Drinking of blood

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.

 

Right here with all the rest of us forgiven sinners.

 

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

 

That prohibition is more dietary than spiritual.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

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

 

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

 

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​