2

Can Christians still eat meat with blood in it?

The reason given for closing this question does not seem valid. If it was closed due to it being a "Truth" question, I can agree, but being closed as a duplicate does not sit well with me.

I would like to give the following reasons:

  1. The question talks about one specific law as opposed to all the laws
  2. This law in question has been specifically rementioned in the new Testament and that too without any ambiguity. So unlike the other question to which there was no conclusive answer, this question can have a clear quote answer.

Kindly change the reason for closing or reopen it!

2
  • If you're thinking of adding Acts 15:28-29, there is another duplicate
    – GratefulDisciple
    Feb 26, 2020 at 7:14
  • I agree. This is not a question about the Law of Moses. The requirement is for all humanity to abstain from partaking of blood. Henceforth all humanity is to respect that the life is in the blood. And humanity, fallen in Adam, is not to partake of blood. Only a new humanity, in Christ, will partake of blood. 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood' : is a newborn. So I think to class this question as a duplicate of other questions about the Law of Moses - is incorrect. However it might better be asked on Biblical Hermeneutics, I think, as a specific question about that specific text.
    – Nigel J
    Feb 26, 2020 at 7:47

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

I was the one who found that question as a duplicate. Of the two reasons you offer as grounds for reopening, I don't think the first is persuasive - any answer that applies to all the laws will obviously apply to any single law. The second reason is more compelling - the law is at least mentioned in Acts. As GratefulDisciple points out in a comment on the original question, though, there is already a question that addresses this occurrence. I think your question could reasonably be considered a duplicate of either of these, and I stand by my vote.

2

The newer blood question is a clear subset of the older question. This is one case where duplicates are useful, because specific questions are often generalisable. Having this question be closed as a duplicate is generous when strictly speaking it is way off-topic in the first place.

If the OP wants their question to be reopened then they can, but they would have to choose one specific denomination and edit the question to ask about that.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .