Breaking God’s Law is sin.
That is not me speaking for God. HE declared that to be the case.
He clearly forbids the eating of blood. To do so is sin.
If Jesus had eaten blood, He would have sinned.
There are no if’s and’s or but’s about it. His death is only efficacious because He had no sin.
Tell me what’s wrong with that line of thinking and why instead of just attacking me.
You have igmored the direct words of God in the Bible and assumed that he would commit a sin because you have no faith in his words.
Jesus was very explicit in his words and their meaning, when Jews brought up the same issue of eating flesh and blood and they did not have faith snd stopped following Jesus.
I wished you well on Judgment Day and there was no intention of attacking you. Only trying to challenge your thinking and underdstanding as others have done for me.
John 6
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”a
52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 59These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?* 63It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh* is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.c 65And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. 67Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” 68Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”d 70Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” 71He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve
I really hope that you understand the words of Jesus and accept them.
Fixed it for you. The question is now back to you.
For anyone’s benefit:
At the time of the Mosaic Law (and even during Christ’s and our time) Pagans consumed the blood of goats and bulls to take their life for their own. This is because it’s always been believed that in blood there is life. So life is taken from the shed blood.
To prevent the Jews from becoming like Pagans, and really to prevent them from sinning, which is what a desire to take another life for oneself is (that’s a sin against God for only He has the power to take and give life to another), the Law forbade the consuming of blood of bulls and goats.
So that’s why it’s against the Law. Not just because Pagans did it, but because Pagans did it to take life for their own, which is an affront to God. It’s an affront to God because again, only God has the power to give and take life from one to another.
So here we can see how, even assuming only “if” (for indeed He did) God (Jesus) command us to drink His blood it’s not violating the Law. For it’s not the blood of bulls or goats we drink but His blood. And we do not take it from Him, rather we participate in the same self-sacrifice He made of Himself on Calvary. These are important distinctions to remember.
So we do not break the Law by drinking His blood for we do not take it as our own rather it is given to us. That is, His life is given to us. We dont take it by ourselves (as those who sacrificed bulls and goats took the life of that animal for their own).
We receive His life freely given, and that which is given is received. Not taken. And indeed, it’s His to give as He gives all life. He is the Creator, so He can give life as He wills. This is how he chooses to give us His life. This is how even today we can partake of the same self-sacrifice on Calvary. And not break any Law, but rather fulfill the law.
This is just an apologetic. As no one responded to your post other than the other pinged. I’m not looking for argument, just posting something more than what was posted before, not that His Word is lacking, but rather again only in case someone clicked “View Replies” and sought more understanding.
Did Jesus break Old Testament Law by telling his followers to drink his blood? (cf. Lev 17:10-14)
Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?
Doesn't 1 Corinthians tell us that Jesus' glorified body has no blood?
Did Jesus Receive His Own Body and Blood?
Is the Eucharist Truly Jesus' Body and Blood?
What Catholics Believe about John 6.
These apologetics are pretty much what I said already, but with a few details I missed/screwed up, so the careful reader should read them to get the whole message. The careful reader (of those links) will also note that they address every single issue raised since my original post to metmom, and even some more. Every. Single. One.
So I don't consider my original post to her a waste of time (in case anyone was wondering) as it brought up other issues that should be addressed with this central question, "Is the command to drink His blood a violation of the Law?"
Secondly, as to the "point" that these aren't "official" teachings "of Rome". That objection, quite frankly, is an opportunistic cheap shot meant to deflect the entire work of apologetics. Here's a newsflash: Apologetics aren't dogma, and they never will be. They may DEAL with dogma, or MENTION dogmatic teaching in support of a conclusion, but the work ITSELF, isn't dogma. So if one's objection to all this work (on my part or CA's) is that they aren't "official teachings of Rome" then just say that is your requirement from the outset and don't waste anyone's time seeking mere apologetics.
Thirdly, as to the point that Catholics aren't allowed to speak of Scriptural matters, this is just wrong. So long as we don't invent new ideas that are contrary to established dogma, we are perfectly free to speak of Scriptural matters, and thus offer apologetics. To say otherwise is just wrong.
Fourthly, sorry I guess when I said (later), "What I mean by “anti-Catholic” is that you oppose (not just disagree with but actively oppose) the Catholic Church’s teachings on virtually all her dogmas except I guess the Trinity.", the word "virtually" was lost on some of you. You obviously accept the dogma of the Virgin Birth, the dogma of the Resurrection, the dogma of the Return of Christ (unless you are a Preterist), and the dogma of Heaven.
But you reject the dogma of the Communion of Saints (as defined by the Church, which was my point in the sentence above). (admittedly this is in the Apostles Creed but still..)
You reject the dogma of the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic (note the word "Apostolic" there) Church (as defined by the Church, which was my point in the sentence above).
You reject the dogma of One Baptism for the remission of sins (as defined by the Church, which was my point in the sentence above).
The rest of the Nicene Creed revolves around these dogmas (and the Trinity of course), so it's no "big whoop" to say you agree with the Nicene Creed (because again there are some parts of even that you don't agree with the Catholic Church on and say so, over and over and over and over again). Which is what makes you all (except ADSUM and maybe Springfield Reformer I don't see him too much) "anti-Catholic". The repeated opposition (not just disagreement with but vocal opposition to) Church teachings. Again, in my mind. Just my "humble" opinion. If you disagree, fine, but you might ask yourself, "Why do I care so much if 47 says I'm "anti Catholic"?
Fifthly, like I said to GPH, I'll say to the rest of you just to be clear: I don't believe for one second you intend to offend Catholics personally. I also believe that you all sincerely want to help people. So don't think for one second I'm accusing you of intending to be "personally offensive" by calling you "Anti-Catholic". Again, I absolutely do not believe your intent is to "personally offend".
I just wanted to offer an apologetic (NOT dogma) for the constant question that's always raised of "Is drinking Jesus' blood a violation of the Law"? I'm not interested in going 9 rounds with any anti-Catholic anymore, as it's obvious from the links above (as an example) anytime anyone does a serious objective search to "objections" against the Church, there's ALWAYS an answer to the objections. Then it's just reduced to "No, MY opinion of Scripture is correct".
But that's all it is, just an opinion, no matter how many times the simple claim "Scripture says" is made.
So, go ahead and get the precious "last word" in, if it's so important to you, I don't care. I'm done with this thread.