Leviticus 11:7,8 say not to eat pork. Leviticus 11:9 says you can't eat crab / lobster. Jesus says it doesn't matter what you eat. Matthew 15:10,11 NIV: ***Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”*** My question is, what is the logic in scripture for this? Why is God explicitly saying we shouldn't eat these things and then Jesus is saying it's not a sin to eat these things really, like I'm really confused on the correlation. Is Jesus suggesting that we *can* eat these things but we *shouldn't*?

I do not recall any discussion of the consumption of blood in the LCMS church I grew up in. According to Wikipedia, the Catholic Church decided that consumption of blood is OK for Christians (excepting during fasts, of course). Within Protestant circles, I have heard different ideas, but I'm not sure what the overall teaching is for most denominations. Wikipedia didn't give much information on whether any denominations/traditions forbid eating blood in the modern day. It does report that many of the Church Fathers taught that eating blood is not allowed for Christians. To be clear, I am not asking about who is right or wrong on this issue, nor what reasoning leads to the different conclusions (though this is definitely interesting!). I'm just asking for a survey of major denominations, or prominent non-denominational pastors, which forbid blood. I am also not asking about the consumption of blood that Real Presence implies happens during Holy Communion; that is a different issue.

I am a hindu secularist and am trying to study all the major religions of the world Upon studying Moses' 10 commandments I found the fifth commandment: > Thou shalt not kill So why does christians kill animals and eat meat? Biologically it is logical as christians in the medieval era had to endure the winter's cold and during the winter there was no other food source than meat but atleast the religion should allow it Also another commandment: > Thou shalt not steal Also supports this argument as killing animals means stealing their vitality and nutrients for your own consumption. [ I am not writing this out of some kind of hatred against meat-eaters, even though I am a hindu, I am a non-vegetarian ]

Can anyone link me to a source for Christian meal foods that can be linked to a particular day in the life of Jesus and particular events in the lives of Christian saints. In the event that such sources do not exist can anyone point out if such cases are adequately known to exist? Allow me to make three suggestions as to what I am getting at. - 1. At Easter, it is traditional amongst some Christian to eat lamb in remembrance that Chris the Lamb of God rose from the dead. - 2. The day after Jesus's resurrection Jesus ate broiled fish and honey from the comb. That is right on Easter Monday. (Luke 24:42-43) - 3. On the fourth Friday of Lent, in Oaxaca,Oaxaca, Mexico there is celebration of the [Samaritan woman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_woman_at_the_well) who gave water to Jesus. The Catholic Church has this part of the Gospel read at mass this day. The custom of the day involves churches, schools and even businesses to give passers-by water and fruit drinks in honour of the biblical events recounted this day at mass. I am not limiting this to events of the New Testament, but may be from the lives of saints. I welcome input from any Christian denominations

Some creatures, such as locusts and oysters, have hemolymph that serves the same purpose as what we normally call blood. Do any historical sources (from early church history, for example) address whether hemolymph qualifies as lifeblood, which Genesis 9:6 and Acts 15:20, 28–29 forbids from consumption?

Among the religious organizations and sources that discourage blood consumption, do any extend the principle to hemolymph, the equivalent of blood in creatures such as locusts and oysters? While organizations that require a kosher diet would prohibit shellfish already, even kosher diets include locusts, so this question is applicable to any denomination or other source that discourages blood consumption.

I drink animal blood strictly for health reasons. As far as I am concerned, it is integral to being **extremely healthy**, and not just moderately more healthy than normal. I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of that perspective here. What I am interested in is how that affects my Catholic Faith. Some have mentioned that there is a reaffirmed prohibition on the consumption of blood in Catholicism: > Acts 15:20 "abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood." But the reading of that being literal seems to miss the mark. It seems to be more about the ritualistic or symbolic blood or Cannibalism, rather than say "Korean Blood Sausage" or "Blood Pudding" or drinking that from a freshly butchered animal. I am not sure if I am prepared to put my personal health below Catholic teaching. If they forced me to be a vegetarian for example, I simply would not convert, or rather I would convert with every intention to break that hypothetical commandment every day. So for Catholics, what are the relevant technicalities to my dilemna here? If I were to become a Catholic, and then subsequently consumed animal blood for health reasons, would I then have to go to confession? Could I be excommunicated from the church for doing so insolong as my genuine belief was that this was for my health and longevity? Obviously there is blood in a rare steak; but I have not heard that the consumption of this as being a problem in Catholicism. Has this been ruled against officially or included as part of their catechism in any particular context?

