The catholic communion as a false doctrine

[phil112]

The catholic doctrine of literally eating Christ's flesh is beyond ridiculous. It borders on insanity, as a doctrine. Not even the basest heathen with a false idol would eat his god, only the catholics do, so let's examine this scripturally.

Let's use John chapter 6 for this. I believe all the gospels relate this event. Here are verses 53-56 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

This is the basis for catholic communion. Let us see exactly what Jesus was talking about.

In Matthew 4:4 Christ said "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", so we are clear from that verse that our sustenance is the word of God if we seek eternal life. Literal bread will keep you alive only temporarily and God's word is eternal life.

In John 6:58 He said "This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

"Not as your fathers did"....That bread, that manna from heaven, was literal food and it is not what Christ is talking about. He clearly states that here.

We read on down to John 6:63 and here is His next words on the subject: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

"The flesh profiteth nothing"....The words that He speaks to us is our manna from heaven. His physical body being made solely for our salvation and His blood being shed on the cross for us.....those are given for our eternal life. Not for us to literally eat, as He clearly states, but for our spiritual life.
To think that He meant to literally eat His flesh is a perversion of utter repulsiveness and a total wresting of scripture.

"Transubstantiation" is a made up word by the catholic church to add credibility to a pagan ritual. The catholic church clinging to that doctrine, alone, should be enough to send anyone one running away from it. And the sad part is, it is one of only many false doctrines promoted by the catholic church. Even sadder is the fact that so many people are willingly blinded, intentionally misled, to hell.

 

[4enlightment]

Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha'olam, hamotzi lechem, min ha aretz." "Blessed are You, O LORD our God, King of the Universe, Who has brought forth bread from the earth."At the beginning of the family meal, this blessing is said as the bread is broken. The blessing is referred to as "the breaking of bread".
Sharing meals is a very important part of Jewish family and community life. So important, that special blessings are said at the start and end of the meal. The term "breaking bread" is mentioned several times in the New Testament writings. It is important that we take a look at what it means in Jewish life, to "break bread".
The "breaking of bread" is something which is done only in the context of a meal. In fact, the Talmud (Jewish Oral Law), uses the term only in reference to the blessing at the start of the meal. The one who says the blessing over the bread is referred to as the one who "breaks bread". At every meal, it was, and is the custom to have bread and wine. The blessings over the bread and wine are said at the beginning of the meal. The one who recited the blessing, did so while literally breaking the bread. Following are some examples of this from the Talmud (the quotations are exact) : Breaking of Bread the Jewish Understanding

An agreement between two contracting parties, originally sealed with blood; a bond, or a law; a permanent religious dispensation. The old, primitive way of concluding a covenant (

, "to cut a covenant") was for the covenanters to cut into each other's arm and suck the blood, the mixing of the blood rendering them "brothers of the covenant" (see Trumbull, "The Blood Covenant," pp. 5 et seq., 322; W. R. Smith, "Religion of the Semites," pp. 296 et seq., 460 et seq.; compare Herodotus, iii. 8, iv. 70). Whether "berit" is to be derived from "barah" =to cut or from a root cognate with the Assyrian "berit" = fetter (see Nathauael Schmidt, in Cheyne and Black,"Encyc. Bibl." s.v."Covenant"), or whether both Assyrian and Hebrew come from "barah"= to cut (compare "asar" = covenant and bracelet in Arabic; see Trumbull, l.c. pp. 64 et seq.), can not be decided here. A rite expressive of the same idea is (see Jer. xxxiv. 18; compare Gen. xv. et seq.) the cutting of a sacrificial animal into two parts, between which the contracting parties pass, showing thereby that they are bound to each other; the eating together of the meat, which usually follows, reiterating the same idea. Originally the covenant was a bond of life-fellowship, where the mingling of the blood was deemed essential. In the course of time aversion to imbibing human blood eliminated the sucking of the blood, and the eating and drinking together became in itself the means of covenanting, while the act was solemnized by the invocation of the Deity in an oath, or by the presence of representative symbols of the Deity, such as seven animals, or seven stones or wells, indicative of the seven astral deities; whence

