Blood and Fat

[TopazRaven]

Here I go with another strange post again. I'm actually just kind of curious. I was reading my bible passages today and I am in the beginning of Leviticus. In a few passages it is repeated that God has forbidden the Isrealites to eat blood and fat and anyone who does so must be cut off from their people. This is understandable to me as at this time the blood and fat of animals where to be sacrificed to the Lord and I can't imagine eating blood is ever good for you. 0.o Anyway, I was just kind of wondering if this law still applies today? A lot of people say Christians don't need to follow the law of Moses? Don't take this as me wanting to eat fat and blood please. Ewww. If I bite into a piece of fat while eating meat I usually can't finish the meal because I'm so grossed out and if I ever tasted blood in meat I'd probably faint. I do know people who like to eat their steak and burgers medium rare though, I'm not sure if the redness is actually blood? I've heard people say it's just juices. I know...this is my weirdest question yet isn't it!? My curiousty is going to get the best of me one of these days.

[MrKrillz0r]

I love you're threads.. And ehm, I won't be able to come up with a good answer either.. ^^

[TopazRaven]

Ahaha, glad someone likes them then. xD Yeah, I often become confused when trying to figure out if OT laws and rules still apply today. Not that it matters to me personally as I don't want to eat fat or blood, like I said curiousty. It is my undoing!

[mechana2015]

We'd have to know the actual verses and the contents within them to make a thorough answer, but one thing to note is that Leviticus is the rule book for the Levites, the priest group in the old testament. The first 16 chapters and the last chapter are rules of purity for the priests in the tabernacle, and general ritual cleanliness. Blood (which can be eaten and in some cultures, such as some Pacific islands, is a delicacy) may have been eliminated partially due to it's use in sacrifices, but it may, as some things in Leviticus tend to be, be a health issue due to some of the less than savory diseases that can be carried by animal blood. It would depend a lot on the context you're seeing the phrase in.

[Dante]

The only thing relating directly to blood in the New Testament that goes against this is Acts 15:28-29. From E-Sword...

Act 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

Act 15:29 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. Farewell.

So there is some support that the New Testament is against us eating blood. Of course, Paul also goes on to push that eating just about anything is alright later on. So I can't really say yes or no, but figured that that passage might be useful here.

[Atria35]

^ What Mechana said. I'm especially fond of the disease part of the explanation, since they had very advanced health practices for the time. And it sort of follows why the Jews weren't allowed to eat meat and milk at the same meal- because in the desert heat, the milk would be spoiled, the meat wouldn't be much better, and eating them together would have made them more ill.

Besides, what do you think gravy is made of? I would never be able to give that up!

[ABlipinTime]

Um... my .02

From what I've heard from talking with a scholarly gentleman, the food sacrificed to idols and the drinking blood of animals was more than just health practice. God could've given a TON more rules if that were the case. In those days, people were superstitious enough to believe that the blood (the life force of any living being) contained within it power, for example, of the corresponding pagan god of that animal. God said He didn't want that, and He replaced it by Himself years later with Communion, but the interpretation of Communion is topic for another thread.

[USSRGirl]

No, the law does not apply today. The moral law of the OT may be applied today because Jesus quotes it in the NT (and stuff like don't murder and civil courtesy is pretty universal besides, nh?). The OT law is largely cultural in nature. A lot of it applies very much to the time. For example, you really wouldn't have wanted to eat blood during an era where food sanitation was very low. Same with eating shellfish or pork - both these foods had a high chance of contamination at the time. Likewise, passages about slaughtering animals deal with (IMHO) humane killing and preach against cruelty. Stuff like not wearing mixed garment (like wool + leather) was in place largely so people wouldn't get ripped off - as I understand it, it was common practice for people to sell mixed materials as an expensive garment like wool. Basically that verse is just telling people to have honest business dealings with your neighbor.

