• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Do Christians Eat Blood?

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
In the UK they eat black pudding, some people prefer rare steak, some eat blood soups (especially in Eastern Europe) etc. even though Acts says this:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
- Acts 15:28-29.

As an aside, G-d also forbids eating blood from a live animal in the Book of Genesis:

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
- Genesis 9:4
 
Last edited:

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Could read that as it's lifeblood. Once something is dead the life is gone out of it and the blood no longer has life in it.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Some do and some do not. Acts 21:25 suggests it is a long time contentious issue. "...As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

I doubt there are many Christians who could explain 'Why' the gentile believers were instructed to abstain from blood and under what circumstances. Possibly this was because the gentile believers were eating in close proximity to Jews. The only scripture explanation is very terse "...because the life is in the blood..." which does not communicate an absolute answer to modern ways of thinking. You cook it, right? Then there's no life in it anymore.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I was wrong about that second quote. It refers to eating the limb, blood, of a live animal. In other words, you can't eat it while the animal is still living. My apologies.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Some do and some do not. Acts 21:25 suggests it is a long time contentious issue. "...As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

Yes, but the quote says 'our decision.' In other words, this is their conclusion.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That first scripture is why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, as they interpret abstaining as not just ingestion, but taking any foreign blood period.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
In the UK they eat black pudding, some people prefer rare steak, some eat blood soups (especially in Eastern Europe) etc. even though Acts says this:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
- Acts 15:28-29.

As an aside, G-d also forbids eating blood from a live animal in the Book of Genesis:

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
- Genesis 9:4
I don't. I've never had those foods.

Now, that doesn't mean that I would tell christians, that they shouldn't.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, but the quote says 'our decision.' In other words, this is their conclusion.
This is true, however a Pauline letter (I Corinthians 8) makes an exception to at least one of their decisions, that of eating food sacrificed to idols and says "...But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do..." This is supposedly Paul, and so Paul is at odds with or clarifying the decision in Acts 21:25. To Paul the food is not really the issue, and so by extension the blood itself may not be an issue either. The decision in Acts may have to do with the Jews present or the presence of those who associate eating any blood with some other practice.

It was also common in ancient times for multiple people to write under the name of another, so its very possible that Paul is not one person but several. Today we have a similar practice in universities in which a professor may have many people assisting them with research but it all goes in their own name. I can't say for sure that everybody writing in the name of Paul is always in agreement with everyone else writing in the name of Paul on this minor issue. I think Paul in I Corinthians thinks some people are superstitious about the food, but Paul in Acts 21 does not make a fuss about the decision. I am making a weak guess that there is an attempt to placate Jews or people who have connection to Jews who may feel very odd about people eating any food near to blood though it is cooked or food bought from temples.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
This is true, however a Pauline letter (I Corinthians 8) makes an exception to at least one of their decisions, that of eating food sacrificed to idols and says "...But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do..." This is supposedly Paul, and so Paul is at odds with or clarifying the decision in Acts 21:25. To Paul the food is not really the issue, and so by extension the blood itself may not be an issue either. The decision in Acts may have to do with the Jews present or the presence of those who associate eating any blood with some other practice.

It was also common in ancient times for multiple people to write under the name of another, so its very possible that Paul is not one person but several. Today we have a similar practice in universities in which a professor may have many people assisting them with research but it all goes in their own name. I can't say for sure that everybody writing in the name of Paul is always in agreement with everyone else writing in the name of Paul on this minor issue. I think Paul in I Corinthians thinks some people are superstitious about the food, but Paul in Acts 21 does not make a fuss about the decision. I am making a weak guess that there is an attempt to placate Jews or people who have connection to Jews who may feel very odd about people eating any food near to blood though it is cooked or food bought from temples.
I think it has more to do with Paul's spat with the Apostles. They taught different things.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it has more to do with Paul's spat with the Apostles. They taught different things.
Historically it seems more likely that Christians have factions, and today we are reading stylized stories that represent the disagreement in a literary format. Paul's letters may comprise a treaty between opposing factions who perhaps come together and agree to bring Paul into existence. Its just so long ago that its hard to tell what became of the various factions, but we know that there are several. With the deletion of so many documents we have no way of knowing anything about Paul. We also know things now that have been hidden for millennia, because we've got Dead Sea scrolls and Qumran scrolls. Now we know that gnosticism is a very big deal and that having a Righteous Teacher as a leading figure is not unique to Jesus. We know very little, yet we know so much more than we did, and its clear that Paul's writings contain hints of gnosticism, that John the Baptist strongly reflects a certain Qumran figure. I personally come away with the thought that there are a lot of people hoping to pass on something to us, but that they don't care if we remember their names or not. So we have no drawings of Paul or Jesus, and we have no personal property of theirs or childhood details. Its not about the people but about the story, and the story is about compromise not conflict.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
This is true, however a Pauline letter (I Corinthians 8) makes an exception to at least one of their decisions, that of eating food sacrificed to idols and says "...But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do..." This is supposedly Paul, and so Paul is at odds with or clarifying the decision in Acts 21:25. To Paul the food is not really the issue, and so by extension the blood itself may not be an issue either. The decision in Acts may have to do with the Jews present or the presence of those who associate eating any blood with some other practice.

It was also common in ancient times for multiple people to write under the name of another, so its very possible that Paul is not one person but several. Today we have a similar practice in universities in which a professor may have many people assisting them with research but it all goes in their own name. I can't say for sure that everybody writing in the name of Paul is always in agreement with everyone else writing in the name of Paul on this minor issue. I think Paul in I Corinthians thinks some people are superstitious about the food, but Paul in Acts 21 does not make a fuss about the decision. I am making a weak guess that there is an attempt to placate Jews or people who have connection to Jews who may feel very odd about people eating any food near to blood though it is cooked or food bought from temples.
Acts of the Apostles 21:25

Seems to be specifically addressing a group of gentiles, /presumably, since different churches were adressed, so forth. That seems pretty clear, that it is a rule, for everyone; since it wouldn't make sense to have that rule, for those gentiles, but not for other gentiles.

Seems pretty straightforward, to me.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Modern Christians are not Jews, and are not beholding to Jewish religious laws, scriptures, rituals or traditions. Many think they are, but really, they aren't. So it doesn't really matter that they don't follow these even when they think they're supposed to.
The first quote is from Acts.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
In the UK they eat black pudding, some people prefer rare steak, some eat blood soups (especially in Eastern Europe) etc. even though Acts says this:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
- Acts 15:28-29.

As an aside, G-d also forbids eating blood from a live animal in the Book of Genesis:

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
- Genesis 9:4

First of all, you need to change your thread title to:

"Why do some Christians in the UK eat blood?"

All Christians do not eat blood, I've never seen a Christian eat blood.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
First of all, you need to change your thread title to:

"Why do some Christians in the UK eat blood?"

All Christians do not eat blood, I've never seen a Christian eat blood.
I have, lots of them. In the form of pate and certain sausages. And I'm in the US, where those products are much less common than in Europe.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
I have, lots of them. In the form of pate and certain sausages. And I'm in the US, where those products are much less common than in Europe.

You do mean you've seen them eat raw meat, right? We all like flavor in our steaks and most of us don't want them burnt to a crisp.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You do mean you've seen them eat raw meat, right? We all like flavor in our steaks and most of us don't want them burnt to a crisp.
No, I'm talking about sausage, which often has blood added in, similarly pate made in the same way. The red juices in steaks isn't blood (though there's still some blood in the smallest vessels) but myoglobin (as opposed to hemoglobin.)
 
Top