("to be bound by the holy seven") as an equivalent for "swearing" in pre-Mosaic times (see Gen. xxi. 27, xxvi. 28, xxxi. 54; Herodotus, iii. 8; Josh. ix. 14; II Sam. iii. 12-20; W. R. Smith, l.c. pp. 252 et seq.). Salt was especially selected together with bread for the conclusion of a covenant (Num. xviii. 19; see W. R. Smith,l.c. p. 252; Trumbull, "The Covenant of Salt," 1899).http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4714-covenant

Genesis 14:18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,

But to drink someone's blood is forbidden, but we can use something else for blood, like the blood of grapes.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

They can not even use John 6 without taking into account the context of the whole discussion.

In john 6 he spoke of the food which endures to eternal life, which one can eat and never die (signifying it only needs to be taken once, and the food endures forever.)

In fact Jesus said whoever eats this food will;

Never hunger or thirst
Live forever
Never die
Be resurrected on the last day
Has eternal life

He calls this food

the bread from heaven
His flesh and his blood.

Yet the holy mass or Eucharist. people eat it at the most once a week, and are not assured of ANYTHING Jesus promised to give to ALL WHO EAT.

If Jesus says, do this, and I promise you will recieve that. And a church says you can do it all you want, God may or may not keep his promise, then you have to know it is not a doctrine from God

 

[Zmouth]

The catholic doctrine of literally eating Christ's flesh is beyond ridiculous. It borders on insanity, as a doctrine. Not even the basest heathen with a false idol would eat his god, only the catholics do, so let's examine this scripturally.

Let's use John chapter 6 for this. I believe all the gospels relate this event. Here are verses 53-56 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

What does Christ eat now?

This is the basis for catholic communion. Let us see exactly what Jesus was talking about.

In Matthew 4:4 Christ said "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", so we are clear from that verse that our sustenance is the word of God if we seek eternal life. Literal bread will keep you alive only temporarily and God's word is eternal life.

In John 6:58 He said "This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

"Not as your fathers did"....That bread, that manna from heaven, was literal food and it is not what Christ is talking about. He clearly states that here.

Going back to 4:4, in Ps 19:1-319:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Isa 55:9
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Thomas Paine is quoted as saying to the effect that there are two distinct classes of thought, one that man reasons himself and the other being that which come to him like a bolt of lightening. Helped me understand what the Son meant when he told me not to listen to voices.

We read on down to John 6:63 and here is His next words on the subject: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

"The flesh profiteth nothing"....The words that He speaks to us is our manna from heaven. His physical body being made solely for our salvation and His blood being shed on the cross for us.....those are given for our eternal life. Not for us to literally eat, as He clearly states, but for our spiritual life.
To think that He meant to literally eat His flesh is a perversion of utter repulsiveness and a total wresting of scripture.

"Transubstantiation" is a made up word by the catholic church to add credibility to a pagan ritual. The catholic church clinging to that doctrine, alone, should be enough to send anyone one running away from it. And the sad part is, it is one of only many false doctrines promoted by the catholic church. Even sadder is the fact that so many people are willingly blinded, intentionally misled, to hell.

What's your opinion about the Catholic doctrine of the "Trinity"?

 

[GracethroughfaithinChrist]

Could the flesh be His Word (the Bread of life,....... chew it well) and His blood (the New Covenant....... take a big gulp) be a life lived in truth,love and belief in Jesus Christ as our only hope for Salvation.......

 

[Matt1626]

Why I believe in the possibility and I said possibility of the real presence

1). God can do anything he wants
2) it is pretty hard to deny Eucharistic miracles every where and in every time there are so many from sienna in the 1700's to Seattle, and Beanos airies recently
3). There are so much scripture to back it up
4) the first christains believed it
5) the first Christians were put to death for believing it
6) by denying it one is denying the unseen and possibility of super natural things which deny's the apostles creed and nicene creed


Those would. Be my top reasons

 

[phil112]

What does Christ eat now?...............

Why are you asking me? I haven't been to heaven.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Could the flesh be His Word (the Bread of life,....... chew it well) and His blood (the New Covenant....... take a big gulp) be a life lived in truth,love and belief in Jesus Christ as our only hope for Salvation.......

