Bizarre but serious question

[Ransom]

But the recipients of the letter were gentiles.

That didn't make them biologically incapable of asking a butcher about the provenance of their food.

 

[lnf]

Could it possibly be that we are being too literal in our interpretation of the word "strangled"? 

I don't know, because I neither speak/read the original languages nor am I a great Bible scholar.

But I do wonder if "strangled" is a more general term.  Yes, it would  include "death by strangulation", but it might also include death by disease (or some other unknown cause)...such as "strangles" in horses, which is a type of streptococcal infection.  In other words, if an animal died due to any cause other than purposeful butchering, the meat might be toxic.

It seems to me that, unless there was some religious cult that practiced the rite of animal strangulation (and wouldn't that fall under animals "sacrificed to idols"?), most instances of animal death by strangulation would be purely accidental, and hence, relatively rare.  Of course, I can certainly see some hapless farmer trying to recoup his monetary loss due to the accidental death of his cow by selling its meat.

Anyway, my point is that death by disease or an unknown cause would be more common than accidental death by strangulation.  Since the scriptures make a distinct delineation between "strangled" and "sacrificed to idols",  it must have been a relatively common problem.



     

 

[Ransom]

Could it possibly be that we are being too literal in our interpretation of the word "strangled"? 

Nope. The Greek word refers to killing something by throttling it, without shedding its blood.

By contrast, meat from animals that had been strangled would not have been clean for Jews, because the blood was left in it. Leviticus 17:13-14 seems to imply that the proper way of killing a food animal was to exsanguinate it, and the most efficient way of doing that is by cutting its throat.

It seems to me that, unless there was some religious cult that practiced the rite of animal strangulation (and wouldn't that fall under animals "sacrificed to idols"?), most instances of animal death by strangulation would be purely accidental, and hence, relatively rare.

There were religious cults that sacrificed animals by strangulation, and it's quite possible that the apostles had something like that in mind. It could well be also that many Gentiles routinely killed animals in this way - think of wringing the neck of a bird, for example - and attached no moral significance to it, whereas there was a theological rationale given in the Scriptures for avoiding eating meat with the blood still in it: "the life is in the blood."

Anyway, my point is that death by disease or an unknown cause would be more common than accidental death by strangulation.

Jews would also have avoided eating animals that were killed accidentally (Lev. 17:15).

 

[lnf]

Could it possibly be that we are being too literal in our interpretation of the word "strangled"? 

Nope. The Greek word refers to killing something by throttling it, without shedding its blood.

By contrast, meat from animals that had been strangled would not have been clean for Jews, because the blood was left in it. Leviticus 17:13-14 seems to imply that the proper way of killing a food animal was to exsanguinate it, and the most efficient way of doing that is by cutting its throat.

It seems to me that, unless there was some religious cult that practiced the rite of animal strangulation (and wouldn't that fall under animals "sacrificed to idols"?), most instances of animal death by strangulation would be purely accidental, and hence, relatively rare.

There were religious cults that sacrificed animals by strangulation, and it's quite possible that the apostles had something like that in mind. It could well be also that many Gentiles routinely killed animals in this way - think of wringing the neck of a bird, for example - and attached no moral significance to it, whereas there was a theological rationale given in the Scriptures for avoiding eating meat with the blood still in it: "the life is in the blood."

Anyway, my point is that death by disease or an unknown cause would be more common than accidental death by strangulation.

Jews would also have avoided eating animals that were killed accidentally (Lev. 17:15).

Thank you, Ransom.  You have answered all of my questions regarding this issue.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The commandment is nonsensical in many ways. James "the Just" didn't know what he was doing.

Law of Yeezy #1: Yeezy is never wrong. Ever.
Corollary #1: Anyone who contradicts What Yeezy Thinks is not merely wrong, but morally and/or intellectually deficient.

Law of the Grumpy Curmudgeon #1: Ransom is never wrong. Ever.
Corollary #1: Anyone who contradicts what "Grumpy" thinks is not merely wrong, but morally and/or intellectually deficient.

Notice I fixed your mistake with 'What" and "Thinks".

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with my question.  How would they know in the meat market which meat came from strangled animals?