I have never read in the bible whether eating of unclean meat as described in the Old Testament where it is allowed to eat "unclean meat" or unclean meat is now clean meat. Except for one vision from Peter where the vision orders him to "eat unclean meat" however, this is clearly not literal as the context is for Peter to preach unto the Gentiles: > Acts 10: > > (17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men > sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the > gate. (18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was > staying there. > > (22) The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is > a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish > people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that > he could hear what you have to say.” (23) Then Peter invited the men > into the house to be his guests. Other verses in the bible tells "all foods are clean" however we should take note that it says nothing about "all meats are clean", food is totally different word from meat. **Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?** **UPDATE:** And what could be it's relation to Isaiah 66:17 which states: > Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the > gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the > abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. (NKJV) Which by deduction *swine flesh* as described in this verse refers to unclean meat, and the verse says, those who eat these *Shall be consumed together* which by deduction again means, AFAIK, refers to the end of the world. So in other words, those who consume unclean meat shall perish together in the end of the world, which basically puts the interpretation of Acts 10:17-118, 22-23 in question: "It's okay to eat unclean meat as interpreted in the vision but doing so will cause you perish in the end" -- a questionable argument. **So I have two concrete questions here:** 1. Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally? 2. *Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally* and eating unclean meat is okay as it is already clean when there is verse in Isaiah 66:17 which conflicts with the interpretation? Answers in the views of [protestantism] would be appreciated.

I know the Seventh Day Adventist church is known for following certain Old Testament laws found in Leviticus such as the food/dietary laws. However I'm also under the impression that they don't follow all 600+ Levitical laws either. Is there a reason why they follow certain Levitical laws like food/dietary but don't follow others, such as wearing clothing made of two different materials (Lev 19:19) or cutting the hair at the sides (Lev 19:17)? To what extent do they keep the laws?

I have a friend, a Jehovah's Witness, with whom I shared a childhood neighborhood and school up until junior high. I recall our school in Sweden sometimes serving dishes like blood pudding. In such instances, alternate meals were provided for him and also some Muslim classmates. I asked him about this recently and he said that JWs refrain from consuming blood due to prohibitions found in the Bible, such as Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28-29. He said meat can normally contain traces of blood but if blood was drained after the animal was killed, they can eat the meat. They would not consume products were blood was explicitly added. Here are the Bible scriptures, from King James Version **Genesis 9:3,4 ** > Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the > green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life > thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. **Acts 15:28,29 ** > For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no > greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats > offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from > fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare > ye well. I noticed that Christadelphians share many of the same views as JWs so wanted to ask about their view. What is the Christadelphian view on eating products containing blood?

I understand that LDS members are encouraged to build and maintain a long-term supply of food and other essentials. From where did this teaching originate and what is the reasoning behind this practice? What is the prevalent "target" that one is encouraged to achieve? Does this have anything to do with LDS end-times theology?

In Matthew 15 , we read: > [Jesus] called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone." We see in Mark's account that "thus He declared all foods clean." Now, when we move to James and the church elders in Acts 15, we find them writing a letter in which, among other things, they impose food requirements on the Gentile churches: > For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Do these statements contradict, or can they be correlated? If they contradict, then who gave James and the elders the authority to overrule the teachings of Jesus?

Is anyone aware of any special symbolic significance of Jesus eating *specifically* fish and honeycomb while showing his disciples he was not "a spirit" when he appeared to them (and somewhat scared them) after his resurrection in [Luke 24:42-43](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A42-43&version=KJV) ?

As Isaiah 66:15-24 contains a prophecy for the end times does Isaiah 66:17 (ESV): > “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, > following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and > mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord. Does this mean that eating pork is **still** banned? or does this mean that those who pretend to uphold the law yet still break it are going to be punished?

I know this question is quite odd - but I would like to know of possible explanations for why the old and new covenants are so centered around food? The last supper, the bread of the presence, the manna and quail, etc. it seems like it bears a lot of significance and I want to know if there have been any reasons offered as why.

After the flood, in Genesis 9:2-3, God gives humans permission to begin eating animals. We are finding traces of human civilization going back tens of thousands of years for Native Americans, so they must have gotten to the Americas before the flood. If the flood was local and in the last 10,000 years, then when did the Native Americans and people on other continents switch to eating animal meat?