Yes. I've tried to avoid putting Catholics attending our church on the spot, but seeing this thread earlier today prompted me to ask one of our former Catholic members what his local doctrine was, and he confirmed the Eucharist is still practiced and literally believed. So I looked that up at Eucharist in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"According to the Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated by the priest at Mass, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ. The empirical appearances and attributes are not changed, but the underlying reality is. The consecration of the bread (known afterwards as the Host) and wine represents the separation of Jesus' body from his blood at Calvary; thus, this separation also represents the death of Christ. However, since according to Catholic dogma Christ has risen, the Church teaches that his body and blood are no longer truly separated, even if the appearances of the bread and the wine are. Where one is, the other must be. This is called the doctrine of concommitance. Therefore, although the priest (or minister) says, "The body of Christ", when administering the host, and, "The blood of Christ", when presenting the chalice, the communicant who receives either one receives Christ, whole and entire— "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity".

Transubstantiation (from Latin transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ, the change that, according to the belief of the Catholic Church, occurs in the Eucharist. It concerns what is changed (the substance of the bread and wine), not how the change is brought about."

The Catholic Encyclopedia is too burdensome on that topic, but a lot more detail is available if anyone wants to investigate.

His personal belief is that what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper (as we call it) had Jesus using a very popular figure of speech concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Jews understood that to be like Ezekiel "eating" the scroll God handed to him in a vision (Ezek 3). All along the prophet made it clear he was hearing the voice and seeing the images as a vision. Jews understood that one was to "eat" the words of God every day. They didn't consume precious scrolls. Realizing such things is why Catholics are showing up.

He told me he had received Christ as savior, but not by eating the Eucharist as taught by his Catholic school as a juvenile. There are acceptable things one must comply with to partake of Christ. It isn't as simple as eating some stale bread and drinking some cheap wine. It is as said in your quote above.

Then figuratively speaking we do what Jesus said to do. The concept of actually eating human flesh and drinking human blood is anathema, an abomination to Jews, and is prohibited of Christians in Acts 15. When many disciples heard Jesus teach doing those things literally of Himself, most of His disciples, being Jews, fled. John 6:60-68 (KJV)
[SUP]60 [/SUP] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
[SUP]61 [/SUP] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
[SUP]62 [/SUP] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
[SUP]63 [/SUP] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[SUP]64 [/SUP] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[SUP]65 [/SUP] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
[SUP]66 [/SUP] From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
[SUP]67 [/SUP] Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
[SUP]68 [/SUP] Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Those Jews dropped out because they assumed Jesus spoke of literally eating and drinking his human body and blood. They knew that would be nonsense. They knew Jesus was required as a Jewish rabbi to not preach against Moses. Moses made the tabernacle after the heavenly pattern, the blood of sacrifice sprinkled over the Ark of the Covenant, not consumed. They failed to believe the other things Jesus taught, which made it clear the word from the Father was to be eaten, the blood spiritually consumed.

That is but one broken bone of that man-made religion.

 

[phil112]

Why I believe in the possibility and I said possibility of the real presence

1). God can do anything he wants
2) it is pretty hard to deny Eucharistic miracles every where and in every time there are so many from sienna in the 1700's to Seattle, and Beanos airies recently
3). There are so much scripture to back it up
4) the first christains believed it
5) the first Christians were put to death for believing it
6) by denying it one is denying the unseen and possibility of super natural things which deny's the apostles creed and nicene creed


Those would. Be my top reasons

1. What does that have to do with this topic?

2. You believe satan to be powerless? You have a tough road ahead of you. .......2 Thessalonians 8-10 "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

3. There is NO scripture to back it up. If you don't understand clear scripture you shouldn't voicing an opinion of something you are ignorant of. See the original post.

4. Wrong! As I pointed out in the first post, scripture absolutely denies such a practice. Christians obey the word of God, so one that practices it is no christian.

5. Heresay without proof. You have a credible source for that?

6. Another lie. By denying it one is holding firm to the truth, which is exactly what God requires of those that believe.

