1: No, it’s ‘kill’ in Hebrew. I know enough Hebrew; I had it pounded hard enough into my head, let me tell you. The sense may be murder because of the exceptions, but the word itself is ‘kill.’ Specifically, killing another human. There are cases where the word is used that does not contain the connotation of murder. (Numbers 35: 27, where the word is used as the avenger of blood kills the target outside of a sanctuary city, and the avenger of blood is not guilty, even though the same word as in the Commandment is used.)
2: Also, from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”
Of course, Catholics believe differently, but we Lutherans believe that verse in question means that Communion is, yes, the real Body and Blood of Christ. And also bread and wine because that’s ALSO what Jesus says they are. How? No idea, but Scripture is our source of truth, and that’s what it says.
Now, you can argue differently if you like, but I simply wanted to point out that you CAN make an argument solely from Scripture about the whole Communion thing.
Even if I’ve never seen a Catholic on this board use that argument before, to be honest. But then again, I’m just a neophyte on FR religion.
The body and spirit are not in the same spacetime coordinate system. As JESUS told Nic (John 3) what is born of flesh is flesh, what is born of Spirit is spirit. Feeding that which has been born again is done with the showbread of The Word of God, not via the alimentary tract.
Taking exception with your argument, as well as laying aside the usual (valid) argument re the "wine" of the communion table that MHG presents, let me relate this experience:
I once partook of the tokens of the Lord's Passion in a Lutheran ritual at my cousin's church. What stunned me was that the wine was not in reality even symbolic of Jesus' Blood; it was, in fact, alcoholic wine of the kind reminding me of my pre-saved past as a habitual heavy drinker!
Now, you know that a fluid containing some ten to twelve per cent of ethanol cannot possibly be even representative of the life-giving blood of any human or beast. The reason that you don't know how table wine can become "the real blood of Christ" is that it isn't, and there is no possible explanation how in God's created universe that it ever could be, literally or figuratively.
It is true that human blood can contain a bit of unmetabolized alcohol (click here), but even one half per cent BAC would be lethal.
To me, this is sufficient logical and experiential evidence that some Lutheran wine (I found out afterward that on the communion card one may indicate a choice for non-alcoholic) cannot even symbolically represent the state of human blood. With this in mind, I do not hold your interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:27 as having any validity whatsoever.
Nor would Jesus ever have His disciples, now quite well aware of symbolism in His teaching, ever come to the conclusion that their table wine (alcoholic or not, and I think not) could ever be in plain literal language the same substance as His literal blood, still wholly contained within His skin, and not yet exsanguinated at Calvary.