All that said, the law does not apply to Christians today. The core purpose of the Hebraic law was to demonstrate man's inability to be truly good or obedient - how we all fall short of God's perfection. Jesus fulfilled the law because in His godhood He was without sin and because He was human He was able to take our place as sons and daughters of God, accept God's wrath on our part, and reconcile us to the Father. As Christians, we share Christ's victory over the law and over death (I dunno if you're a Narnia fan at all, but remember the "Deep Magic" that Aslan conquered? ) so we have fulfilled God's commandments in our belief in Christ just as Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and through that we are then able to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Mark 12:28-34:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Some other relevant verses:

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

13 Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. - Jesus heals on the Sabbath, making a point that God is not a God of legalism but rather wants us to express our faith in His son through doing what is right.

Peter also is told to break with eating kosher in order to reach out to the Gentile nations and bring them into the fold.

That said, I know a few Messianic Jews who like to keep kosher both as a witness to other Jews and as a personal conviction between them and God. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as some people will fast or be vegetarian or don't drink alchohol not because they think it's required for salvation or want to enforce that regiment on others (if they do... then that's when I draw the line XD) but because it's something personal that they feel called to do in their relationship with God.

Yeh... them medium rare people are mighty weird. I don't like beef so I'm not one to talk. XD

[USSRGirl]

Also wanted to add - this thread title was epic enough to make me click it. I was like "blood and fat? What the-?" XD I expected some kinda recipe or something that would gross me out extremely.

[Rusty Claymore]

I believe it's for health reasons. The fat God is talking about is guard fat, where all the nasty stuff in the animals body is stored. While imho it's downright tasty, back when they didn't know(or at least we think they didn't know) about bacteria, and so eating less than cooked gaurd fat would make them sick. Same with a lot of cerimonial washings and other commandments of God, they aren't just burdensome rituals but actually life giving practices. It wasn't even till recently that Docters had to wash their hands after examining corpses! (1-200 years recently... n.n).
So should they still be followed today? Well, as far as blood goes, I remember Scripture mentioning that the life was in the blood, so personally, I abstain from eating blood whenever I can.
Ultimatelt though, All of God's commands are guides for us to live in the most effective way. We can choose to do things differently(and still get to heaven, as long as the differently does not exclude Jesus. XP), but we won't be living at optimum efficiency, and that means we will be missing out on Joy's and Peace, and other such things.
I think the redness is just juices, but scientifically, I don't know. With the POV of a sanitary commandment, I'd say as long as it's cooked to the proper temp, it's prolly alright. n.n
I hope.

[ShiroiHikari]

Okay guys, blood doesn't contain magical, mystical powers. Unless you count blood-borne pathogens as "magical powers". They have the "magical power" to kill you dead, I suppose.

[Nate]

I eat my steaks rare or medium rare. I eat my burgers medium. Cook meat over those and you're cooking out the flavor.

Anyway, no, the juices in steak and burgers are not blood. They're sarcoplasm. When the animal is killed, the blood is always drained because blood doesn't last very long in dead things. Blood dries very quickly when it is exposed to air. If the juices in steak were blood, steak would be dry and taste like metal.

Also, as far as beef goes at least, fat is what gives beef its flavor, which is why cows raised for meat are fed so much and such rich foods most of the time, to make them fatter. This is also why filet mignon is one of the worst cuts of steak; it's a very lean cut, and therefore has almost no flavor. This is why it's usually wrapped in bacon. They had to invent ways of giving the meat flavor because it naturally has almost none.

[ABlipinTime]

@Septimus: That doesn't answer why Jesus says what He does in Matt 5:17-18

[Htom Sirveaux]

What we need now is a thread dedicated to meat.

[shooraijin]

@Septimus: That doesn't answer why Jesus says what He does in Matt 5:17-18

Quite. However, Jesus was speaking to the Jews at that time (and in that passage); the Gentiles were not then part of His ministry. Under their program of salvation, the Law definitely did apply to the Jews of that day. No one of this generation is under Law any more, and certainly not us goyim.

We all instinctively know that the laws of the Old Testament do not apply to us now, but this explanation is much less prosaic than the "cultural" reason which is more widely cited.

[Nate]

The moral law of the OT may be applied today because Jesus quotes it in the NT

Nowhere does the Bible say that though. Please show me where the Bible says "Some of the Law you still follow, but other parts don't." That isn't expressed at any point.