People, like you, that aren't knowledgeable in the word need to keep quiet. Put your nose in the bible and study His truth. That is how you obey God and go to heaven. You have spouted nothing but a bunch of nonsensical tripe.

 

[ThomistColin]

Even though Paul said that he who eats and drinks without "discerning the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" eats and drinks damnation on himself. Also Paul says to take and eat incorrectly is to sin against, "the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Then, we have St. Iranaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr from the first and second centuries speaking of the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Each of them proclaim this. Then we have the Romans and Greeks proclaiming Christians to be "cannibals" because of their religious practices (by the way, read Nero's condemnation of Christians, he mentions this specifically).

 

[GuessWho]

They can not even use John 6 without taking into account the context of the whole discussion.

In john 6 he spoke of the food which endures to eternal life, which one can eat and never die (signifying it only needs to be taken once, and the food endures forever.)

In fact Jesus said whoever eats this food will;

Never hunger or thirst
Live forever
Never die
Be resurrected on the last day
Has eternal life

He calls this food

the bread from heaven
His flesh and his blood.

Yet the holy mass or Eucharist. people eat it at the most once a week, and are not assured of ANYTHING Jesus promised to give to ALL WHO EAT.

If Jesus says, do this, and I promise you will recieve that. And a church says you can do it all you want, God may or may not keep his promise, then you have to know it is not a doctrine from God

Did Jesus lie when He said "this is my flesh, this is my blood"?
Why did Jesus Christ asked the persons that were present "does this offend you"?
Why were the words of Jesus a stumbling block for many?

Why do some Bibles render Jesus' words as saying "this represent my flesh, this represent my body"? If this is what Jesus meant to say why didn't He say like that and why didn't He clarified the "issue" to those that were present and found His words too hard to be understood?

 

[twotwo]

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

To think that He meant to literally eat His flesh is a perversion of utter repulsiveness and a total wresting of scripture.

Interesting interpretation. However, when they heard these words, all his disciples understood it literally and many of them left him in shock. As Peter said: ““Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

 

[crossnote]

Yes. I've tried to avoid putting Catholics attending our church on the spot, but seeing this thread earlier today prompted me to ask one of our former Catholic members what his local doctrine was, and he confirmed the Eucharist is still practiced and literally believed. So I looked that up at Eucharist in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"According to the Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated by the priest at Mass, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ. The empirical appearances and attributes are not changed, but the underlying reality is. The consecration of the bread (known afterwards as the Host) and wine represents the separation of Jesus' body from his blood at Calvary; thus, this separation also represents the death of Christ. However, since according to Catholic dogma Christ has risen, the Church teaches that his body and blood are no longer truly separated, even if the appearances of the bread and the wine are. Where one is, the other must be. This is called the doctrine of concommitance. Therefore, although the priest (or minister) says, "The body of Christ", when administering the host, and, "The blood of Christ", when presenting the chalice, the communicant who receives either one receives Christ, whole and entire— "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity".

Transubstantiation (from Latin transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ, the change that, according to the belief of the Catholic Church, occurs in the Eucharist. It concerns what is changed (the substance of the bread and wine), not how the change is brought about."

The Catholic Encyclopedia is too burdensome on that topic, but a lot more detail is available if anyone wants to investigate.

His personal belief is that what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper (as we call it) had Jesus using a very popular figure of speech concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Jews understood that to be like Ezekiel "eating" the scroll God handed to him in a vision (Ezek 3). All along the prophet made it clear he was hearing the voice and seeing the images as a vision. Jews understood that one was to "eat" the words of God every day. They didn't consume precious scrolls. Realizing such things is why Catholics are showing up.

He told me he had received Christ as savior, but not by eating the Eucharist as taught by his Catholic school as a juvenile. There are acceptable things one must comply with to partake of Christ. It isn't as simple as eating some stale bread and drinking some cheap wine. It is as said in your quote above.

