“You have two problems there.”
No, actually I only have one: I mistakenly used the word “subject” in post 28 rather than the correct term “bound”. When dealing with anti-Catholics it is easy enough to pick up their misuse of terms.
“You say Jesus is both bound and a subject of the law as a man but then deny you said subject.”
No. He is bound, not subject, and I only once mistakenly used the word “subject”. And as I pointed out the words mean different things and you apparently did not know that.
“You also claim that Jesus is both God and man and cannot be separated yet you separate them when they are eating the blood since only the man part is subject to that law but the God part isn’t.”
False. I never separated the two natures. I just realize one is bound and one is not. That is not a separation, just the reality of existence.
“Did only Jesus the God part eat the blood since you claim it is that part that is not bound by the law but not the man part since He would be bound and subject to the law?”
Your premise is false. Jesus is not bound by the law since He is God. Jesus chooses to follow the law - correctly understood - because He is man. The Eucharist in no way violates the law for it is sacramental and a God made action. Thus, even if your “Jesus dividing” premise was correct - which is impossible - it wouldn’t matter since no violation of the law would be made by Jesus since He is God who fulfills the law and since the Eucharist is sacramental and a God given action.
“And how would that be possible when you claim that Jesus is inseparably both God and Man when claiming Mary is the mother of God?”
Simple. Your premise is wrong.
“I expect more double speak is coming.”
I expect you to fail to understand even the most basic things and label it double speak.
Jesus would have been breaking the law by eating blood vlad. Not two ways around it.