Blood and Food

by Lampokey 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Lampokey

  I am well aware of JW doctrine concerning blood and its foundations in Acts 15:20.

  I am also well aware of how much discussion this has provoked.

  Could ex , or current , JW's comment on one aspect of this please :

  The ban on blood seems unequivocal and would seem not to leave any room for compromising.

  In that case , would eating a piece of red meat be in violation of JW's beliefs?

  Presumably , it would , as even a well-cooked piece of meat would contain blood molecules.Have any JW's raised this point with their congration's elders?

  If so , what was the response?

  Thank you
• 

  stillajwexelder

  That is interesting. I once dined with a PO and had deer meat - he said be careful brother that is not usually bled properly. I then had dinner with aCO and had prime rib very rare with plenty of blood showing - he said I like your style brother, that is the only way to eat prime rib -anything more than medium rare is over-cooked -- so I do not know the official WTBTS stance - if I had very rare prime rib with a GB member - would I get DFd - not sure?
• 

  Leolaia

  More to the point, the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians conditionally permitted the eating of meat sacrificed to idols (in contrast to Acts 15, the Didache, and Revelation where it is forbidden). Such meat, offered in pagan Greco-Roman worship, would have definitely have been objectionable to the Mosaic Law for not having the blood poured out. Paul did not object to the eating of blood, that was not his concern. He was concerned instead with those who might be weak in the faith and be induced to idolatry.

  So much for "abstaining from blood" being an inviolable Christian "law".
• 

  myelaine

  Is beef gravy o.k.?
• 

  Wallflower

  Perhaps you are allowed to eat blood in meat if all the blood factions are seperated. ?!?!
• 

  Gill

  I remember a talk at one assembly quite a few years ago now where the speaker said that if we ate meat that was cooked rare it showed we had no respect for blood as it was all over our plate so we should only eat well cooked meat.

  Wasn't there a passage in the bible where some Israelites were killed for not bleeding and then not cooking their meat well enough?
• 

  Freedom Fighter

  Hi Gill and Lampokey
  
  
  Hello and a warm welcome to the board!
  
  
  Does anyone remember that crazy myth that blood was involved in the production of the Galaxy chocolate bar?
  
  I used to wave one at my mum and she would act as if it was made of Kryptonite...
  
  
  Also, up here we have a very healthy (!!???) fried delicacy (although I use the word delicacy loosely here) called black pudding. It supposedly contains traces of blood so was always a big no-no. It always amazed me how wee slices of black stuff could cause so much distress to so many people.....
  
  
  
  
• 

  Narkissos

  Wasn't there a passage in the bible where some Israelites were killed for not bleeding and then not cooking their meat well enough?

  You probably think of 1 Samuel 14:31ff, following Saul's oath "not to eat before victory":

  After they had struck down the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon, the troops were very faint; so the troops flew upon the spoil, and took sheep and oxen and calves, and slaughtered them on the ground; and the troops ate them with the blood. Then it was reported to Saul, "Look, the troops are sinning against the LORD by eating with the blood." And he said, "You have dealt treacherously; roll a large stone before me here." Saul said, "Disperse yourselves among the troops, and say to them, 'Let all bring their oxen or their sheep, and slaughter them here, and eat; and do not sin against the LORD by eating with the blood.' " So all of the troops brought their oxen with them that night, and slaughtered them there. And Saul built an altar to the LORD; it was the first altar that he built to the LORD.

  But here the expression translated as "with the blood" actually means "over (or near) the blood": it probably refers not to "unbled meat" but to some ancient ritual which the intends to condemn, or merely to the act of eating on the very spot of the slaughter (which usually implies bleeding btw). No reference is made to the cooking.
• 

  Gordy

  Having been in the meat trade and a JW. I know that not all blood can be removed from a slaughtered animal, up to 50% can remain. God never asked for ALL of it to be removed. It is JW's and their fanatical thinking that causes the problems. What struck me strange was that some JW's would pick out red coloured sweets from their childrens packets because they were coloured with cochineal (made from crushed beetle). Yet would give their child a piece of meat that probably contained a thousand times a much blood as the sweet did.

  Freedom Fighter

  called black pudding, It supposedly contains traces of blood

  As someone who worked in the meat trade for 25 years, I can tell you that Black Pudding didn't contain "traces of blood" it was practically all blood. It is made from pigs blood boiled with oats, barley, fat and spices. I've seen large vats of it being made and traditionally then put into skins, like sausages, made from the intestines of cattle. Though they now use a synthetic skin.

  Narkissos

  The scripture in 1 Sam 14:31-35 "ate them with the blood" uses the Hebrew words "'akal" meaning to eat, devour, consume, and "dawm" meaning blood. So its quite clear that the people did eat the blood of the animals. But what is interesting is that though they had broken a Jewish law on blood, no one was punished for it. No one was disfellowshipped or killed.
• 

  Narkissos

  The scripture in 1 Sam 14:31-35 "ate them with the blood" uses the Hebrew words "'akal" meaning to eat, devour, consume, and "dawm" meaning blood. So its quite clear that the people did eat the blood of the animals.

  Nope. 'kl `al haddam doesn't mean "eating blood" anymore than "eating on the table" means "eating the table". "To eat" is "to eat", "blood" is "blood", but "eating on something" is not the same as "eating something". The preposition changes the meaning, and dam is not the object of 'kl.

  This is obviously an ancient taboo, which is also reflected in Leviticus 19:26 (same expression, although most translations miss the meaning). Many believe it originally referred to a practice of eating the sacrifice on the very spot where the animal was killed and its blood poured, for the sake of divination and communication with the underworld. (See for instance the footnotes of the Jerusalem Bible, if they are similar to those in the French original edition.)