Then figuratively speaking we do what Jesus said to do. The concept of actually eating human flesh and drinking human blood is anathema, an abomination to Jews, and is prohibited of Christians in Acts 15. When many disciples heard Jesus teach doing those things literally of Himself, most of His disciples, being Jews, fled. John 6:60-68 (KJV)
[SUP]60 [/SUP] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
[SUP]61 [/SUP] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
[SUP]62 [/SUP] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
[SUP]63 [/SUP] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
[SUP]64 [/SUP] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[SUP]65 [/SUP] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
[SUP]66 [/SUP] From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
[SUP]67 [/SUP] Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
[SUP]68 [/SUP] Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Those Jews dropped out because they assumed Jesus spoke of literally eating and drinking his human body and blood. They knew that would be nonsense. They knew Jesus was required as a Jewish rabbi to not preach against Moses. Moses made the tabernacle after the heavenly pattern, the blood of sacrifice sprinkled over the Ark of the Covenant, not consumed. They failed to believe the other things Jesus taught, which made it clear the word from the Father was to be eaten, the blood spiritually consumed.

That is but one broken bone of that man-made religion.

" The empirical appearances and attributes are not changed, but the underlying reality is."

Isn't this Plato through and through?

 

[crossnote]

Even though Paul said that he who eats and drinks without "discerning the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" eats and drinks damnation on himself. Also Paul says to take and eat incorrectly is to sin against, "the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Then, we have St. Iranaeus, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr from the first and second centuries speaking of the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Each of them proclaim this. Then we have the Romans and Greeks proclaiming Christians to be "cannibals" because of their religious practices (by the way, read Nero's condemnation of Christians, he mentions this specifically).

Wasn't Paul bringing up discerning the body in relation to their selfishness towards each other. They didn't see as members of the Body of Christ they were to esteem others better than themselves, something they were in gross blindness of. Their selfishness had no place at the Lord's Table.

1 Corinthians 11:20-22, 29, 31, 33-34
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

 

[GuessWho]

" The empirical appearances and attributes are not changed, but the underlying reality is."

Isn't this Plato through and through?

From your previous comments, it is clear that to you even the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is "Plato through and through" since you don't believe it brought deliverance to national Israel from her enemies.

 

[Hizikyah]

No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to Yahweh, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Why I believe in the possibility and I said possibility of the real presence

1). God can do anything he wants
2) it is pretty hard to deny Eucharistic miracles every where and in every time there are so many from sienna in the 1700's to Seattle, and Beanos airies recently
3). There are so much scripture to back it up
4) the first christains believed it
5) the first Christians were put to death for believing it
6) by denying it one is denying the unseen and possibility of super natural things which deny's the apostles creed and nicene creed


Those would. Be my top reasons

if it does not give you what Jesus said in John 6 would be given to ALL who eat (which the eucharist does not)

non of the points you made matters

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Did Jesus lie when He said "this is my flesh, this is my blood"?
Why did Jesus Christ asked the persons that were present "does this offend you"?
Why were the words of Jesus a stumbling block for many?

Jesus answered.

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

They wanted a miracle. physical food. They could not understand spiritual things, because they did not believe.

Why do some Bibles render Jesus' words as saying "this represent my flesh, this represent my body"? If this is what Jesus meant to say why didn't He say like that and why didn't He clarified the "issue" to those that were present and found His words too hard to be understood?

Because unfortunately, a church has twisted and distorted the words of God to take this flesh and blood which will give anyone who eats eternal life, The assurance they would never hunger, never thirst, live forever, and never die, and oh, the promise to be raised on the last day, into a pagan ritual which promises non of the above, and people do not trust god, and thinks he needs their help. so change the meaning thinking it will help. when they should just leave it to God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Interesting interpretation. However, when they heard these words, all his disciples understood it literally and many of them left him in shock. As Peter said: ““Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

Notice. peter understood.

they left because they took him literally. Peter did not leave because he knew exactly what Jesus meant.

It is the spirit who gives life. the WORDS I SPEAK are spirit and they ARE LIFE.

Peter did not take him literally. He knew exactly what Jesus was doing, trying to weed out the unbelievers so they would leave.

 

[crossnote]

From your previous comments, it is clear that to you even the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is "Plato through and through" since you don't believe it brought deliverance to national Israel from her enemies.

Ridiculous. His death redeemed our bodies yet we wait it's realization. Same with Israel. Besides, why change the topic? Ridiculous.