Your comment: “Jesus couldn’t have drank blood of any kind as that would have made him a sinner under the OT and under the NT teachings also.”
Same old talking points.
So you are calling Jesus a liar. That must make you a sinner.
Oh, it’s symbolic alright...
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of THIS FRUIT of the VINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.’ Matt. 26:28,29
So, by RCC interpretation, everybody in heaven (including Jesus Christ) is going to be drinking his blood. Hello?
And then, after the resurrection, he commands that repentance and remission of sins be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem. That first happened with the preaching of Acts 2:38.
Jesus called the cup, *the fruit of the vine*.
The Catholic church claims it’s blood in violation of the entire weight of Scripture.
So who’s making Jesus out to be a liar there?
We are calling the Catholic Church corruption of scripture a lie. If Jesus truly ate blood and encouraged others to do so He sinned. How about you address that instead of making evasive comments?
Yeah I know same old talking points just like saying same old Gospel, but you still can’t use Scripture to dispute it.