Replies

Read Acts 15 again.

The Holy Spirit reiterated the prohibition against eating blood.

The prohibition against eating blood started BEFORE the Law and was reiterated after Jesus fulfilled it.

It stands outside the Law, unlike other aspects of the Law that no longer are required.

Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Thank you, metmom, for providing the necessary context. This shows that point was NOT that we are not to drink Jesus' blood--- especially since he explicitly commanded us to do so, ("Drink my Blood" --- how can you get more explicit than that?)

As you can see from the context in Acts, the whole idea was to provide for a way for Gentiles to enter the Church tranquilly, without upsetting the Jews by doing things at table that would be unnecessarily provocative: eating meat sacrificed to idols, meat of strangled animals, and blood --- this is in reference to kosher (table) customs, not a restriction against receiving the Lord's blood in Christian worship.

This did not ban receiving Jesus Blood (which is different from supping on pig blood or strangled poultry), because Paul carefully explains this to the Corinthians:

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood"

" The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

My ealgeone, your supposition about how the disciples would have been capturing His blood at the Cross, or putting their mouths on Christ's wounded side, if they thought it was actually salvific, misses the point that they thought His Blood IS salvific; and Jesus showed them how they were to eat His Body and Blood, at the Last Supper. He identifies that the bread and wine were now His Body and Blood.

This is is what is signified by the words, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood."<>p> How do you think the Apostles should have responded? "Amen"? Or "Not Really"?!

In terms of pictorial depictions (and by "depiction" I mean painting, as well as depiction by illustrative language in homilies), Christians equate the blood of Communion with both the blood on Calvary and the Blood of the Lamb. They are all the same saving blood:

This was an issue in the Bohemian Reformation of the 15h century, when the reformers (at that time) demanded that the laity be offered both the Body of Christ, and the Precious Blood in the chalice.

Man of Sorrows from Prague, Bohemian Reformation, 1470.

That's why I keep asking: Did any Christian believe the Mass (in the sense of its Eucharistic realism) was in contradiction to the NT until the 16th or 17th century? Might you let me know?

Context, metmom! You're making a category mistake.

The passage from Acts is talking about the consumption of animals: sacrificed animals, strangled animals, and animal blood. It makes no reference to the Blood of Christ.

Nor does it even remotely suggest that Christ's blood is filthy like the blood of a sacrificed animal.

If it had, the Apostle Paul would not have spoken so unmistakably to the Corinthians about the faithful receiving the communion in "the blood of Christ."