1. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 22:14
    God's view of ones blood compared to any other part of a human body is different. In God's eyes it is the life of that person.

    “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11)
    For like reason, but making the connection even more direct, the Bible says: “The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Le 17:14) Clearly, God’s Word treats both life and blood as sacred.

    One has to understand what blood means to God and the sacredness of it. This is the main reason he had that law set the very first time man was allowed to kill and eat the meat of animals.
    Plus God in his wisdom knew the dangerous health issues that blood can have on humans that can even cause death that we see today.
    So if one understands that ones life is in their blood, we have no right as humans to overstep God's commands. We have no right to put ones blood or their life into another human. We ar designed by God, belong to him and have to respect the life process that he has given us and understands much more then we will ever know..
  2. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    05 Sep '12 22:20
    Originally posted by galveston75
    God's view of ones blood compared to any other part of a human body is different. In God's eyes it is the life of that person.

    “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11)
    For like reason, but ...[text shortened]... pect the life process that he has given us and understands much more then we will ever know..
    By "soul of the flesh" is it meant that humans have a flesh soul and some other type of (mind?) soul?
    If yes please define what a flesh soul is; and if no would that mean if, say, we get blood poisoning we also get soul poisoning too?
  3. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 22:471 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    By "soul of the flesh" is it meant that humans have a flesh soul and some other type of (mind?) soul?
    If yes please define what a flesh soul is; and if no would that mean if, say, we get blood poisoning we also get soul poisoning too?
    The soul according to the bible is our fleshly body and all it's parts. It is not the spirit which is simply our life force that makes us alive instead of being dead. This life force or spirit from God is in all living things.
  4. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    05 Sep '12 23:051 edit
    Originally posted by galveston75
    The soul according to the bible is our fleshly body and all it's parts. It is not the spirit which is simply our life force that makes us alive instead of being dead. This life force or spirit from God is in all living things.
    Ok...lets make that substitution then...

    “For the [fleshly body and all it's parts] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your [fleshly bodies and all their parts], because it is the blood that makes atonement by the [fleshly body and all it's parts] in it.” (Le 17:11)

    Looks a bit dodgy if you ask me (can't think of any textual approximation to "fleshly body and all it's parts" that fares any better)...are you sure your definition is correct?
  5. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:131 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Ok...lets make that substitution then...

    “For the [fleshly body and all it's parts] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your [fleshly bodies and all their parts], because it is the blood that makes atonement by the [fleshly body and all it's parts] in it.” (Le 17:11)

    Looks a bit dodgy if yo body and all it's parts" that fares any better)...are you sure your definition is correct?
    That scripture is correct.

    Another scripture for you...

    Leviticus 17:14
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    14 for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’
  6. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:201 edit
    Leviticus 17:10-11
    Good News Translation (GNT)

    10 If any Israelites or any foreigners living in the community eat meat with blood still in it, the Lord will turn against them and no longer consider them his people. 11 The life of every living thing is in the blood, and that is why the Lord has commanded that all blood be poured out on the altar to take away the people's sins. Blood, which is life, takes away sins.

    Cross references:Leviticus 17:10 : Gen 9:4; Lev 7:26; Lev 7:27; Lev 19:26; Deut 12:16; Deut 12:23; Lev 15:23Leviticus 17:11 : Heb 9:22

    There was never any use of blood approved by God other then in the use of sacrificail events, otherwise it was to be immediately pour out onto the ground.
  7. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:23
    Under the Christian arrangement.

    The governing body of the first-century Christian congregation, under the direction of the holy spirit, ruled on the matter of blood. Their decree states: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining 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. Good health to you!” (Ac 15:22, 28, 29) The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it (“things strangled&rdquo😉.
  8. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:25
    Even today the prohibition of eating blood is still recognized in some quarters. For example, the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, published in 1982, states: “The implication seems very clear that we are still to respect the sanctity of the blood, since God has appointed it to be a symbol of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is not to be consumed by any believer who wishes to be obedient to Scripture.”
  9. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:28
    This decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—Italics his.
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    05 Sep '12 23:28
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Under the Christian arrangement.

    The governing body of the first-century Christian congregation, under the direction of the holy spirit, ruled on the matter of blood. Their decree states: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to ido ...[text shortened]... u!” (Ac 15:22, 28, 29) The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it (“things strangled&rdquo😉.
    Not to undercut the many posters who have said this before myself but the context in every damned one of these scriptures is eating. Are you aware that when blood transfusions are performed, the patient doesn't actually eat anything?
  11. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:29
    Tertullian wrote: “Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy.” Whereas pagans consumed blood, Tertullian said that Christians “do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them.”
  12. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    05 Sep '12 23:31
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Even today the prohibition of eating blood is still recognized in some quarters.
    Acts 15:28-29
    New Living Translation (NLT)

    28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”

    I can see how the bible makes a prohibition of eating blood. But a blood transfusion is not "eating blood".
  13. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:34
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Not to undercut the many posters who have said this before myself but the context in every damned one of these scriptures is eating. Are you aware that when blood transfusions are performed, the patient doesn't actually [b]eat anything?[/b]
    More then you would know, I understand that completely. Blood is given to sustain life but also if one cannot eat for themselves they are fed intravenously. Both would of course be used to sustain life, but the bible does not condemn being fed a food substance in that way. No principles or laws to suggest otherwise.
    But the Bible is extreemly clear on the use of blood and how god views it.
  14. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    05 Sep '12 23:37
    Originally posted by galveston75
    More then you would know, I understand that completely. Blood is given to sustain life but also if one cannot eat for themselves they are fed intravenously. Both would of course be used to sustain life, but the bible does not condemn being fed a food substance in that way. No principles or laws to suggest otherwise.
    But the Bible is extreemly clear on the use of blood and how god views it.
    What reference to being "fed intravenously" does the bible in fact make?
  15. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    05 Sep '12 23:37
    Originally posted by FMF
    Acts 15:28-29
    New Living Translation (NLT)

    28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 [b]You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals
    , and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”

    I can se ...[text shortened]... the bible makes a prohibition of eating blood. But a blood transfusion is not "eating blood".[/b]
    Is it not used to sustain life just as food is used? Again God says to "abstain" from it. No execptions were ever spoken of by god for it's use.
    The blood in every living thing belongs to God. It is not ours to use at all for anything.
Back to Top