If you want to follow the Law, it's all or none. "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." You can't just keep some parts because you like those and get rid of other parts because you don't. You want to live by the Law? Live by the whole Law. You can't live by only some of the Law because if you break any other part, you're breaking every single part of it.

So yeah...I'm with ABlipInTime here. You can't just say "Only listen to these parts of the Law but not these parts."

[Furen]

A lot of people say Christians don't need to follow the law of Moses? Don't take this as me wanting to eat fat and blood please. Ewww. If I bite into a piece of fat while eating meat I usually can't finish the meal because I'm so grossed out and if I ever tasted blood in meat I'd probably faint. I do know people who like to eat their steak and burgers medium rare though, I'm not sure if the redness is actually blood? I've heard people say it's just juices.

First off I have not read anything so pardon if I re-state anything

Because of Christ's Death and Resurrection we are free of that, we don't qualify under Mosaic law.

The red juices are blood, though I'm pretty sure it isn't in burgers... :/ gotta check that one out, but steak is for sure blood.

[shooraijin]

You're going to have a tough time telling the difference, as myoglobin in muscle and hemoglobin in blood both look red. There is bound to be some small quantity of blood in there, but most of the blood is already removed from the animal in standard slaughterhouse practice, so what Nate said is substantially correct.

[USSRGirl]

@AB and Shoo [ick, dispensationalism...] ... um... no. That verse is exactly what I was saying in fact... I almost quoted it myself in my post. "I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it." - Yup. The law is godly - the law is of God. Jesus as God's son does not disobey his Father's will. He fulfilled the law down to the letter - he lived a sinless life and died an innocent death. In this he fulfilled the law FOR US as we could never do. The Jews were never saved by the law. Not then. Not now. The Bible states the law saves no one. Revelation states that those not written in the book of life will be judged by their works, by the second book which is the law, and - as all fall short - not pass the test. When God looks at us, he sees Jesus (i.e. there is a lot of text dealing with Christ as the new Adam, how we are adopted as children of God through Christ ect...) Jesus is not speaking culturally here. He is telling us a very fundamental Christian concept, that is that the law condemns - shows us how we fall short in that we could never fulfill it - and how grace justifies us in God's eyes. I guess I'll be reduced to quoting Narnia again, but think of it like Aslan's triumph over the Deep Magic. He knew the "deeper magic still" and while he obeyed his father's law, the witch could not grasp beyond that law which ultimately condemned, where as Aslan fulfilled the deep magic on Edmund's behalf. (i.e. C.S. Lewis agreed with me, yo?)

Just to recap so I'm making sense here; we all fall short of the law. Nothing we do will change that. Our rightful punishment in that was death. Christ lived a sinless life, was the only person who lived perfect by God's law, and took our punishment in our stead. In subscribing to the truth of this event, we are ultimately saying "yes, I believe he took my punishment that day and I am raised with him as a son [or daughter] of God, now free of the law as Christ accomplished this for me."

Nate; ... you didn't even read my argument. That was not what I said. I stated that the morality of the law is in fact restated by 1.) Jesus 2.) Paul 3.) James (a lot... read James... just read the whole book and quit snarking). Oh... Mere Christianity is good too. >.>;;

Imma leave now... /snippy Septimus is snippy, but to be honest I don't feel like a lot of these debate threads are very thought out or productive. It just seems like a lot of people throwing verses around and talking about Big Macs... just my two cents. Sorry if I sounded rushed/annoyed. I'm not and I hope no one else was either. :p

[shooraijin]

Septimus, if the Jews were never saved by the Law, then the sacrifices of the Old Testament were meaningless and they were condemned regardless, and we know that is not the case. The sacrifices were done under that same Law so that atonement could be achieved.

We don't exist under that program any more after Christ. This is getting rather afield for this thread, but I think it's a useful topic to discuss since it does relate to Topaz's original point.

