Can Christians eat pigs blood?

[RDKirk]

Are you saying that fornication that was not in a pagan ritual was OK? Fornication is still a no-no---pagan ritual or not! And the same holds for blood---drinking or eating it. All anyone has to do is state a verse that states eating blood is acceptable to God.

Do you really think that's what I was saying?

Do you really think I was making the specific point that fornication was fine as long as it wasn't in an idol ceremony?

Those issues are otherwise covered. I was speaking specifically to what that verse was emphasizing.

 

[Jipsah]

Try reading and tell me where it says it was about food---Peter said it was about people. Peter never did slay and eat.

Slay and what, did it say? You're having to work pretty hard to salvage a favorite doctrine from that Scripture, looks like.

 

[mmksparbud]

Do you really think that's what I was saying?

Do you really think I was making the specific point that fornication was fine as long as it wasn't in an idol ceremony?

Those issues are otherwise covered. I was speaking specifically to what that verse was emphasizing.

You are equating idol worshipping with blood--you are saying that blood, as long as it is not involved in idol worship is OK--so why, if fornication is not related to idol worship would it not be OK too? No where does the bible say it is ok o eat blood.

 

[mmksparbud]

Slay and what, did it say? You're having to work pretty hard to salvage a favorite doctrine from that Scripture, looks like.

You are trying desperately hard to undermine what Peter clearly said---

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter did not say--God has showed me that I should not call any food unclean.

 

[Jipsah]

Peter did not say--God has showed me that I should not call any food unclean.

St. Peter didn't, God did. Three times. Kinda studiously ignoring that part, aren't you? And St.Paul reinforces it in 1st Corinthians: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27If 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."

If it's against your conscience to eat a shrimp cocktail, then don't. No one will think the less of you. But if it's not (as it isn't in my case, and given my ancestry I eat some pretty bizarre stuff) then tuck in; no harm done.

Black pudding is still nasty, though.

 

[RDKirk]

You are equating idol worshipping with blood--you are saying that blood, as long as it is not involved in idol worship is OK--so why, if fornication is not related to idol worship would it not be OK too? No where does the bible say it is ok o eat blood.

No, that is not what I said.

I said what I said, and you're just making up stuff.

 

[Jonaitis]

I don't believe ceremonial laws apply to the NT Christian. However, this particular law existed before Moses and was decreed through Noah. Yes, all animals are clean and the apostle Paul states that, but that does not mean the rule to drain the blood no longer applies. It was a rule given to us regarding the consumption of meat. This is no more annulled than capital punishment for the murderer.

 

[mmksparbud]

St. Peter didn't, God did. Three times. Kinda studiously ignoring that part, aren't you? And St.Paul reinforces it in 1st Corinthians: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27If 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."

If it's against your conscience to eat a shrimp cocktail, then don't. No one will think the less of you. But if it's not (as it isn't in my case, and given my ancestry I eat some pretty bizarre stuff) then tuck in; no harm done.

Black pudding is still nasty, though.

Peter said: but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Kinda studiously ignoring that part aren't you?
Doesn't get any clearer than that.
Whatever God calls clean is clean---He never said pork is clean, He never said blood is clean, He never said any unclean meat is now clean. You can eat whatever you want--doesn't bother me any. No one will ever have to answer to me, or anyone else, for what they say, do or eat or how they spend their time or money---that's all up to God. A question was asked, I am pointing what the bible actually says, not what is the popular interpretation nor what my interpretation is. It's clear when our own inclinations are not overriding the words. If believers buy food that has been offered to idols--the food will not harm--believers wouldn't be buying unclean. It is not only unclean food that was offered to idols. Don't ask if it was offered to idols. However--1Co 10:28 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:
If another believer says it was offered to idols, then don't eat it for his sake, not for your sake.
This is not about unclean meats being OK. But believe whatever you want.

 

[mmksparbud]

No, that is not what I said.

I said what I said, and you're just making up stuff.

Not making anything up---Act_15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
You want to change what this means---go right ahead. Things strangled where not poermitted no matter whether they were offered to idols or not--fornication was not allowed whether before idols or not[---neither is blood. You want to eat blood, strangled animals, and fornicate---go right ahead. No need to try to change what the word of God says. Just do what you want. Doesn't matter to me. Your interpretation is between God and you. I'll take it as it is stated. A question was asked and I am answering as it is stated.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law because of the Father indwelling Him. Since the Holy Spirit indwells us, we have a different set of customs. As Joshua stated, our human bodies cannot handle the Father in raw form.

Jesus was one of many who fulfilled the Mosaic Law by teaching us how to correctly obey it by word and by example. The Holy Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, but rather in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey His Law.

 

[JIMINZ]

It still had to be soaked in water and salted----just for less time if time was a problem. It was eaten as soon as it was ready after slaughter and proper preparation. Otherwise it would have been deemed unclean.

It's strange when you think about it.

At the first Passover, before they left Egypt, it was done so quick they didn't do anything but kill it and eat, they didn't even sit to eat.

At this point while in Egypt, none of the Laws had yet been given.

So the strange thing is, they were not required to do anything other than eat the Sacrifice, we are told to do the same in Communion, (Eat the Body, and Drink the Blood).

