"that they abstain from" - a meat issue

rivertree said:

The situation with food offered to idols was mentioned again later, so we know a little more how that worked out, but what I was wondering how the "strangled", and "blood" situation worked out, and how it might apply to us today.

Click to expand...

I don't believe it does apply to us. The use of the words "strangled" (pniktos) and "blood" (haima) refer to the lifeblood of the animal. The pniktos process killed the animal for butchering without removing the lifeblood, and the warning against consuming the haima is obvious. This was more in an effort to avoid offending first-century Jews who had come to believe in Christ as Messiah who would be worshiping with the Gentiles who practiced such things. We no longer have that issue, as one must search under a lot of rocks to find a Jewish man or woman today who keeps strict kosher and who worship Christ.

The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).

I agree with WBS. It's not an issue today. Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), which superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). The command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

rivertree said:

I tend to agree with you. I heard someone describe commandments as permanent or temporal, the purpose of the temporal ones as havng been fulfilled.

I do think they were concerned with the new idea of gentiles and Jews sitting down together at meals, and not wishing a great schism to come out of this. Believe me, they had enough schisms as it was.

The idea of strangulation and the blood, was that a kosher concept? I'm sure it must have been.

I do think the basic principle still stands, that we should try not to offend a brother.
My husband worked for a 7th day Adventist for a while, and when they breakfasted together, he generally did not order sausage. It was not a rule, really, but he just tries to be sensitive to others.

Click to expand...

Not to offend, but I'd have to ask the 7th Day Adventist why he abstained from pork. Might be a good conversion opportunity.

My daughter is in the Assemblies of God, and will not eat pork, except when she wants to. Won't let her husband and kids near it. It gets inconvenient, because when we have a gathering, and her native cultural food revolves around pork, it gets interesting trying to cook with her in mind. In fact, we were together in my wife's country at a family breakfast, and everything was pork or seafood-including the fried rice. And she went on a mission to a poorer island, and practically starved-the people didn't have beef, so she ate chicken every day. I admire her for sticking to her belief, though.

rivertree said:

Rootofjesse, how do you feel about women wearing head coverings? Would it have been unseemly to appear in church without a head covering because that would have scandalized the Jews and possibly even the Greeks?

I do know that commandments given to the church by the leaders were also to lead pure lives and care for the widows and orphans. That we can do today.

Click to expand...

Well, in the early Church, women were required to wear head coverings. The practice still exists today. My wife wears a chapel veil any time we enter a Catholic Church.

I think it's a sign of respect for a woman to cover her head out of respect for God. But I don't believe it's a requirement, it's a personal devotion.

Speaking of head coverings, the picture in my avatar is reputed to be the face of Christ after his resurrection. It is thought, because of the singular nature of the material, which was made from the fibers that mussels excrete to anchor themselves to the ocean floor, that it was the veil of Mary Magdalene, which she placed on top of the face on top of the Shroud of Turin as a sign of her devotion to Him. Only one person in the world knows how to gather and weave this byssus cloth, and she says that her ancestors spoke Aramaic and Phonecian. I know this paragraph is off topic, but it's very interesting, to say the least.

rivertree said:

Thank, you , a wise reply.

As to the material, dyes, etc. worn in the New testament, and also as to language (Aramaic, etc.) issues, I think it was quite suitable to follow your train of thought and write about them in this thread, but I also think those would be interesting issues to bring up some time as separate threads here in Christian History.

Click to expand...

I only became interested in the cloth because the nature of the Shroud of Turin is specific to the Middle East of Biblical times. If you look up the Holy Face of Mannopello, you'll see. The cloth is nearly transparent, doesn't hold dyes or paints, and is very delicate looking.

rivertree said:

The situation with food offered to idols was mentioned again later, so we know a little more how that worked out, but what I was wondering how the "strangled", and "blood" situation worked out, and how it might apply to us today.

Click to expand...

WinBySurrender said:

I don't believe it does apply to us. The use of the words "strangled" (pniktos) and "blood" (haima) refer to the lifeblood of the animal. The pniktos process killed the animal for butchering without removing the lifeblood, and the warning against consuming the haima is obvious. This was more in an effort to avoid offending first-century Jews who had come to believe in Christ as Messiah who would be worshiping with the Gentiles who practiced such things. We no longer have that issue, as one must search under a lot of rocks to find a Jewish man or woman today who keeps strict kosher and who worship Christ.

Click to expand...

Well, actually the prohibition regarding blood is something that goes back a long time before any Jew existed. The original diet of man and animals was strictly vegetarian, (Exodus 1:29-30) but after the flood man was permitted to eat animals on the condition that they avoided eating carrion and meat that contained blood. Nothing here indicates that this rule only applied to a certain nation.

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." - Genesis 9:3-4

Ubuntu said:

Well, actually the prohibition regarding blood is something that goes back a long time before any Jew existed. The original diet of man and animals was strictly vegetarian, (Exodus 1:29-30) but after the flood man was permitted to eat animals on the condition that they avoided eating carrion and meat that contained blood. Nothing here indicates that this rule only applied to a certain nation.

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." - Genesis 9:3-4

Click to expand...

I love Black Pudding fried with mushrooms for breakfast, it's made with pig and cattle blood, delicious.

Ubuntu said:

Well, actually the prohibition regarding blood is something that goes back a long time before any Jew existed. The original diet of man and animals was strictly vegetarian, (Exodus 1:29-30) but after the flood man was permitted to eat animals on the condition that they avoided eating carrion and meat that contained blood. Nothing here indicates that this rule only applied to a certain nation.

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." - Genesis 9:3-4

Click to expand...

Read the context of my statement. By the time of Christ, kosher was strictly a Jewish diet, no other nation practicing it. The reason the Jews did was because it was codified in the Mosaic Law.

IisJustMe said:

Read the context of my statement. By the time of Christ, kosher was strictly a Jewish diet, no other nation practicing it. The reason the Jews did was because it was codified in the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

It is true that the other nations had forgotten about the true God; not to mention Noah and the flood... But even so, does this in any way invalidate what God had already said? God also said:

“I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." - Gen 9:11 Following your own logic, this covenant would be invalidated since only a few people believe in a worldwide flood today...

I think we all can agree that:

1) The consumption of blood was denied Noah and his descendants. (This happened centuries before the Mosaic pact.)
2) This prohibition was confirmed by God at Sinai.
3) It was confirmed a third time by the apostles.

Remember what Jesus said: “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Matt 18:16)

To elaborate a little; in the beginning man wasn't allowed to eat meat at all... Only after the flood when the earth was scarred and broken were they allowed to eat meat on the condition that they avoided blood and carrion. The Bible never says that this conditional and temporary permission at some point became an unconditional license to eat meat in whatever form we like. We forget that consumption of meat ultimately came as a consequence of sin, and that it's a temporary provision meant to soon pass away. One of the reasons why God imposed restrictions upon the consumption of meat, was in order to teach us about the sacredness of life, which is why the lifeblood was supposed to be poured to the ground instead of being consumed. (There might also be a health aspect to this.)

Regards,
Ubuntu

Long before the Jewish people became a nation and even while they were a nation. The pagan cultures surrounding them did blood rituals to their pagan gods (which according to Deuteronomy 32:17 are devils). So I really think that God had reasons for not wanting them to have blood in their diet. I have also heard that it is very unhealthy.