Welcome back to the Christian Teen Forums. We have been upgrading our forum software and it took a lot longer than originally anticipated. Thank you for your patience.

We are still working to bring some add-on features back, so it will be a continued work-in-progress. If you have any questions, feel free to post and ask away. 

cgaviria

The Sin of the Consumption of Blood

This study explains why it is a sin to eat or drink blood, along with the meat of any animal that still has its blood. The study can be found in English here http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2017/06/15/the-sin-of-the-consumption-of-blood/ or in Spanish here http://www.sabiduriadedios.co/2017/06/15/el-pecado-de-consumir-sangre/ . Let us begin a discussion on these matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nicene Nerd said:

More Bible-twisting heresy, I see.

That you shouldn't drink blood is somehow heresy? How are you a staff member of a christian forum? Shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cgaviria said:

That you shouldn't drink blood is somehow heresy? How are you a staff member of a christian forum? Shame on you.

Drinking blood was not the main point at all. You even went so far as to ban blood transfusions, which of course is just mutilating Scripture like a two-year-old with scissors. You also tried to maintain the Mosaic Law as in presently in force.

The Scriptures say this to your nonsense:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you reconcile:

Quote

For the soul of all flesh, its life, is in its blood; therefore, I have said unto the sons of Israel, Ye shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the soul (or the life) of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:14 [JB2000])

with

Quote

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27 [NIV])

and still say that the rules about drinking blood were the same before and after the coming of Jesus?  This is the ultimate blood transfusion!

Jesus is literally saying here, "Do one of the things that is expressly forbidden in the old covenant, because you are now part of the new covenant."

At Capernaum Jesus says

Quote

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (John 6:53 [NIV])

And then later at the last supper, he is saying, "You thought I was joking back at Capernaum, about the blood eating.  I was not.  Here is it is, for real. Things are different now."

Drinking blood is a central part of how Jesus conveys his message.  I don't think that means we have to drink the blood of every animal that comes along, but it marks a deep change in the rules.  This is Jesus telling his disciples to do something he knows is forbidden and that he knows will shock them.  He is clearly using these well established old rules and showing how his presence turns them on their head and completely makes them over.  No longer is it forbidden to drink blood; it is required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nicene Nerd said:

Drinking blood was not the main point at all. You even went so far as to ban blood transfusions, which of course is just mutilating Scripture like a two-year-old with scissors. You also tried to maintain the Mosaic Law as in presently in force.

The Scriptures say this to your nonsense:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

I have neither forbidden you to marry, nor told you to abstain from food, so it is you who is mutilating this passage to mean that it is permitted for you to drink blood. This topic is concerning the consumption of blood, which includes blood transfusions. Yet because you are a lawless man, who believes that the Law has been discarded, you readily refuse a simply teaching that it is sin to consume blood, even when this command has existed even before the Law was given to Moses, as a command given to Noah when all animals were given to him as food. Shame on you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cgaviria said:

I have neither forbidden you to marry, nor told you to abstain from food, so it is you who is mutilating this passage to mean that it is permitted for you to drink blood. This topic is concerning the consumption of blood, which includes blood transfusions. Yet because you are a lawless man, who believes that the Law has been discarded, you readily refuse a simply teaching that it is sin to consume blood, even when this command has existed even before the Law was given to Moses, as a command given to Noah when all animals were given to him as food. Shame on you!

Among your other problems, it is simply incorrect to say that I advocated drinking blood. I did not. And blood transfusions are not drinking blood no matter how many times you say they are. I can call a pig a cow 100 times, but that won't make a pig into a cow.

And you did teach to abstain from certain foods, foods with any blood in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2017 at 1:02 PM, Nicene Nerd said:

Among your other problems, it is simply incorrect to say that I advocated drinking blood. I did not. And blood transfusions are not drinking blood no matter how many times you say they are. I can call a pig a cow 100 times, but that won't make a pig into a cow.

And you did teach to abstain from certain foods, foods with any blood in them.

Are you so slow to understanding that it is because of the blood that you cannot eat the meat, not because the meat is itself unclean as the scripture was referring to? You must properly drain the meat of all blood, then you may eat it. You, however, are condoning the practice of eating the meat with the blood, which the scriptures have forbidden from even before the Law was given to Moses. It is you who is twisting scripture, and by doing so you are advocating the consumption of blood. Again, shame on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2017 at 10:31 PM, delaMancha said:

How do you reconcile:

with

and still say that the rules about drinking blood were the same before and after the coming of Jesus?  This is the ultimate blood transfusion!

Jesus is literally saying here, "Do one of the things that is expressly forbidden in the old covenant, because you are now part of the new covenant."