I imagine that an ethical Jew concerned about whether his food was kosher would ask. Or, since butchery wasn't performed in factories, he might have observed the butchers' practices for himself and known which ones to avoid.

But the recipients of the letter were gentiles.

He's ignoring the obvious problem with such commandments.

Ransom..... do you actually follow the ritual cleansing practiced by the Jew?

I dare say.... no one hear follows the commandments of...

Act 15:20  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 21:25  As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

I'll have a medium rare steak as often as I like. I don't feel bad about it at all.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I'll have a medium rare steak as often as I like. I don't feel bad about it at all.

MEDIUM rare?  Rare is where it's at, dude.

 

[Ransom]

I dare say.... no one hear [sic] follows the commandments of...

You may dare, but as usual you would be wrong.

I don't have anything to do with idolatrous practices, I don't fornicate, I don't eat strangled animals so far as I am aware, and I don't eat blood.

'll have a medium rare steak as often as I like. I don't feel bad about it at all.

The red juice that comes out of raw or rare red meat isn't blood. It's water coloured with myoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in the muscle tissue. The blood was drained from the animal when it was slaughtered.

It must be embarrassing for you to think you've just posted a "gotcha" moment, only to be defeated by the inconvenient facts of food science.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't have anything to do with idolatrous practices, I don't fornicate, I don't eat strangled animals so far as I am aware, and I don't eat blood.

There were no exception for "not being aware". Ignorance isn't a defense for breaking a commandment.

The red juice that comes out of raw or rare red meat isn't blood. It's water coloured with myoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in the muscle tissue. The blood was drained from the animal when it was slaughtered.

It must be embarrassing for you to think you've just posted a "gotcha" moment, only to be defeated by the inconvenient facts of food science.

Food science? I'm aware of what you've described. However, I'm aware that some blood still resides in the meat of most any animal. While myoglobin is prevalent. There isn't any such thing as blood being total absent. In fact, read this government description of measuring added blood in ground meat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/993176

Also, you're not a Jew nor have you really studied Kosher practices. Meat must be salted and soaked to remove ALL traces of blood from the meat before it can be cooked. In the case of "liver".... it generally must be cut open and broiled extensively before it can be eaten.

I'm not embarrassed at all. You must not understand the culture. An orthodox Jew certainly doesn't care what you think about "food science".

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't have anything to do with idolatrous practices, I don't fornicate, I don't eat strangled animals so far as I am aware, and I don't eat blood.

There were no exception for "not being aware". Ignorance isn't a defense for breaking a commandment.

The red juice that comes out of raw or rare red meat isn't blood. It's water coloured with myoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in the muscle tissue. The blood was drained from the animal when it was slaughtered.

It must be embarrassing for you to think you've just posted a "gotcha" moment, only to be defeated by the inconvenient facts of food science.

Food science? I'm aware of what you've described. However, I'm aware that some blood still resides in the meat of most any animal. While myoglobin is prevalent. There isn't any such thing as blood being total absent. In fact, read this government description of measuring added blood in ground meat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/993176

Also, you're not a Jew nor have you really studied Kosher practices. Meat must be salted and soaked to remove ALL traces of blood from the meat before it can be cooked. In the case of "liver".... it generally must be cut open and broiled extensively before it can be eaten.

I'm not embarrassed at all. You must not understand the culture. An orthodox Jew certainly doesn't care what you think about "food science".

True.  Hence Kosher salt.  The salt itself is not kosher.  It's salt used to make meat kosher by removing any leftover blood.

 

[Ransom]

There were no exception for "not being aware".

"Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience" (1 Corintians 10:25).

This has already been asked and answered. Pay attention.

There isn't any such thing as blood being total absent.

Well, then, I guess there's no such thing as kosher meat. Or perhaps more realistically, a particle of common sense prevails in the world outside your self-important infallible skull, and the law concerning not eating meat with blood in it doesn't mean removing every last molecule of the stuff.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This has already been asked and answered. Pay attention.

James didn't set forth that exception. Not in Acts 15 or later in Acts when he referenced it once again. You're conflating what Paul said with what James said..... much like a good rabid KJVOist that can't make a solid argument for much of anything.

