Check out some similar questions!

Starman · Jul 17, 2006, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Morganite

....Don't let anyone chase you away.

M:)RGANITE

That's an unjust, baseless, accusation not expected from a person of your intellectual abilities.

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your right not being a Christian I should not be on this thread. My apologies all.

There you go again!

How does my suggestion to stay on topic translate into forbidding you to be commenting on this thread because you are not a Christian? Isn't that a rather wild stretch of the imagination?

OBVIOUSLY:

1. It's not a forum requirement that we be Christians in order to give comments on Christian topics.

talaniman · Jul 17, 2006, 11:37 AM

Don't be so sensitive Starman as it was I that thought that I had insulted you ,hence my apology, and thanks to you for straghtening that out and also to Morganite for pointing it out. I do apologize to both of you though for causing a rift... back to subject let me study some...

JoeCanada76 · Jul 17, 2006, 12:48 PM

There is a big difference between being told not to eat blood. Blood transfusions have nothing to do with eating blood. Blood is life. I am not into eating blood. Am I going to give blood for people who need it, or will I except blood transfusions. The answer is yes. The law about not eating food with blood has always been. Always will be. Christians who follow the bible will know that.

Joe

Morganite · Jul 18, 2006, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Starman

That's an unjust, baseless, accusation not expected from a person of your intellectual abilities.

There is no acusation. Just a piece of timely advice.

Accusation (n)

1. An act of accusing or the state of being accused.
2. A charge of wrongdoing that is made against a person or other party.

Who was accused, and of what?

M:(

Hope12 · Jul 31, 2006, 09:50 AM

Hello ,

I would never eat blood for God's law forbids it!

Christians are not under the law covenant made with Moses as mediator. That law covenant passed out of existence, having fulfilled its purpose, when the new covenant was made over the blood of Jesus Christ.

This does not mean that the restrictions on the use of blood have passed away too. Because what the law covenant had to say about refraining from the eating of blood merely emphasized the requirement that is set forth in the law God gave to Noah, and that is binding upon all mankind.

To set this matter straight in the minds of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, none of whom were any longer under the Law, the Christian governing body at Jerusalem directed their attention to the obligations that devolved upon them in this matter, saying: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

Joshan · May 13, 2007, 05:15 PM

In my opinion there is nothing spiritualy wrong with eating rare meat. Though the important thing is that we should not get upset over this. Hope12 above me explaned perfectly how we are not under the law any more. Though if your Christian brother believed that it was wrong to eat rare meat then it would possibly make him stumble if you ate it in front of him.
"Romans 14:21
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall."
Though when not in this circumstance then I believe it is perfectly fine to eat rare meat. But remember, "Anything that is done without believing it is right is a sin, Romans 14:23b"

Tessy777 · May 22, 2007, 05:32 AM

Under the Law there were restrictions and I believe too that it was for safety reasons. There are no restrictions under Grace. The Bible isn't hard to understand. Jesus fulfilled the Law and you cannot mix Law with Grace... like oil and water... it won't work.

Starman · May 22, 2007, 10:06 PM

The belief that Christians are prohibited from eating blood is based primarily on the following scripture written AFTER the Mosaic Law was replaced by grace via Jesus' sacrifice. Also, it is the holy spirit that is spoken of as directing Christians in reference to this issue and that eating blood is mentioned along with fornication.

“The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

Further information in relation to this subject can be found at the following site:

Search Content of Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

Morganite · May 31, 2007, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Tessy777

Under the Law there were restrictions and i believe too that it was for safety reasons. There are no restrictions under Grace. The Bible isn't hard to understand. Jesus fulfilled the Law and you cannot mix Law with Grace.....like oil and water...it won't work.

How would you explain the apostles' imposition of a ban on eating the blood of animals AFTER Jesus had been crucified, resurrected, and had ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of God, leaving the Holy Ghost as the means of revealing his will to them in his absence? You surely can not mean that the Holy Ghost gave them wrong information??

M:)