Forbidden to drink blood

God Bless you Jason as you seek to grow in His grace.

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer. ~Psalm 19:14 (KJV)

 

Gina --

Seems like no one really has gotten to the heart of your question. I'd like to take a try if I might.

The scriptures say that the life of the flesh is in the blood. As we know now, there is a true link between all of us which is comprised in the blood we carry in our veins. We know that we can inherit numerous diseases from our parents, and often doctors will check our lineage on both sides of our families in order to keep an eye on our health because of such blood related disease transmission.

This is also true in another area. In Romans 5:12, we see that we inherited the sin of Adam. We do so because of our organic unity with him, i.e., his blood is flowing in our veins, passed down from generation to generation. The sin corrupted life force of Adam has entered each one of us and makes us to be like him.

I am sure that you also know that part of pagan ritualistic worship involved the consumption of animal blood. The demon spirits behind this false worship were actually able to possess these pagans during this worship service. This is why in Acts St. Paul admonishes the new Christians that they should refrain from "things strangled and from the drinking of blood". He is talking specifically about pagan worship. Remember the issue of "meat offered to idols?" It all falls in line with that.

Pagans also believe, and perhaps rightly so in a sense, that the eating of blood gives to you the characteristics of the animal whose blood you drink.

Therefore, I would say that the prohibition regarding the drinking of blood and kosher law probably had to do with keeping the Jews from practicing idolatrous worship practices of the pagans around them. Remember how prone they were to do such a thing?

Now, back to Adam.

Jesus is called "the Last Adam" in 1 Corin. 15:45. This is a significant title, for it has to do with covenantal headship and his replacing the first Adam as the head of the human race.

When the first Adam sinned, we were condemned to be separated from the life of God by our blood connection to Adam. By our organic union to him, we became partakers of "original sin" and were, in effect, cast out of the Garden with him. By our blood union, we all were born both separated from God (the state the Bible calls "death") and were born with a corrupted and damaged nature that is unrighteous and loves sin.

All of this through our organic union to Adam.

Therefore, since the redemption of God has the purpose of redeeming that which was lost in the Garden (which is WHY Christ is called "the Last Adam"), He also reverses the process by which it is lost. In other words, if our union with God was lost by our organic union to the first Adam, then it is through a similar organic union with the Last Adam that our union will be re-eastablished.

As our organic union with Adam makes us sinners and separate from God, our similar fleshly organic union with the Last Adam makes us righteous and united with God.

But here's where the catch comes in....Jesus is not going to have any children of His Flesh by the normal human procreative means.

Oh oh!!

HOW then will be become partakers of His Blood and enter into organic unity with Him so that we share in His life just as we shared in the life of Adam as sinners?

Starting to get the picture?

We consume His Blood, in which is the very life of God, the life of the Flesh of the Son of God, and that Blood becomes part of our, uniting with our blood and giving us that organic union which we need to become righteous and justified. It is a reversal of the very thing which condemned us, and a foretaste of the eternal union which awaits all believers, of which the marital union ("and the two shall become one flesh") is but a very shallow picture compared to the eternal truth.

So that is why we can now drink the Blood of the Son of God....because God wishes us to have His life and this is the way that it can be done. Prior to this, blood drinking was associated with pagan ritual and also, because the redemption was not completed, eating blood was literally eating death. Death was in control of everything. But now that Jesus' death has redeemed not only us, but all of creation, that prohibition is lifted. Christ has brought life to this world through His death, burial, and glorious resurrection.

Hope that gives you something to "chew upon"

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Hey, Jason,

That statement was utterly uncalled for. Before attacking a person, why not try to read and be a critical thinker?

You know what critical thinking is, right? It's where you set aside your bias and open your mind to other thoughts and facts. While you may not believe, do not just set it aside because it is not something that you were taught.

What did Christ say? oh yes...'And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God, in Christ hath forgiven you.'

Try to practice that. Christ's ministry was about love, not tearing other people down.

You may see words on your screen, but there are people behind the screens, with feelings. Those that post here are not robots. So...why not try some love, hmm? That's all Christ has called us to. Loving our brothers, not tearing them down.

 

It is agreed that this is what the RCC teaches and that Catholics believe it.

It is also agreed that they use as their text John 6 (primarily).

It is agreed that they do this as a matter of faith.

