Paul warns the Gentile church against eating meat that is strangled or has blood in it. nowadays meat you buy in shops is rarely strangled, so not a worry. But the meat that has blood in it? should we be getting rid of the blood and what is the best way to do this?
I used to soak the meat (didn't do it with poultry, heard that can be a health risk) in water with rock salt in and let the blood drain out before cooking it. I stopped doing it eventually because it felt like a hassle and also i felt weird doing it.
it was like that time i tried to cover my head but i just felt wrong doing it. i kept hearing osmething inside me telling me "you are putting yourself back under law, not grace."
but now i am wondering? it seems some christians do still follow the advice on head covering so i wondered about this with the blood? am i deceived somehow?
Yahweh speaking inside of you, within your Mind, has lead you to refrain from doing burdensome traditions of elders that were not the original transmitted instructions taught by the disciples. Indeed, we are not under the law if we are immersed within the (TRUE) name of Yahweh Yahuwshua, if we profess that Yahuwshua IS Yahweh, that He died and rose again to release us from our errors (sins). Christians who materially follow the scriptures in this burdensome way have missed the true meaning and interpretation of the message; mainly because they lost His name so the clergy is being mislead by an evil spirit, or also because of bad translation and missing text that was purposely hidden from the public through coding. Here is better translation of what Acts 15:19-21 should say from the Purer Scriptures for the REMNANT: (this is downloadble for free
www.yahuwshua.org, please visit this website for more information about how we shall be rescued by professing that Yahuwshua is Yahweh and renouncing the pagan lies and substitutions for Him)
19. Which is why I decide
that they should not trouble those from the “heathen masses” who return to Yâ-hwéh;
20. Instead, to write to the same ones
of the Son [being] the ones,
not to stay away separated apart of the
ones (m.) not of the adversary (sâţâ´n),
[~rather,] of the
defilements of the ones
(m.) not [being] of the adversary (sâţâ´n): of the worshipped images
of Yisrâ’ë´l, even
[being] the one
(n.) not of the sexual adultery
of Yisrâ’ë´l, and
[being] the ones not of the strangled
[~Yehuwthâ´h], and
of Yisrâ’ë´l,
[being] the ones not of the blood-shedding
[~sâţâ´n] [1 Moshéh 9: 3-4],
21. because Moshéh,
[being of] He Who
“I shall exist (’e-hyéh) Llisrâ’ë´l” of the
capable nativities of the ancient ones according to
the vessel of Yisrâ’ë´l [is] the city against the one
(n.) [~Yehuwthâ´h the beast (n.)] not [being] ones openly proclaiming the same One
[being] the Son [~Yâhuwshúa`], who suppresses It
among the ones
of Yisrâ’ë´l, with the ones
(f.) [~the sister] not belonging to the assemblies, according to
the vessel of Yisrâ’ë´l. Each one
that [is] the reposed ones
(shâvë´th)[1]
[~participle form of shâváth (to repose)],
[is] one being acknowledged in the middle.”
[1] Note: shâvë´th is the singular participle form of shâváth (to repose). Coded context says this was plural here (the Hebraism is singular however). The `Ivríyth word here would be
shâvthówth. The differences between these terms and the well-known but altered ones appearing in the Masoretic are different only in their vowel-pointing.
