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.
I would also add that that this was not the first time that Christ upset the apple cart by changing OT thinking. He worked on the Sabbath by doing good and healing on the Sabbath. There were Jews that took issue with that and didn’t follow Him, but He didn’t change the message.
So it is with Christ’s reference to drinking His blood: it too broke with tradition. In this instance He wasn’t merely talking about animal or human blood. He was talking about His Blood. Something new and entirely different.
And yes, some Jews couldn’t handle that either...and they too walked away.
But He didn’t change the message.
But that is precisely the point - He wouldn't tell you otherwise - He said in the beginning that He WOULDN'T say otherwise... That He never changes... And that, if ANYONE comes 'telling you otherwise', then that person is definitively a false prophet- So it is inherent that what was said first, what was said before, must hold more weight than what was said after. If after seems to change what was said before, then the interpretation is probably at fault, because YHWH cannot be made to be a liar.
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.
It IS nonsense - that is, the way it is interpreted cannot be right. And to think otherwise flies in the face of Yeshua's explicit commandment to do and teach the Torah. Nowhere can He be found changing the Torah, and in fact, all he did sent people back to the Torah, and away from the law (of the Pharisees).
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.
Not at all - the symbolism of 'wine as blood', and 'the bread of life' are well defined in the OT.
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.
I think you fail to grasp the full impact of Yeshua (supposedly) violating the Torah. That cannot have happened. Had he violated the Torah, his sacrifice is made imperfect, and his salvation is made moot.
I also suggest that you have not fully examined the impact of *any* change at all upon the value of the word of YHWH. The quintessential difference between YHWH and all other 'gods' is inherent in the bare fact that what he said in the beginning will inexorably happen. Every other pretender to the throne has a built in method of change - authority of priests or prophets to alter what has come before in order to accommodate the present... Yahweh does not allow that at all... And in that, we know He is GOD... That He, as sovereign lawgiver, can make his own way known in the first place, and it will require no amendment.