For anyone’s benefit:
At the time of the Mosaic Law (and even during Christ’s and our time) Pagans consumed the blood of goats and bulls to take their life for their own. This is because it’s always been believed that in blood there is life. So life is taken from the shed blood.
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. Not just because Pagans did it, but because Pagans did it to take life for their own, which is an affront to God. It’s an affront to God because again, only God has the power to give and take life from one to another.
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. For it’s not the blood of bulls or goats we drink but His blood. And we do not take it from Him, rather we participate in the same self-sacrifice He made of Himself on Calvary. These are important distinctions to remember.
So we do not break the Law by drinking His blood for we do not take it as our own rather it is given to us. That is, His life is given to us. We dont take it by ourselves (as those who sacrificed bulls and goats took the life of that animal for their own).
We receive His life freely given, and that which is given is received. Not taken. And indeed, it’s His to give as He gives all life. He is the Creator, so He can give life as He wills. This is how he chooses to give us His life. This is how even today we can partake of the same self-sacrifice on Calvary. And not break any Law, but rather fulfill the law.
This is just an apologetic. As no one responded to your post other than the other pinged. I’m not looking for argument, just posting something more than what was posted before, not that His Word is lacking, but rather again only in case someone clicked “View Replies” and sought more understanding.
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 .
Rationalize all you want.
The Law forbids the eating of blood and God constantly told the Jews to not become like the nations around them.
So how could He now demand that they do by instituting the consuming of blood.
Besides, Jesus’ blood was poured out at the cross. It doesn’t exist any more. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.
So the question becomes, whose blood are you drinking then?
Oh??
Acts 15:22-35
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.