Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
The prohibition on eating blood is given in Acts 15 by the Church, and it has since been rescinded by the same Church.

Then which is the truth? Is eating blood OK with God or not?

If God says it's not, who's the church to say that it is?

This is where listening to tradition will get you, going against the clear teachings of God in Scripture.

I suppose that you have links the official pronouncement that the church made to say that they eating of blood was acceptable, after the apostles, who were contemporaries of Jesus said it wasn't?

What council or pope have the chutzpah to override the decisions of those early church fathers? For that matter since you claim that Peter chaired that meeting, who had the chutzpah to over ride Peter's decision? Where was it recorded that it was allegedly rescinded and why was it allegedly rescinded?

This seems too familiar. It's all too much like the *Joseph had children by a previous marriage* kind of rationalization to explain how those ignorant Jews couldn't get straight what they meant by Jesus brothers and sisters.

The Law specifically forbade the eating of blood. Jesus, who had to perfectly fulfill the Law to be the spotless sacrificial lamb, could not have eaten blood at the Last Supper, therefore when He said the cup was his blood, He was either lying or He meant it figuratively, that it was symbolic because the whole Passover meal was symbolic.

5,322 posted on 12/13/2010 7:32:47 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5315 | View Replies ]


To: metmom; annalex

“The prohibition on eating blood is given in Acts 15 by the Church, and it has since been rescinded by the same Church.”

Really? When?


5,327 posted on 12/13/2010 8:46:32 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5322 | View Replies ]

To: metmom

You are correct, and there is more weight to it: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html#Exegesis


5,383 posted on 12/14/2010 3:59:03 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5322 | View Replies ]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww
Is eating blood OK with God or not?

It's like "neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity", so eating or not eating anything is not in itself good or bad. It is good when the Church encourages it and bad if she is not. Same with eating pork.

What council or pope have the chutzpah to override the decisions of those early church fathers?

I don't know, but to rule in matters of Church discipline (what and when to eat, how to serve the Liturgy, what saints to celebrate when, whether priests should be celibate -- is the undisputed prerogative of the Church (Matthew 16:19, 18:18)

The Law specifically forbade the eating of blood. Jesus, who had to perfectly fulfill the Law to be the spotless sacrificial lamb, could not have eaten blood at the Last Supper

Jesus is One Who gave the Law, including the Old Testament Law and he said "this is my blood". You are correct that the notion of eating His flesh and drinking His blood was terrifying to the Jews, see John 6 on that.

5,682 posted on 12/21/2010 5:36:36 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5322 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson