=============================================================
CynicalBear, your claim sounds exactly like the same one the Jehovah's Witnesses often make and like to ask Catholics about, and I think it will be very helpful to you to read the response given to their similar claim and question by the staff of "Catholic Answers" at this link and shown below:
Now I'll say goodnight to everyone, and may God bless all of us with greater and clearer understanding of all His revealed truths.------------------------------------------------------------
Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?
Full Question
Jehovah's Witnesses told me that Jesus' commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 could not be literal because Jesus would be advocating something against God's law by commanding us to eat blood (cf. Gen. 9:4, Acts 15:28-29). What can I say to this?
Answer
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 When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8).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
------------------------------------------------------------
What an interesting and revealing comment. It tells us that either the Catholic Church does not consider the scriptures divinely inspired or that the Holy Spirit is not divine. The apostles admonition to not eat blood was given after Jesus ascension. If the Catholic Church considered all of scripture divinely inspired it would mean the Holy Spirit directed the apostles to still command not to eat blood after Jesus comments recorded in Mark 7. Thus by their own standards the directive by the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:20 supersedes Jesus comments recorded in Mark 7.
So which do you think it is Heart-Rest? Is all of scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit or is the Holy Spirit not divine?
>>Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).<<
Now here we have some interesting double speak by Catholics. Using Col 2 in an attempt to justify eating blood but overlooking other portions. As an example let's look at verse 16 which you referenced.
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Yet Catholics would insist that Sunday is a Sabbath day and require it's observance as they do for other "holy days" that they have determined.
So which is it Heart-Rest? Why take only parts of verses or passages to apply and not other parts?
>>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).<<
Romans 14 is talking about whether to eat meat at all or restrict ones diet to vegetables. Nothing changing any admonition to not eat blood.
1 Corinthians 8 gives the Catholics a conundrum. It says that by eating meat sacrificed to idols or any meat for that matter causes the weak to stumble and is therefore a sin against Christ.
1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
So which is it Heart-Rest? Do you eat meat sacrificed to idols and cause someone to stumble thus sinning against Christ?
>>but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).<<
So now you want to use that verse to claim that by eating His flesh is how we get Christ into us? Yet in your above use of Mark 7:18 you showed that "what goes into the stomach is eliminated".
So which is it Heart-Rest? Do you get Christ into you by eating His real flesh or is it simply eliminated?
Your cut and paste claims the Jehovah's Witnesses have problems with other portions of scripture but the Catholics have them beat by a mile in that regard. The double speak is palpable. On the one hand Catholics say you can eat anything but on the other hand had long held that eating meat on Friday was anathema. On the one hand they say that Sunday Sabbath is mandatory yet use portions of a verse that says that is not so to support eating blood. On the one hand they claim that eating Jesus flesh is how they get Jesus into them yet on the other hand claim that what a person eats simply is eliminated.
So which is it Heart-Rest?