Eucharist and Leviticus Law

[Chica_Catolica]

I got into a discussion with a Protestant friend last night about the Eucharist. One of the problems he had was that if the wine is the blood of Jesus, we would be breaking the Leviticus Law of not drinking blood. How should I defend against this? I tried to explain that the Law is part of the Old Covenant and that is not applicable since Jesus is the New Covenant and we are to follow Jesus' teachings. He agreed with me on that the sacrificing animals part of the Law is no longer relevant because Jesus took care of that for us, but He thinks the blood thing still stands. Any suggestions about how I can tell him otherwise?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Chica_Catolica' post='953786' date='Apr 19 2006, 09:01 AM']
I got into a discussion with a Protestant friend last night about the Eucharist. One of the problems he had was that if the wine is the blood of Jesus, we would be breaking the Leviticus Law of not drinking blood. How should I defend against this? I tried to explain that the Law is part of the Old Covenant and that is not applicable since Jesus is the New Covenant and we are to follow Jesus' teachings. He agreed with me on that the sacrificing animals part of the Law is no longer relevant because Jesus took care of that for us, but He thinks the blood thing still stands. Any suggestions about how I can tell him otherwise?
[/quote]


The reason given in Leviticus for the prohibition against the ingestion of blood is because the blood was said to have contained the life of the animal. Guess I wouldn't recommend the drinking of blood either. But with regard to the Lord's Supper, the blood having the containing the life of Christ takes on a new meaning with regard to the shedding of his blood. His blood gives life to the world. It is the life of Christ that we want in us.

Second point, Christ being God had the power to modify the law. We see this in Matt chapter 5 when he says "you have heard it said "thou shall not committ murder", but I say any man who is angry at his brother is guilty of murder", "you have heard it said "thou shall not committ adultery", but I say, any man who looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery with her".... Jesus also modified the Sabaath to Sunday from Saturday because as the scriptures tell us he is "Lord of the Sabaath". Now, if Jesus tells us to partake of his blood, he being God and all, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. Previous command or no command. Jesus would not ask us to do, even symbolically, something immoral. Would he have us symbolically kill someone or symbolically committ adultery? I don't think so. Neither would he symbolically ask us to ingest blood if it was truly a universal for all time prohibition.


Hope that helps.

Blessings

[phatcatholic]

here are some articles on this:

[b]--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=723"]"Unless You Drink of My Blood"[/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?quest=11"]Did Jesus Break the Law of God by Commanding His Disciples to Drink Blood?[/url]
--[url="http://cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=26"]Eat, Drink, and Be Catholic: The Biblical Prohibition of Eating Blood[/url]
--[url="http://catholicapologetics.net/apolo_150.htm"]"No Soul of You Shall Eat Blood"[/url][/b]

pax christi,
phatcatholic