat for food and drinking it's blood as is culturally accepted for that tribe. At the time I thought I was ok due to Peter's dream before going to Cornellius' house. However, reading the first church council I find that I've gone against what James proclaimed I should not do. I did not follow the basic rules for gentile believers. Where does that place me?
     
  2. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Drinking of blood is strictly forbidden in both the OT and NT. However, I would not let a past indiscretion worry me none. Christ forgives.
     
  3. lbaker

    lbaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right here with all the rest of us forgiven sinners.
     
  4. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Thinkingstuff

    When you confess it to the Lord as a violation of His Word, and ask for His forgiveness. It's a done deal. Reminds me of a song we sing,
    "Underneath the blood of the cross of Calvary
    as far removed as darkness is from dawn,
    in the sea of God's forgettfulness,
    that's good enough for me,
    Praise God, My sins are gone!"

    Bartimaeus
     
  5. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks everyone. I have confessed it. I thank God for the grace he has bestowed upon me. Funny how you think you know scriptures and find out you really don't as well as you think.
     
  6. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    That prohibition is more dietary than spiritual.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
    Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.

    Acts 15:19-20 NLT

    James writes that the prohibition was "his judgement".
    He was attempting to integrate Gentile Christians into the Church at Jerusalem, composed predominately of former Jews.

    As you noted, the subject of clean and unclean foods was clearly communicated to Peter earlier.
    It wasn't negated by James, merely modified to promote unity within the early church.
    It was a local and time sensitive matter, not necessarily applicable to today.

    In the meantime ponder this:

    I love to eat Roast beef with au jus.

    The English enjoy Blood Pudding for breakfast.

    Are we prohibited from these?

    Rob
     
  8. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    May I add that in our household we clean most chicken we buy from the supermarket because it still has blood in it ?
    Not that I'm particularly concerned in a spiritual way.
    I just don't like blood in my food.
    And I think (might be wrong, though) that because chickens are slaughtered en masse, their heads are simply lopped off before all the other processes prior to shipment are done.
    Blood is not totally drained out.
     
  9. JerryL

    JerryL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    0
    My steaks will be medium rare at the donest, and I can eat rare if need be. I won't eat it if it is more done than medium rare.
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I want my steak to have had some good interaction and close contact with the fire, and to have been more involved, rather than just have been a passing acquaintance. ;)

    Medium well, in other words!

    Ed
     
  11. JerryL

    JerryL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    0
    :laugh: :laugh:
     
  12. Sopranette

    Sopranette
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, when it comes to steaks, to quote from some movie, "Just run it through a warm room." I don't consider that drinking blood, though. A lot of cultures throughout the world use the blood of the animal as part of the recipe.

    love,

    Sopranette
     
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    May be, but I still don't like to have to move faster than the steak does, just to run down my lunch!

    I leave that up to my nephew's dog who actually can and does run down small deer and rabbits, fairly often and fairly easily. (That 100 lb.+ sucker sure looks awkward, with feet appearing to go in four different directions at once, as he runs, but he can cover the ground in a hurry, when running, almost twice as fast as any other dog I've ever seen.)

    I just don't move that fast, and even the dog does not try and run down beef when it is still 'on the hoof'! :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    There is a question remaining about the teaching of the Book of Acts at the moment in time that it was given.

    The Bible is a Book of progressive revelation. At the time of the Acts 15 pronouncement the revelation was not yet complete.

    At the time of Acts 15 we were freed from the dietary law with the exception of drinking blood so as not to overly offend the Jews (So it seems).

    The apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (implied in the Scripture) later completed the revelation of Jesus Christ in their epistles.

    Although the Book of Acts is probably dated in the 60AD range as to authorship, here is a verse which was written post Acts 15 (Chronologically speaking):

    KJV Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.​

    So, if a Christian today can drink animal blood (eek!) within the sphere of faith so be it?​

    Not only that but the OP indicated that it was done in partial ignorance (at least). 1 John 1:9 applies and then forget it brother.​


    HankD​
     

Share This Page

Loading...