Can Christians eat pigs blood?

[HIM]

This is a question only YOU can answer as everyone is led by the Spirit in them differently.

In general you are free to eat as you wish,
1 Corinthians 10:25-30
but if you feel a conviction to not eat something... then you should stick to it as to keep your conscience clear.

It's a choice that only you can answer for yourself.

No. The Spirit of GOD leads all the same in respects to truth. Truth is not subjective.
1 Cor. 10 25-28 is about things sacrificed to idols then sold in the shambles for profit and consumption not unclean animals and eating blood.

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
(1Co 10:25-28 KJV)

 

[Toro]

No. The Spirit of GOD leads all the same in respects to truth. Truth is not subjective.
1 Cor. 10 25-28 is about things sacrificed to idols then sold in the shambles for profit and consumption not unclean animals and eating blood.

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
(1Co 10:25-28 KJV)

I never said truth was subjective.

But are all parts of the body a foot? Are all parts a hand?

No, therefore the Spirit leads people in different ways based on what part in the body they play... truth remains truth. Never said otherwise.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

Animals are drained of blood before they are sold, so the redness of a steak is not blood, but dye.

It's blood. Blood is drained anytime you slaughter and cut up an animal, but that won't remove it from every bit of tissue.

 

[HIM]

I never said truth was subjective.

But are all parts of the body a foot? Are all parts a hand?

No, therefore the Spirit leads people in different ways based on what part in the body they play... truth remains truth. Never said otherwise.

No you are implying it. You are doing it again by your use of the word "but".
1 Cor 12 is about Ministries not truth. We all have different ministries; parts to play in the Body of Christ, the Temple of GOD.

However What is a sin for one is a sin for all. What is unclean for one is unclean for all.
And BTW You ignored responding to the facts relayed to you in respects to 1 Cor 10. So we can safely say you understand it now.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

Although you are quite correct, it remains standard practice in the commercial meat industry to color most meat red. Naturally red meat does lose its color within a relatively short period of time so dyes and color juice is used to maintain the red color. It is really not terribly unlike some practices in the funeral industry.

Actually they just seal the package with an oxygen free gas.

 

[Lost4words]

Matthew 15:11
11 not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

 

[Swan7]

No you are implying it. You are doing it again by your use of the word "but".
1 Cor 12 is about Ministries not truth. We all have different ministries; parts to play in the Body of Christ, the Temple of GOD.

However What is a sin for one is a sin for all. What is unclean for one is unclean for all.
And BTW You ignored responding to the facts relayed to you in respects to 1 Cor 10. So we can safely say you understand it now.

That is not at all what I read from his posts. So you sir/madam, are putting words in someone's posts. I would advise against that. Also, swinging at gnats is not what we are to be doing either. Just saying what's written in the Bible already.

The Bible speaks for itself about the Truth of things - of Jesus Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit teaches us all manners of Truth of God's Word. Amen.

 

[HIM]

That is not at all what I read from his posts. So you sir/madam, are putting words in someone's posts. I would advise against that.

It is what I received from both their posts but Thanks for looking out.

Also, swinging at gnats is not what we are to be doing either. Just saying what's written in the Bible already.

I am not. I Love GOD, HIS Word and people. Because of this I can't help but share the things HE has given me.

The Bible speaks for itself about the Truth of things - of Jesus Christ Himself. The Holy Spirit teaches us all manners of Truth of God's Word. Amen.

Amen and Praise God! May HIS Spirit lead us in all things forever and ever. For we are HIS Kingdom and through HIS Power we live, move and have our being. For it is YOU GOD that works in us both to will and do Your good pleasure; Love!

 

[HIM]

Matthew 15:11
11 not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

Context! The issue was a tradition of the elders of washing our hands before eating, not the Commandments of GOD. Which would include BTW abstaining from eating animals that were made unclean to us.

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?....

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man....

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


(Mat 15:2,11,20 KJV)

 

[Kaon]

Ah, maybe sometimes it's juice and sometimes it's dye. I know dye is commonly used with salmon.



I think that when Paul is correctly understood that he never said that it was ok to eat unclean animals, but if you think that he did while God said that it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, then you need to make a decision about which one has the higher authority and which one to follow. If I recall correctly, the Corinthian epistles speak in regard to whether or not it is acceptable to eat meat that has been offered to idols, not in regard to whether or not it is acceptable to eat unclean animals.

This.

Who has more authority: the Most High God, or someone?

Anything said by a human, or entity, should be compared and weighed against the Most High God. If it contradicts what He said, at best the "someone" is wrong.

We should find ONE PLACE where the Most High God Himself said we could eat unclean meat with blood in it. If we can't find the place, then we ask Him.

Do people believe the Most High God will answer prayers anymore?