What is not agreed is that the text of God's Word actually supports what the Catholic church is "claiming" for that doctrine.

Notice that when teaching it - they typically take you to John 6 to "Show" that this really is what Christ taught.

But if the "evidence" is in the Bible - then as Christians study the Bible and find that the RC argument is not sustainable from the scriptures - then we have reason to reject that doctrine.

Notice that in Mark 7:5-11 the One True Church started by God at Sinai was doing the same thing. They were teaching sacred tradition but it was not supportable by the Word of God - so Christ said of that magesterium - that they were in error. He said "In vain do they worship Me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men".

The stakes are high for going blindly on in that regard.

In Christ,

Bob

 

</font>[/QUOTE]It appears to be pretty cleare - the Acts 15 instruction was consistent with what God directed Moses to write.

Hmmm I guess "God does not Change".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

I just read through the thread again, especially how you connect together Acts 15 and Matthew 16 with John 6.

I still think that Matthew 16 is a far stretch to try to disprove Catholics using John 6 as a proof for the Real Presence.

However reading through Acts, I think you may have something there. CatholicConvert though talks about how the ban on the prohibition of drinking blood is "lifted" for Christians. I don't see that it would be lifted as far as drinking blood offered to idols, but can you explain further why you think positively disproves any idea of Real Presence.

I believe that both the Catholic teaching of Real Presence and your idea of that it is the faithless disciples who took Christ as meaning a literal flesh both could be equally as valid, so I appreciate your response.

 

As I pointed out from ACts 15 the instruction is not "abstain from blood offerred to idols".

The instruction is not "abstain from the blood of animals offerred to idols".

Though some RC responses "need" the text to say that - it does not.

Also note - that "abstaining from blood" was already a command in scripture AS was "abstaining from fornication" and AS was "abstaining from idols". The Acts 15 commands were "sola scriptura" they come directly from the word of God.

They weren't just "making stuff up" as the RC responders have proposed so far.

The "subject" of Acts 15 was whether or not Gentiles had to "become Jews" NOT whether it was ok to eat meat offered to idols.

The conclusion was not "all about meat offerred to idols" as some RC posts suggests. Rather the conclusion addressed DIFFERENT subjects from fornication to meat offerred to idols to meat with blood in it. These were "issues" that the Jewish Jerusalem church leaders thought were big problems for new Gentile Christians.

They could ALSO have listed "Love God with all your heart" or any of the dozens of instructions also found in Paul's writings - but they did not.

As for Matt 16 - and the Symbol of bread being used for the WORD the TEACHING - and the disciples taking it TOO literally - there is no question but that the faithLESS disciples in John 6 are ALSO taking Christ "very literally" just as the faithFUL disciples in Matt 16 were doing - that is not even up for debate by either side.

What is debated is whether the poor response and understanding of faithLESS disciples in John 6 "was a bad thing' in that it followed the same course of being TOO literal - just as had been done in Matt 16.

Failing to admit that one "sees that connection" is not a "compelling" or "objective" argument against it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hence the direct and explicit statment "The Flesh is Worthles it is in fact the WORD that I speak that actually has Spirit and LIFE" at the end of that discussion is so "instructive".

The RC approach is to "disconnect" Christ's OWN direct explanation of John 6 with the entire message of John 6. That is a failed approach that should not work with anyone used to sola-scriptura models and used to sound exegetical Bible study.

Also in Matt 16 Christ did NOT say "Leaven means teaching". He only said "you guys don't get it".

Read the text carefully - Christ is LESS explicit about the REAL meaning in Matt 16 than He is in John 6 where He tells them flat out "Literal FLESH is pointless - it is the WORD that has Spirit and LIFE" after telling them all through John 6 "HERE is how you get eternal LIFE".

He setup and entire dialoge where the "point" was "HOW to get Eternal LIFE".

In that dialoge He kept saying we have to eat His flesh to get Eternal LIFE.

Then at the end He clearly states "Literal FLESH is POINTLESS - it is My WORD that has Spirit and LIFE"

This is so blatantly clear that all Christians "free of RC man-made tradition" can see it instantly.

In fact careful exegesis will ALSO note that John STARTS the book with the DIRECT link betwen the WORD and the FLESH "The WORD became FLESH" is the OPENING statement of John 1.

