[daniel1212]

When Jesus made this statement, He had not as yet made reception of Himself in Holy Communion available, the institution of which occuring later at the Last Supper. By the time it *was* available, Jesus had suffered, died, and was ressurected. His fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets of the Old Covenant was perfectly complete, and there was a New Covenant under which there was no law that would prevent the reception of Himself - in fact, quite the opposite held. Therefore, Jesus never asked, instructed or commanded anyone to “disobey the law,” as you put it.

Your response is not the typical Cath one, which relies upon the neoplatonic explanation to rationalize the objection, while what you are arguing is that the Jew's objection to physically consuming Christ was justified since at that time what the Lord required was against the Law. And that somehow the "real" presence" was not available at the Last Supper, contrary to Cath theology, or else the apostles understood at the Last Supper that drinking blood was now OK since it would be allowed under the New Covenant.

Actually the Jew's objection to physically consuming Christ was justified since at that time since what the Lord required under the literalistic explanation was against the Law. But which explanation is simply contrary to what Scripture teaches in its totality. As shown here and here by the grace of God.

[ealgeone]

If one is serious about understanding this issue the links provided are a wealth of knowledge. The catholic will find some they like and a lot they don't like.

The honest reader will have to admit they will choose which ECFs they support and which ones they reject.

However the only true writings are those of the Word itself. They do not change and are not subject to human whim or notion.

Rhey are the only inspired Word we have.