If God was not concerned for the people by what happened at the first Passover, why should the giving and following of a Law to the Jews, mean so much to Gentile Believers in Christ?

Jesus Christ Is My Passover.

The Judaizers of the past are no different than the ones of today, they glory in the the flesh by the following of the Law.

There is a specific reason for the Law.

Gal. 3:24,25
24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga.) 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

 

[mmksparbud]

It's strange when you think about it.

At the first Passover, before they left Egypt, it was done so quick they didn't do anything but kill it and eat, they didn't even sit to eat.

At this point while in Egypt, none of the Laws had yet been given.

So the strange thing is, they were not required to do anything other than eat the Sacrifice, we are told to do the same in Communion, (Eat the Body, and Drink the Blood).

If God was not concerned for the people by what happened at the first Passover, why should the giving and following of a Law to the Jews, mean so much to Gentile Believers in Christ?

Jesus Christ Is My Passover.

The Judaizers of the past are no different than the ones of today, they glory in the the flesh by the following of the Law.

There is a specific reason for the Law.

Gal. 3:24,25
24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga.) 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

You are assuming that nothing in Jewish law started until Zion---and that Jews didn't exist until after Jacob--which is true up to a point. No Jews until after Jacob--the name derived from Judah and first mentioned in Esther. That no one knew about dietary restrictions until then is not true.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

 

[JIMINZ]

Try reading and tell me where it says it was about food---Peter said it was about people. Peter never did slay and eat.

First off, why did God tell Peter to "Slay and Eat" if it was not about food, God also said.

Act 11:9
But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

We understand these verse to be about BOTH, .....Gentiles, and Meat (Food).



What do you suppose Peter was actually doing.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Still holds true today.

 

[mmksparbud]

It's strange when you think about it.

At the first Passover, before they left Egypt, it was done so quick they didn't do anything but kill it and eat, they didn't even sit to eat.

At this point while in Egypt, none of the Laws had yet been given.

So the strange thing is, they were not required to do anything other than eat the Sacrifice, we are told to do the same in Communion, (Eat the Body, and Drink the Blood).

If God was not concerned for the people by what happened at the first Passover, why should the giving and following of a Law to the Jews, mean so much to Gentile Believers in Christ?

Jesus Christ Is My Passover.

The Judaizers of the past are no different than the ones of today, they glory in the the flesh by the following of the Law.

There is a specific reason for the Law.

Gal. 3:24,25
24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Ga.) 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

At the Passover in Egypt they did not offer up a pig. We have all been called out of Egypt. You can call it whatever you want. Peter and Paul were Christians---and they said no blood, no strangled no fornicating---what more do you want? The laws that were done away with were the ceremonial laws pointing to Jesus as the slain Lamb of God. That should be obvious. We are not under those. Jesus is our Sacrificial Lamb. As such His blood can not be fermented, for no leavening was at the Passover. The wine represents His pure blood, and can not be represented by fermented wine. No unclean blood can cleans-- only the pure blood of Jesus. You want to eat, drink and fornicate go right ahead. Again. No one has to change the plainly written word of God in order to do what they want---just do it. There was a difference between Jew and Gentile until Christ--after that --
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[JIMINZ]

You are assuming that nothing in Jewish law started until Zion---and that Jews didn't exist until after Jacob--which is true up to a point. No Jews until after Jacob--the name derived from Judah and first mentioned in Esther. That no one knew about dietary restrictions until then is not true.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

It does not say there was a Law before the Law of Moses.
The Jews were called Hebrews, after Eber.

A little twist hear, another twist there, and there you are, it all fits together very nicely doesn't it.

 

[JIMINZ]

No, that is not what I said.

I said what I said, and you're just making up stuff.

That's what this whole discussion has been all about, made up stuff.

 

[mmksparbud]

First off, why did God tell Peter to "Slay and Eat" if it was not about food, God also said.

Act 11:9
But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

We understand these verse to be about BOTH, .....Gentiles, and Meat (Food).



What do you suppose Peter was actually doing.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Still holds true today.

I did not tell Peter what to make of his vision---God did!! He did not say it meant both man and meat! Argue with God not me!
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Not once did he say that God had shown him that all meat is clean.
Yah--Peter was sitting with the Gentiles which was not permitted by the Jews---but Paul was upset with him as when the other apostles came in he withdrew from the gentiles.

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Doesn't say a word about unclean meats. This is about hypocrisy.

 

[mmksparbud]

It does not say there was a Law before the Law of Moses.
The Jews were called Hebrews, after Eber.

A little twist hear, another twist there, and there you are, it all fits together very nicely doesn't it.

I was talking about the word Jew--I know they were called Hebrews.
The only twists are by those that want to live as they wish and twist the word of God to not inconvenience themselves and do what they wish by changing the word instead of themselves.

 

[JIMINZ]

At the Passover in Egypt they did not offer up a pig.

Your right, it was a Lamb, but it was not prepared according to the Jewish Dietary Law not yet given.

 

[mmksparbud]

That's what this whole discussion has been all about, made up stuff.

Yes! Wish you all would stop doing that!!!