Pretending to be "confused about the connection" in John 6 is simply a ploy of our RC brethren. It is not sound exegesis.

Another "key" in John 6 is the KEY of the Manna - Christ emphasized the "BREAD that came down out of heaven" because in Deut 8:3 the "LESSON of MANNA" was explicitly stated.

"Man does NOT live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".

There in 3 different ways the reader is being told in John 6 that the BREAD - the FLESH - represents the WORD. And finally at the end - the point is made explicitly NOT to get stuck on literal flesh-eating.

The entire notion of "it is what you eat that saves you" is pure Catholic fiction. It could only work with those not used to exegetical methods of Bible study that are objective and compelling.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thank you for your insight. Yes, coming from a sola scriptura backround, what you say makes sense. Then again there are three ways to "validly" interpret the verses without reaching a "Real Presence" conclusion. Calvin concluded that Christ is present in a "Spiritual" or "Dynamic" sense, and Ulrich Zwingli the Symoblic view, as well as Luther with consubstantiation.

You note that in verse 63 when Christ says "flesh profit nothing...the words that I speak unto you...they are life" is Christ explaining that Real Presence is a silly way to look at what he has just said. In other words- quit looking at this as a literal sacrifice, it is your belief in me that matters. Correct?

 

No.

Christ did not say "some day in the future I will become real food".

He did not say "some day in the future you will have to eat my flesh as food".

Christ said that it was "present reality".

Christ said that the bread of heaven ALREADY came down.

The wooden interpretation that ignores Christ's own explanation (Where Christ states explicitly that simply eating literal flesh "profits nothing" in terms of the stated goal - obtaining eternal life) must cast about itself and ignore many other clear details in John 6 as well.

Christ's faithLESS disciples are the only ones making the RC case.

Christ Himself denies it - by showing "in the context of the John 6 discussion on eating His flesh" that "The Flesh is literally worthless" for that purpose.

Exegesis "demands that we not ignore context" and the "context" to John 6 is "The WORD became FLESH".

Exegesis "demands context" and the "context" for the "Bread that came down out of heaven" is the LESSON of Manna in Deut 8:3 where God says that the entire point of the "bread that came down out of heaven" was to "show that man does NOT live by bread alone BUT RATHER by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God"

All these "contexts" must be ignored AND then the clarifying words of Christ himself must also be "faithfully ignored" to "reach" for the RC tradition that "it is what you eat that saves you".

As I said before - I think this is "impossible" for someone to swallow that is not "already Catholic".

"In other words" - I think that those that to convert to Catholicism on the basis of John 6 - have not really thought through the "Details" of the "context". I think they are not used to employing sound exegetical methods when studying the Bible. Of course you are not RC and this is not speaking about you -- but I am just saying.

In John 15 Christ said "IF you ABIDE in Me and I IN you"... (And I know the RCC would just "love" to jump on this as our eathing Christ's flesh and then His eating ours but...) and then clarifies the statement in that SAME chapter saying "if you abide IN ME and MY WORDs abide IN YOU".

So "yes" it is the "words of Christ" that "Give Life" In fact Christ said "My WORDS are Spirit and are Life".

The "entire purpose" of John 6 "eating" was to "obtain LIFE" and Christ makes it clear that for obtaining LIFE "The Flesh is Worthless -- My WORDS are Spirit and are LIFE".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ok. Thank you for your input. I think I understand where you are coming from now.

 

You're welcome. It isn't, of course, an OFFICIAL explanation, but I don't think I have necessarily wandered into heresy.

My question would be -- did any of it seem to make sense to you? These were ideas I came up with as I considered the Catholic Faith. I had to understand how these things could be -- this was the answer which fit into the covenantal paradigm I had learned.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Acts 15:20 referrs to animals that are slaughtered according to the ceremonial order of Judaism. It is not a ban on consumption of blood in the course of substinence.

 

There is no case that can be made from Orthodox Judaism or from any Christian source that the OT ever taught blood was ok to eat.

There is no escaping that the OT text is called "scripture" in the NT - and quoted authorotatively.

There is nothing in Acts 15 limiting the discussion to "eating sacrifices".

The command given in Acts 15 is clearly from the OT - regarding animals strangled, eating blood and the sin of fornication.

None of it was restricted in OT or NT to "just when dealing with sacrifices".

In Christ,

Bob