Well you are wrong.
I am not a scientist, but you may be wrong on the blood as blood soaks into the meat, but you still eat the meat. Customs change.
But the word of God is very clear and you reject it.
The meat and blood of animals is not the same as Jesus giving us HIS BODY AND BLOOD. Why do you compare animals slaughtered for idols to Jesus Christ? Do you just repeat your talking points because your reason doesn’t compute?
You have the logic of Satan who does not want you to fully understand and receive God’s gift to us in the Eucharist.
Here is a longer answer. I hope that you begin to open your mind so that you will understand the words of the Lord.
You can say four things. First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.
Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16).
The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn’t scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).
If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body” (7:18-19). In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one’s unwashed hands).
Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: “The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood” (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal’s life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, “Christ who is your life” (Col 3:4).
Finally, even if the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ’s blood is permissible (not to say desirable).
Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff .
Did you read post #55? Any thoughts?
God commanded that the blood be drained on the ground prior to eating the meat. The apostles in the New Testament included the prohibition of eating blood in the few requirements they set forth. Which by the way was after the last supper. Now, do you think God knew what was left in the meat after the blood was drained? Do you really think the apostles would set forth the prohibition against eating blood while thinking they were actually eating blood?
>>But the word of God is very clear and you reject it.<<
No, I understand clearly when Jesus explained to the apostles that what He said was spiritual and was not referring to eating physical real blood. I also understand that Jesus would have been sinning had He actually eaten blood especially as a Jew born under the law. The word of God is very clear on that and you reject it.
>>First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier.<<
The apostles words to NOT eat blood came after the last supper and Jesus words in Matthew.
>>Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away<<
Read Acts 15:20 again. Those did NOT pass away. Never have and never will.
>>We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary.<<
Show where the prohibition against eating blood was rescinded.
Intersting that you bring up 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthians 8: But food does not bring us near to God
Yet here you are pleading your case that the Eucharist is bringing you close to God. Hypocrite?
You can try to justify all you want. Jesus was born under the law and thus would have been sinning by eating blood and encouraging others to do so. Take your Catholic magical mystery tour if you wish but don't expect those of us who trust what scripture teaches to ride along or stay silent when you promote your fallacies and corruptions of what it teaches.