[USSRGirl]

... you think people were saved by sacrificing sheep? REALLY? ... wow... How is that any different than paganism? If that were so, then the people of the OT were saved by works, by an act. Many people offered sacrifices and did not believe - there are examples of this in scripture. One verse states clearly that God DESPISES their festivals and sacrifices and would rather have the hearts of his people. Why does Jesus condemn the Pharisees? Why were they not saved by sacrifices? What about the Jews today? If it worked once, seems kinda sucky that God would up and turn the tables on them. No, I don't believe God contradicts himself. The people of the OT were saved through the Messianic promise. The Bible is a book about the Messiah. Whatever generation, the promise was the same and this was the road to salvation. The expectation of the Messiah and the promise for those of the OT who believed was salvation same as it is now.

And as an aside... the doctrine of dispensationalism (which is what you're preaching) was a somewhat post modern school of thought never evident in the early church or traditional Judaism.

[Nate]

(i.e. C.S. Lewis agreed with me, yo?)

While I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your argument, appeal to authority does not work. C.S. Lewis is not God and doesn't know everything, and C.S. Lewis could have been completely and utterly wrong. Just because you agree with him does not make you correct, and it doesn't make him correct either.

you didn't even read my argument.

I did read your argument. You said "These parts of the Law apply but these parts don't." Not in those words, but that is what you said.

I stated that the morality of the law is in fact restated by 1.) Jesus

As far as I recall, Jesus said there were two commandments: love God, and love others. Jesus never specifically said any parts of the Law were still applicable. He said murder and adultery were bad, but so what? Most other civilizations at the time said the same thing. They may have had different definitions of what murder and adultery were, but I can't think of any civilization that said you can kill whoever you want, or you can have any woman you want. That's from Mere Christianity, by the way. :p

Jesus may have been talking about moral obligations, but He wasn't talking specifically about the Law. After all, murdering someone is hardly loving them (would break the second commandment Jesus said). This is also part of why Jesus said that hating your brother was just as bad as murder...because if you hate someone, you can't love them.

2.) Paul

Paul said that if it wasn't for the Law he wouldn't know what sin was, but this is in no way an endorsement of "These parts of the Law are still applicable but these aren't." In fact, it further destroys your argument. If Paul says the Law tells us what sin is, well, the Law says wearing a poly/cotton blend shirt and eating shrimp is a sin. Paul had a lot to say about the Law and grace, and it boiled down to "We're under grace, so the Law isn't important." He never said "These parts of the Law you should follow but not these parts." Paul just said "Don't worry about the Law." I can find verses if you like, but I trust I don't have to.

3.) James (a lot... read James... just read the whole book and quit snarking).

I have read all of James. I find it a bit rude and condescending you would accuse me of not having read it. Also, I don't see how that destroys the verse I quoted. If you follow only some of the Law but break other parts, you've broken the whole Law, so it's pointless to only follow some of the Law. Follow all of it or none of it, you can't do things halfway.

James goes on after that to talk about how faith without deeds is dead, but he doesn't quote any of the Law, but rather one of the commandments Jesus spoke about. Love others. Feed those who are hungry. Clothe those who are naked. It in no way is an endorsement of any moral parts of the Law, it's an endorsement to help the less fortunate in keeping with what Jesus said earlier about the goats and the sheep (the famous "Whatever you did for the least of these people you did for me" thing).

Oh... Mere Christianity is good too. >.>]
Good but not great. How good you find an author is is subjective anyway.

EDIT:

... you think people were saved by sacrificing sheep? REALLY? ... wow... How is that any different than paganism?

Who you're sacrificing the sheep to would make quite a bit, I think. I might as well say "You think people are saved by chanting some magic words? REALLY?" If I say the sinner's prayer but say it to Superman instead of God, that makes a whole lot of difference, even if the rest of the words are exactly the same. It makes a difference who I'm saying it to, and it made a difference who the sheep were sacrificed to.

Also, if people in the OT were not saved by sacrificing sheep, were they all condemned? Jesus had not yet been born nor had God's great plan of salvation by Christ's death and resurrection occurred yet. The people of Israel certainly didn't know who Jesus was.

While I'm not going to say "The sheep's blood was totally what saved them" the point is, what was different about the Israelites as compared to other nations? The other nations broke the law, same as the Israelites...how is it the Israelites were saved despite breaking the Law, and other nations weren't? I would say the sacrifice of the animals to God. Again, whether or not that specifically saved them gets tricky theologically but when God Himself told the Israelites to do that I don't see how you can argue it was a pointless action.