At Capernaum Jesus says

And then later at the last supper, he is saying, "You thought I was joking back at Capernaum, about the blood eating.  I was not.  Here is it is, for real. Things are different now."

Drinking blood is a central part of how Jesus conveys his message.  I don't think that means we have to drink the blood of every animal that comes along, but it marks a deep change in the rules.  This is Jesus telling his disciples to do something he knows is forbidden and that he knows will shock them.  He is clearly using these well established old rules and showing how his presence turns them on their head and completely makes them over.  No longer is it forbidden to drink blood; it is required. 

Have you never heard of figurative language and metaphors? Jesus Christ also said, unless you hate father and mother you cannot follow me. Is he saying hate your father and mother, or that you must be willing to give up everything, even perhaps father and mother, for the sake of Jesus Christ? Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ is figurative, not literal, for drinking actual blood is forbidden, hence why this saying was so hard for many to bear,

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60 [NIV])

But if you understood the figurative meaning behind it, then you would readily receive this teaching, while also understanding that drinking blood is still forbidden.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abandoning your filial duty to your parents is forbidden as part of the ten commandments, but Jesus commands it here.  

And he does not say "you must be ready," or "you must be willing" to break your bond with your parents.  He says you must do so.  You must behave in a way that they will experiencence as hate, if you want to follow Christ.  It's a mega hard teaching, and it goes against the old covenant. 

It breaks the old covenant to make a new one.

The old covenant was centered on tribal life, and the observation of rules to show obedience to the rule and supremacy of God.

The new covenant is centered on the blood sacrifice of Jesus, and our participation in that sacrifice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, delaMancha said:

Abandoning your filial duty to your parents is forbidden as part of the ten commandments, but Jesus commands it here.  

And he does not say "you must be ready," or "you must be willing" to break your bond with your parents.  He says you must do so.  You must behave in a way that they will experiencence as hate, if you want to follow Christ.  It's a mega hard teaching, and it goes against the old covenant. 

It breaks the old covenant to make a new one.

The old covenant was centered on tribal life, and the observation of rules to show obedience to the rule and supremacy of God.

The new covenant is centered on the blood sacrifice of Jesus, and our participation in that sacrifice.  

Tell me, in which case would you break away from mother and father, if mother and father were in the assemblies of God with you helping you to spread the gospel, or if mother and father were unbelievers? The answer to this is the answer to the saying, "hate father and mother".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2017 at 10:08 AM, cgaviria said:

Tell me, in which case would you break away from mother and father, if mother and father were in the assemblies of God with you helping you to spread the gospel, or if mother and father were unbelievers? The answer to this is the answer to the saying, "hate father and mother".

The answer is both cases.  As a follower of Chtist, you must break away from your old-covenant responsibilities to your parents, whether they also follow Christ or not.  You can't have a normal, old-covenant relationship with your parents and be a follower of Christ in the new covenant.  

The things that are required to live in the old covenant are not required in, and are not even compatible with living in the new covenant.

You must eat blood.  You must break with your parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2017 at 8:37 PM, delaMancha said:

The answer is both cases.  As a follower of Chtist, you must break away from your old-covenant responsibilities to your parents, whether they also follow Christ or not.  You can't have a normal, old-covenant relationship with your parents and be a follower of Christ in the new covenant.  

The things that are required to live in the old covenant are not required in, and are not even compatible with living in the new covenant.

You must eat blood.  You must break with your parents.

That is not entirely true, because even though Jesus Christ called his mother "woman",

"Woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My hour has not yet come." (John 2:4 [NIV])

Even Jesus Christ said,

He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice." (Luke 8:21 [NIV])

So if your actual mother were to be doing the will of God, then she is of your true family in the Lord, to be as a "mother", irrespective of if she were your actual mother, where you would obviously not separate yourself from her since she is not of your true spiritual family. If she weren't, then yes, you must separate yourself from her, and thus fulfill, "hate mother for my sake". Herein is an example of rightly dividing the word of scripture. Someone who lacks understanding, does not understand this, nor understands that we do not drink actual blood when drinking the wine of the communion of the Lord in violation of the command of God, "you must not drink blood".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About your statement on Jesus using metaphors... when Jesus made metaphors, he always made it clear it was a metaphor. But there, he even says it to be TRUE. It isn't a metaphor. It's the 100% truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 8:42 AM, JohnHoelzeman said:

About your statement on Jesus using metaphors... when Jesus made metaphors, he always made it clear it was a metaphor. But there, he even says it to be TRUE. It isn't a metaphor. It's the 100% truth.

How exactly did He make it clear when He was using a metaphor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now