I am currently ordering a batch of exotic meats from a wholesaler. The meat includes Buffalo, Wild Boar, Kangaroo, Horse, Venison, Zebra, Crocodile, Elk, Ostrich, Reindeer, Frog, Rabbit, Snail, Pigeon, Squirrel, Camel. The problem is that I can't get my mother to agree to eat any of it, as she says that the Bible explicitly prohibits people from eating unclean animals (Deut 14:3-10, Lev 11:3-4).

Acts 15:28 and 29 tells us that basically all of the old law covenant is no longer to be observed except: >Acts 15:28 KJV For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; Are Christians under obligation to avoid any or all of those 4 things today? >Acts 15:29 KJV That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Most religions are in agreement that sexual immorality (fornication) should be avoided. Of particular interest is what it meant in ancient times to abstain from blood and what it means now in modern times to abstain from blood. As far as I know only the Jehovahs Witnesses refuse blood transfusing for religious reasons. I would like **an overview of mainstream Christian groups' interpretation of this scripture**, in light of the vastly different conditions we have now with most of us never being involved in the slaughter of the animals we consume, in addition to the many medical therapies that involve blood and fractions thereof. **Edit** Answers should specifically state what various denominations teach regarding abstinence from blood. What must adherents of denomination X do or not do to demonstrate they are abstaining from blood?

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/90239 and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83864 ask about what early Christians *believed* with respect to Jewish dietary laws. I want to ask a related question: are there any records of *actual practice*? In particular, are there any records that early Christian converts did any of the following: - Began to eat non-Kosher foods (pork, shellfish, meat cooked in milk, etc.) when they had not done so previously. (Especially interesting if any *Jewish* converts did so.) - *Stopped* eating non-Kosher foods when they had done so previously. (Would presumably apply only to Gentile converts for obvious reasons.) - Ate non-Kosher foods previously and continued to do so. (Again, presumably applies only to Gentiles.) As there was not necessarily uniformity of practice, valid answers might have examples of any or all of the above. Please refer to the referenced questions for relevant theology; here I am only asking about *what* actually happened, not *why*. (This has incomplete overlap with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/52717 . That asks about Christians *at any time* that *do* follow Kosher. I am asking about early Christians specifically, and both ones that do *and do not* follow Kosher.)

In the Early Church, we see statements suggesting that the dietary laws of clean/unclean meats from Old Testament passages such as Leviticus 11 are no longer binding. For example: > As for their [the Jews'] scrupulousness about meats, and their superstitions about the Sabbath, and their much-vaunted circumcision, and their pretentious festivals and new-moon observances...I hardly think you need instruction from me. For how can it be anything but impious to accept some of the things which God has created for our use and assert their creation to have been commendable, but to reject others as being needless and good-for-nothing? (*Letter to Diognetus*, 4). Similarly, the *Letter of Barnabus* contains a passage understanding the unclean meats as symbolic in modern application: > And now for that saying of Moses, You are not to eat of swine; nor yet of eagle, hawk, or crow; nor of any fish that has not got scales. In this there are three distinct moral precepts which he had received and understood. (For God says in Deuteronomy, I will make a covenant with this people that will embody my rules for holiness; so, you see, the divine command is in no sense a literal ban on eating, and Moses was speaking spiritually.) The meaning of his allusion to swine is this: what he is really saying is, 'you are not to consort with the class of people who are like swine, inasmuch as they forget all about the Lord while they are living in affluence, but remember him when they are in want--just as a swine, so long as it is eating, ignores its master, but starts to squeal the moment it feels hungry...In these dietary laws, then, Moses was taking three moral maxims and expounding them spiritually, though the Jews, with their carnal instincts. took him to be referring literally to foodstuffs. (*Letter of Barnabas*, 10). However, are there any sources from the early church that would disagree? While the quotations above *oppose* the binding of kosher dietary laws, do any sources *support* the kosher practice? I'm looking specifically for quotations from the early church period that require Christians to observe dietary distinctions between clean and unclean meats (as opposed to quotes regarding vegetarianism or other such diets). **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83864/did-any-of-the-early-church-fathers-believe-they-had-to-follow-dietary-laws/83882#83882 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/67332/do-paul-and-the-other-apostles-command-the-keeping-of-kosher-diet-in-acts-1529