[shooraijin]

... you think people were saved by sacrificing sheep? REALLY?

That's a fair criticism, and I should make plain that what the sacrifices were achieving were atonement, with salvation to come from Christ's sacrifice. However,

Why does Jesus condemn the Pharisees? Why were they not saved by sacrifices? What about the Jews today? If it worked once, seems kinda sucky that God would up and turn the tables on them.

As you yourself have said, after Christ came, everything changed. His presence then was to bring the new program of salvation to the Jews, some of whom believed in Him and some of whom did not.

[TopazRaven]

Well, this has definitly been an interesting thread. I thank you all for the many expliantions you've all given to me. I truly love you members of CAA! You educate me so. Not sure if all this arguing is heading in the right direction though. My threads always start fights.

[shooraijin]

Septimus, please stop editing your posts after the fact to make new points. If you have new points to make, do them in new posts. That's not arguing in good faith.

You're free to dispute dispensationalism, but it would be nice if you would back it up.

[USSRGirl]

*too tired to respond to Nate as this is derailing the thread a bit... I feel like we're talking about apples and oranges. The Lewis bit was a joke, yo? It was just an example. I'm saying that while we are not under the law, the moral aspects are universal and they are restated, not AS law, but as how we should live - just as Christ lived. Of course we fall short of this even as Christians, but the basic morality taught is still our aspiration and the work of the Spirit in us.*

Shoo - I guess my beef is that I view the Bible as one complete book... the OT is about Jesus, the NT is about Jesus. I don't believe we can say this was "a new program" as the entire OT is devoted to prophecy, lineage, and foreshadowing of what is to come. The burnt offerings themselves are symbolic of Christ. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice - for no other reason did God say "kill sheep, people, lambchops tonight!" than to foreshadow Christ. The lamb unblemished is Jesus. There was no merit in sacrifice itself. If there were, there would be no distinction between our God and any number of pagan gods who preached the same.

[shooraijin]

I think we're arguing the same point from a different perspective, but I'll let it go at that.

[USSRGirl]

Shoo - I edited that I minute after I posted it so as not to clutter the thread. Arguing in good faith? Holy cows... I didn't intend to sabotage your argument. Furthermore... I made several statements backing it up. I have more, but I don't really feel that this thread is going in a productive direction so I'm going to let it rest now.

Topaz - XD My fault. Sorry for derailing it there. You may resume talking about blood... and burgers... is now a bad time to mention that I don't eat red meat?

[shooraijin]

The objection I had was that it makes it hard to follow the points you were making if it was necessary to re-review your previous posts each time. Feel free to voice your objections to dispensationalism in another thread if you like. I'm not really an expert on it, but it is the view that has made the most sense to me.

I like steak.

[Nate]

I'm saying that while we are not under the law, the moral aspects are universal and they are restated, not AS law, but as how we should live - just as Christ lived.

I don't like that. We should live just as Christ lived. Christ didn't get married. Should we all stay single just as Christ did? It may sound like I'm being snarky and sarcastic, but it's a valid point. A phrase like "live like Christ did" sounds nice, but how far do you carry it? How literally do you take that?

Also, again, please show me where the Bible says "the moral aspects of the Law are universal." I don't recall the Bible saying that. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. If I am, give me a verse, and I'll work from there. But as far as I know, Jesus only said love God, and love others. Those don't rely on the moral aspects of the Law, just common sense. Feed the hungry, care for those who are less fortunate, praise and worship God as Creator. None of those are even expressly mentioned in the Law itself. Well okay, praising God is, but that's the only one I'll grant you. Paul even said one of the Ten Commandments itself ("Keep the Sabbath day holy") didn't even apply anymore.

There was no merit in sacrifice itself. If there were, there would be no distinction between our God and any number of pagan gods who preached the same.

I disagree, as I stated in my above edited post. I only edited it so as to avoid the possibility of double posting though, I hope that doesn't qualify as arguing in bad faith. There was a merit in that God said to do it, God commanded them to do it. If there was no merit, why would God tell them to? Also, what I said about sacrificing a sheep to Odin would be pointless, but if you sacrifice it to God, it's different.