Replies

"The prohibition on unclean flesh was lifted....not the drinking of blood." 1) That's what you say. That is not what others say. The simple fact is that numerous Christian countries - Catholic and Protestant and Eastern Orthodox - have blood based dishes: In Commonwealth countries, "black pudding". Blood sausage is also popular in Norway (Blodpølse), Sweden (blodkorv), Finland (mustamakkara) and Baltic states Latvia (asinsdesa) and Estonia (verivorst), as well as in Poland (kaszanka), Germany (blutwurst), Austria (blunzen), Hungary (véres hurka), Spain (morcilla, botifarra), Croatia (krvavica), Slovakia (krvavnička), Romania (sângerete), Slovenia (krvavica), Ukraine (krovyanka) and France (boudin). It is clear from Acts 15 that the issue was offending Jews and once that was no longer an issue, blood dishes weren't either. 2) None of this has anything to do with the Eucharist in any case. "Paul, IIRC, said it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols but if it caused a brother to stumble not to do so." And that just proves my point: It was about offending JEWS. "I'd think that would have a great deal of importance in this discussion." It did - and I was the one who brought it up: "Once these concerns about unity between Jewish and Gentile converts lessened the Church lifted these restrictions. In 1 Corinthians 10 St. Paul speaks about how it is now permissible to eat the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols, warning the Corinthians to only be concerned about causing scandal, rather than any sin or wrongdoing which might be attached to eating the food itself. This clearly shows that the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to avoid certain foods was not doctrinal, but rather a disciplinary one. And no one should forget that other verses show that all foods were made clean in themselves (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15)." Apparently you aren't paying attention. "In the OT the blood of the sacrifice was never consumed. But keep spinning away." It's not OT times, but keep spinning away. "Nope.. No change of topic needed." Needed? "Was providing the Biblical reason why the Mass was non-Biblical using the words of Hebrews and Catholicism." That isn't what you did. What you did was you displayed the failed Protestant anti-Catholic arguments that not even all Protestants can agree on. Failure is always an option for Protestants when they think they know what the Bible means.