 

[Lost4words]

Context! The issue was a tradition of the elders of washing our hands before eating, not the Commandments of GOD. Which would include BTW abstaining from eating animals that were made unclean to us.

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?....

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man....

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


(Mat 15:2,11,20 KJV)

Any food is ok to eat as a Christian. You interpret scripture wrongly my dear friend.

 

[Soyeong]

It's blood. Blood is drained anytime you slaughter and cut up an animal, but that won't remove it from every bit of tissue.

The blood found in muscle is different from the blood found in veins, in regard to hemoglobin and myoglobin. It is impossible to remove all myoglobin from meat, but meat is drained of hemoglobin before it is sold. Often a red dye is added to make the meat appear more fresh. The Passover meal would have contained myoglobin, but they were commanded to eat of it, so it is not in violation of the prohibition against eating blood.

 

[Soyeong]

It's fine, as VC said, we don't have dietary laws, except perhaps traditions for fasting, but Lutherans don't consider that a strict requirement.

Why are you concerned with what VC has said when God has prohibited the eating of unclean animals and eating of blood? Does VC have more authority than God?

 

[Lost4words]

Acts 10:10-16
10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

 

[Soyeong]

You can eat anything as all God's animals are clean.

If you believe that Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are Scripture and that everything spoken by God is profitable for teaching, correction, training in righteousness, and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then you will know that not all animals are clean and you will refrain from eating unclean animals.

Matthew 15:11
11 not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples didn't follow the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they were worshiping God in vain because they were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-13). So in Matthew 5:11, Jesus should be interpreted as continuing to speak in regard to the topic of conversation rather than proceeding to hypocritically do what he just finished criticizing the Pharisees for being hypocrites for doing. Jesus said in Matthew 15:20 at the end of the conversation that we are not made common by eating with unwashed hands, so he never jumped topics to speaking against obeying the Father.

Acts 10:10-16
10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common. Furthermore, God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common" and not his use of the word "unclean. In other words, Peter had correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and had correctly declined to eat them in obedience to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, but he had incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and had incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. So his vision had nothing to do with a change in the status of unclean animals and he interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to wrongly identifying Gentiles, so you should not reinterpret his vision to mean something other than what he interpreted it to mean.

 

[Jonaitis]

Animals are drained of blood before they are sold, so the redness of a steak is not blood, but dye.

This.

 

[Soyeong]

Christians don't have dietary laws.

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 forbade new converts from paganism to abstain from certain practices, which included consuming blood, but these prohibitions are all directly associated with ancient pagan customs. So unless your recipe for black pudding includes a spoonful of incense to offer in worship to Zeus or Aphrodite, you're in the clear.

-CryptoLutheran

Christians are followers of Christ and Christ set an example for us to follow by living in obedience to the Torah, which included God's dietary laws.

Scripture--Christians are not obligated to observe the Torah, which was given exclusively to the Jews (Deuteronomy 5:3).

Do you think that Christians should walk in God's ways?

There are many verses that describe the Torah as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalm 103:7, and many others, so the Torah was not given as instructions for how to live as a Jew, but as instructions for how to act in accordance with God's ways in accordance with His nature and to express His character traits, such as holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. Jesus expressed these character traits through his actions and what that looked like was complete obedience to the Torah, so that is what it looks like when he is living in us.

Gentiles don't need to become Jewish in order to become followers of the Jewish Messiah of Judaism, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow the Torah that he followed and taught his followers to obey by word and by example. There's not much of a point in a Gentile wanting to become a follower of God while wanting nothing to do with following His instructions for how to walk in His ways. Those who wanting nothing to do with expressing God's character traits through their actions in accordance with God's nature in obedience to His instructions for how to do that want nothing to do with God.

We are not obligated toward any dietary laws, or specific days of observance, etc. Such things are matters of individual conscience, as St. Paul clearly says in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Colossians.

-CryptoLutheran

Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit murder, adultery, theft, idolatry, eat unclean animals, or disobey any of God's other commands as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok, but rather that is only in regard to things that are matters of opinions. For example, God gave no command to fast twice a week, so whether someone chooses to do that would be a disputable matter of opinion, but God has commanded His follower to fast on the Day of Atonement, so whether someone chooses to do that would be a matter of obedience to God.

 

[Soyeong]

The interpretation of Acts 15:21 is there were Jews which were Preaching the keeping of the Law which they did in the synagogues every sabbath day.

It doesn't say they were Christians doing so.

Maybe you should do an in depth study of Hebrews, that way you might understand everything we are FREE from concerning the Law and what Christ did for us.

If you feel as though you should keep the Hebrew Dietary Laws, go right ahead no one is stopping you, but please don't put the weight of those Laws on Gentile Believers, (Christians) because the Jerusalem Council sure didn't.

