Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:11, 14 forbid eating an animal’s blood because “the life is in the blood.” Although the animal is already dead, its life is still in the blood. If we ate the blood of an animal, we would be eating its life, which would destroy it. But the blood of Christ is life-giving because it is immortal and united with the divinity; when we drink it, we do not take away from His life. Christ replenishes us with His own life and does not diminish Himself in the process. It is exactly the inverse of eating the blood of an animal.
This was stated as a defense of the Roman Catholic/ Eastern Orthodox view of the Eucharist perspective of transubstantiation. The issue with this perspective is that it would entail that people can eat Christians that eat the Eucharist. That is because they have gained Christ Life-giving life has been given to them.
Secondly, it also minimizes the reasons we don’t eat humans. We don’t eat humans for more reasons than their life being in the blood. Take for example that the Jews still ate animals, but they were drained of their blood. Does that mean we could eat people if we drained their blood? You wouldn’t even need to kill them, they merely would have to die or merely take parts.
It also seems that these laws were meant to convey that we are not supposed to drink the blood of anything for ritualistic purposes. Rather, if it was to be used in religious rituals it must be used differently because it being sacred. Furthermore, the idea that humans are even more valuable than humans. For we don’t even have the right to shed human blood, unlike animals. So, how much more are we not to consume human blood then?
Furthermore, the Old and New Testaments teach there is no forgiveness of sins without shedding blood. According to these traditions, Christ is a non-bloody sacrifice that atones for sins.
Further Suggestions:
Roman Catholicism and Transubstantiation
The Council 