Replies

Scripture is so rife with apparent contradictions (I say "apparent") both moral and theological, that the dogmatic certainty of the Church depends largely on the Vincentian canon ("Always, Everywhere, and By All"), taken as evidence of the effective guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Exactly wrong - men cannot seem to keep from bolting on traditions. Reliance upon men is doomed to fail.

What I believe is this:

The Torah must needfully be kept sacrosanct - Yahweh does not change - What He said in the first place will surely be in the end. He has declared it... So allowing an interpretation that confounds the Torah must necessarily be incorrect. Likewise the Prophets, and every single prophecy (Psalms, as an instance - not technically 'Prophets' but overflowing with prophecy) must be preserved as well - They cannot be changed, or Yahweh is a liar and his prophets are false.

Therefore, the OT must inform the NT. If one must be careful to preserve what was said before, freely using interpretation is severely limited.

In this instance, the most glaring error is the absolute prohibition against drinking blood... ANY blood. This is present in almost every covenant, and is passed into the Christians too (in the NT). One may add to that the eating of unclean flesh (eating humans is not kosher).

Your 'sacrament' most decidedly changes what was said from the very beginning, allowing the drinking of blood and eating of human flesh via transubstantiation. It cannot be, according to the OT. Ergo, another interpretation must be sought... One that does not do damage to what has come before.

I think your argument proves too much. If it is always and everywhere wrong to actually eat human flesh and drink human blood (or any blood), even if God tells you otherwise then God as Sovereign lawgiver is quite demoted, since it is (on that account) not within His power or authority to command otherwise.

And if it is an exceptionless norm that even God cannot put aside, then all that business in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles and in Hebrews about not loading the Gentiles with the entire burden of the Mosaic Law is nonsense.

And if flesh-eating / blood-drinking is inherently abominable at all times and in all circumstances, then it would be wrong to do it even symbolically. For instance, if it is wrong for a man to rape your wife, it would be wrong for him to symbolically rape your wife. If it's wrong for a man to sodomize your son, it would be wrong for him to symbolically sodomize your son.

I don't think that, with the best of intentions, you can evade the sheer radical shock of what Christ was proposing when He said "Eat my flesh and drink My blood."

What cannot be in the OT was to be the very center of the NT: the eating and drinking of a slain, sacrificed victim who is none other than the Son of God.