Either the four laws listed in Acts 15:19-21 are an exhaustive list for mature believers or they are not. There are 1,050 commandments in the NT, so if they were an exhaustive list, then that would disregard over 99% of the commandments in the NT, including those expounded upon by Jesus. Clearly, they were they were not an exhaustive list for mature believers, but stated, it was a list intended not to make things too difficult for new believers coming to faith, which they excused in verse 21 by saying that they would continue to learn how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. In other word, when you have Gentiles coming out of paganism who know nothing about Christianity, then in order to avoid overwhelming them it becomes an issue the determine which things are important to teach them right away and which things can be taught over time as they mature in their faith.

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from God's Law, but rather it says that he gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in Jesus, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's Law (Acts 21:20). The freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to do what God has revealed to be sin.

The Jerusalem Council did not have more authority than God, so they had no authority to countermand Him or to tell Gentiles not to obey any of His Laws, nor did they attempt to do so, not should we follow them instead of following God even if they had attempted to do so. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you nevertheless think that they spoke against Gentiles obeying what God has commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard what they said than to disregard what God has commanded, though again they never spoke against Gentiles obeying God's Law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christians are followers of Christ and Christ set an example for us to follow by living in obedience to the Torah, which included God's dietary laws.



Do you think that Christians should walk in God's ways?

There are many verses that describe the Torah as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalm 103:7, and many others, so the Torah was not given as instructions for how to live as a Jew, but as instructions for how to act in accordance with God's ways in accordance with His nature and to express His character traits, such as holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. Jesus expressed these character traits through his actions and what that looked like was complete obedience to the Torah, so that is what it looks like when he is living in us.

Gentiles don't need to become Jewish in order to become followers of the Jewish Messiah of Judaism, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow the Torah that he followed and taught his followers to obey by word and by example. There's not much of a point in a Gentile wanting to become a follower of God while wanting nothing to do with following His instructions for how to walk in His ways. Those who wanting nothing to do with expressing God's character traits through their actions in accordance with God's nature in obedience to His instructions for how to do that want nothing to do with God.



Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit murder, adultery, theft, idolatry, eat unclean animals, or disobey any of God's other commands as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok, but rather that is only in regard to things that are matters of opinions. For example, God gave no command to fast twice a week, so whether someone chooses to do that would be a disputable matter of opinion, but God has commanded His follower to fast on the Day of Atonement, so whether someone chooses to do that would be a matter of obedience to God.

Here's the thing, I don't take Judaizers seriously. They are always inconsistent with their teachings and practice, they are always cherry-picking which of God's mitzvot we are supposed to retain. I've yet to meet a Judaizer who wears phylacteries or tzitzit, or who has affixed a mezuzah to their door post, or who goes to the mikveh to receive tevilah after a nocturnal emission if they are men, or separates themselves from the community for a number of days during menses if they are a woman. I've yet to meet Judaizers who have payot on account of the mitzvah against cutting the edges of one's beard.

They are hypocrites who do not know the Torah, do not care about the Torah, but who nevertheless want to impose their own man-made religious strictures upon everyone else as though it matters one wink to God.

So, you'll pardon me if I don't exactly find myself taking these sorts of discussions seriously. I can't, because Judaizers are consistently full of empty words and meaningless talk.

And if that sounds harsh, you don't want to know what St. Paul happened to think about Judaizers, I'm being immensely more kind and charitable than he was.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Soyeong]

Here's the thing, I don't take Judaizers seriously. They are always inconsistent with their teachings and practice, they are always cherry-picking which of God's mitzvot we are supposed to retain. I've yet to meet a Judaizer who wears phylacteries or tzitzit, or who has affixed a mezuzah to their door post, or who goes to the mikveh to receive tevilah after a nocturnal emission if they are men, or separates themselves from the community for a number of days during menses if they are a woman. I've yet to meet Judaizers who have payot on account of the mitzvah against cutting the edges of one's beard.

They are hypocrites who do not know the Torah, do not care about the Torah, but who nevertheless want to impose their own man-made religious strictures upon everyone else as though it matters one wink to God.

So, you'll pardon me if I don't exactly find myself taking these sorts of discussions seriously. I can't, because Judaizers are consistently full of empty words and meaningless talk.

And if that sounds harsh, you don't want to know what St. Paul happened to think about Judaizers, I'm being immensely more kind and charitable than he was.

-CryptoLutheran

I completely agree with Paul position against the Judaizers and have never suggested that all Gentiles need to become circumcised in order to become saved.

The issue of whether followers of God should follow God is distinct from the issue of whether or not someone is doing a good job of obeying God. If someone were not correctly following God, then that would just mean that they would need to repent and return to obedience, not that followers of God shouldn't follow what He has commanded. The right solution to incorrectly following God is to start following Him correctly, not to stop following God.