Catholics & The Eating of Blood

I've written before concerning the way we view God in the Old Testament in contrast with the New Testament - you can find that post here. Needless to say when God says, "For I am the LORD, I change not,"(Malachi 3:6) I believe it. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And I'm glad for that. How do you serve someone who is always changing their mind? How do you live a life in righteous submission if you don't know what to submit to? Thankfully we don't have to worry about that, because God doesn't change.

And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. (Leviticus 17:10-13)

In this passage the Lord tells us that we must not eat blood, it is to be poured out to make atonement for our sins and must not be eaten. It is pretty clear cut, I think. Don't eat blood. So, if we believe that God doesn't change and He tells us we shouldn't be eating the blood that has been sacrificed for us why do the Catholics think they can change the rules?

The Catholic church teaches that the bread and wine offered at communion transforms and becomes the actual body and blood of Christ. Let's just say that this is true for a minute. If it is true, if the communion wafer is really the body and the wine is really the blood, then aren't we breaking the Old Testament commandment by participating in the ritual? If it really is the body and blood, and Jesus tells us to drink it isn't He enabling us to sin against the Father? If it is the body and blood, and we have been commanded to eat and drink of it, doesn't that mean that God has changed? If it is true there are some serious implications that go with it.

But did Jesus mean that the bread and wine were literally His flesh and blood? Seeing is how He knew more about God than any man could (because He is God) don't you think He would be aware of this Old Testament commandment? So, either He knew about it and tells us to break it anyway, or it slipped His mind and has caused us to sin unintentionally, or (and this is the one I tend to go with) it isn't His literal flesh and blood we consume in communion services. The first two options ultimately lead to the fact that we were deceived by God's perfect Son. And if He deceived us, couldn't it then be argued that He wasn't actually perfect and therefore would not be an acceptable sacrifice for our redemption? You see the problem then, the entire New Testament - and by implication The Father - is a lie if this is all true. So, you see the Catholic teaching of the body and blood of Christ is a very big problem when one considers its implications all the way through. But I praise God that this teaching isn't true, that He doesn't change, and that His Son truly was a spotless lamb sacrificed for our sins.

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)