Well, then, I guess there's no such thing as kosher meat. Or perhaps more realistically, a particle of common sense prevails in the world outside your self-important infallible skull, and the law concerning not eating meat with blood in it doesn't mean removing every last molecule of the stuff.

If you follow kosher practices, then the blood in the meat can be removed. You're one that says there isn't any blood left. You're the one lying. You're the one that made the mistake. Don't twist what I said.

Here... read your words again...

he red juice that comes out of raw or rare red meat isn't blood. It's water coloured with myoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in the muscle tissue. The blood was drained from the animal when it was slaughtered.

Eat crow....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I repeat (from Wikipedia, but you can find this anywhere):

The term "kosher salt" comes from its use in making meats kosher by removing surface blood, not from its being made in accordance with the guidelines for kosher foods as written in the Torah, as nearly all salt is kosher, including ordinary table salt.

There is blood in meat, and salt is used to remove whatever is possible to remove.  There's probably still some left in the meat. 

Coincidentally, I made corned beef from scratch a month or two ago.  You brine it (with kosher salt and other spices) for about 10 days.  Unless you use a potassium nitrate, the meat ends up gray.  But this is a myoglobin thing, not hemoglobin. 

 

[Ransom]

James didn't set forth that exception. Not in Acts 15 or later in Acts when he referenced it once again. You're conflating what Paul said with what James said..... much like a good rabid KJVOist that can't make a solid argument for much of anything.

Asked and answered.

You're one that says there isn't any blood left.

. . . said Yeezy, responding to a post where I said it was impossible to remove every last trace of blood from meat.

Hello from Planet Reality, Yeezy. How's the weather wherever you are?

 

[praise_yeshua]

James didn't set forth that exception. Not in Acts 15 or later in Acts when he referenced it once again. You're conflating what Paul said with what James said..... much like a good rabid KJVOist that can't make a solid argument for much of anything.

Asked and answered.

You're one that says there isn't any blood left.

. . . said Yeezy, responding to a post where I said it was impossible to remove every last trace of blood from meat.

Hello from Planet Reality, Yeezy. How's the weather wherever you are?

Here. I'll post it again for you. You're ignoring what you said and selectively quoting what I said.

the red juice that comes out of raw or rare red meat isn't blood. It's water coloured with myoglobin, the oxygen-binding protein in the muscle tissue. The blood was drained from the animal when it was slaughtered.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I repeat (from Wikipedia, but you can find this anywhere):

The term "kosher salt" comes from its use in making meats kosher by removing surface blood, not from its being made in accordance with the guidelines for kosher foods as written in the Torah, as nearly all salt is kosher, including ordinary table salt.

There is blood in meat, and salt is used to remove whatever is possible to remove.  There's probably still some left in the meat. 

Coincidentally, I made corned beef from scratch a month or two ago.  You brine it (with kosher salt and other spices) for about 10 days.  Unless you use a potassium nitrate, the meat ends up gray.  But this is a myoglobin thing, not hemoglobin.

Ultimately, the meat used in your average restaurant hasn't had enough blood removed using "kosher methods" to qualify for consumption based on Acts 15.

Liver is consider having too much blood to qualify for consumption without placing deep cuts into the live so as to remove all the blood through broiling.

None kosher meats has too much blood to consume and liver must be cooked well to remove all the blood possible from it.

 

[Ransom]

Here. I'll post it again for you. You're ignoring what you said and selectively quoting what I said.

In his valiant but utterly futile attempt to prove he is a reasonable person, Yeezy follows up with "Proof by Literalism Taken to Absurd Extremes."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Here. I'll post it again for you. You're ignoring what you said and selectively quoting what I said.

In his valiant but utterly futile attempt to prove he is a reasonable person, Yeezy follows up with "Proof by Literalism Taken to Absurd Extremes."

Sure "Grumpy"... sure..

 

[Bo]

strangled comes from the greek word "pniktos"....meaning --what is strangled, i.e. an animal deprived of life without the shedding of blood

maybe it is to say an animal that was not drained of the blood before cooked?  or not properly drained of blood or "cooked out" during the cooking process......?

 

[Ransom]

maybe it is to say an animal that was not drained of the blood before cooked?  or not properly drained of blood or "cooked out" during the cooking process......?

And you are basing this speculation on what?