It is known they did this at least during the second millennium AD, but do you have documentation for this (not that i deny it)?
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.
Wrong. While the the injunction against eating blood was based uoon the premise that blood is sacred, thus promoting the sacredness of life, yet the blood they were forbidden to consume was the blood of animals they had already killed, thus it certainly did not prevent death. Nor was it a sin to kill animals for food or sacrifice, and in which the blood was poured out.
Rather the the injunction against eating blood was against consuming it, as it was only to be sacrificed as an atonement:
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:10-11)
Moreover, your other reason, that the law was because the pagans did it, is one liberals use for moral laws. Do you even have official teaching that argues as you do, or is this just another example of the variety of interpretations RCs can use in seeking to defend Rome?
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.
As your premise is wrong, so is your conclusion. As not even the priest could drink the blood, as it was only to be used as a sacrifice, so Christ's blood was only shed once, and never physically consumed, esp. to gain the life properties of the one being eaten, which is indeed PAGAN, as in consensual endocannibalism .
It is known they did this at least during the second millennium AD, but do you have documentation for this (not that i deny it)?
No I don't at the moment sorry. I think it's pretty common knowledge though that this is even common Pagan belief today though so I'll rest wth that. I'm not too concerned about it in other words.
Wrong. While the the injunction against eating blood was based uoon the premise that blood is sacred, thus promoting the sacredness of life, yet the blood they were forbidden to consume was the blood of animals they had already killed, thus it certainly did not prevent death. Nor was it a sin to kill animals for food or sacrifice, and in which the blood was poured out.
Rather the the injunction against eating blood was against consuming it, as it was only to be sacrificed as an atonement: [cf Lev 17]
You're right in what you say above of course. However please note I never said the Jews consumed the blood of their sacrifices. Also, yes you are correct that the animals sacrificed by the Jews were dead (obviously)
The point remains the same though: that the life from the blood of the animal sacrifices was shed and also offered to God for atonement. (Along with the animal itself). This is because this is all the Jews had to sacrifice (as the Law forbade human sacrifice obviously).
Here we can see (as I imagine you may agree here) a prefigurement or foreshadowing of Christ's One Sacrifice that indeed did atone for all sin.
The Church teaching (where you and others disagree obviously) is that we are able to partake of this one Safrifice at Mass because He continues to offer this one Sacrifice to the Father for continued propitiation of our sin today. The priest, acting "in the person of Christ" joins with this One Sacrifice, representing it in reality today in the present. In this way it's not a reinactment or "re-sacrifice", but a re-presentation of the one Sacrifice. But I digress.
The main points are these:
Jesus isn't an animal.
His blood therefore is not animal blood.
Thus the prohibition of drinking animal blood in the Law is not violated.
Indeed, the very purpose of the animal sacrifice (which again foreshadowed Christ's) is fulfilled in His same self-sacrifice. The fact that the priests of old did not drink the blood of the sacrifice is irrelevant here because they had a prohibition at the time to not drink the blood of the sacrifice (because again it was an animal, and an animal's blood cannot give life). But Christ's blood does bring and give life.
Life that is not taken but received.
Life that is given by God for us, and, being God, He has every right and ability to give life as He chooses.
Thus, while a scandal to those who think with the carnal mind, as can be seen from the reactions of the Jews in John 6, this is actually a source of God's grace, to those who see and hear not with their carnal mind but with the mind of Christ. For the flesh profits nothing, it is the Spirit that gives truth and life. This means exactly as stated. For those who think of Jesus' words in John 6 as "symbolic" or otherwise scandalous, there is no profit. Only when the Spirit is one's teacher do His literal words ring true.
Moreover, your other reason, that the law was because the pagans did it, is one liberals use for moral laws. Do you even have official teaching that argues as you do, or is this just another example of the variety of interpretations RCs can use in seeking to defend Rome?
A point of clarification here if I may: you will please note I did not say "the law was because the Pagans did it", rather I said " Not just because Pagans did it [was it against the Law], but [also] because Pagans did it to take life for their own, which is an affront to God." There is a difference there I think you missed.
Indeed, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing things the same way Pagans have (or do) as long as such things are inherrently good (or at least not objectively evil). Otherwise, we really shouldn't use the names for the days of the week we do commonly, for example, since they are derived from Pagan gods. It's only when something is objectively evil (in other words something that offends God) should we not do it. Taking a life even an animal life, in order to consume its blood is an offense to God because again, only He is the Author of Life, and thus it is not our place to take a life to save our own (except for self defense of course but that's tangential to this point).
As to your last question in the paragraph quoted above: I do not know if this is an "official" teaching of the Church (it's at least not dogmatically defined so I can tell you that). But this general apologetic is from Catholic Answers (just in my own words) if that helps.