You ignored my first clause: “If the non-Catholic interpretation of John 6 were true...”
If the non-Catholic interpretation of John 6 were true, wouldn’t the declaration that we must eat his body and drink his blood be received by the crowd with the same equanimity as his statements that he is a door/vine/way, etc.?
Why??? Certainly nothing offensive or in violation of the law was said in claiming he was the door or vine...
If the non-Catholic interpretation of John 6 were true, wouldn’t the declaration that we must eat his body and drink his blood be received by the crowd with the same equanimity as his statements that he is a door/vine/way, etc.?
I must be missing something...I explained in two posts that the disciples who left Jesus were deeply offended because Jesus told them they must violate their own Jewish law by eating human flesh and drinking blood...
In the other case, there was no command that was so offensive...Why should they then react in the same way and how do we know they didn't???
It is noted that you and the others refuse to discuss scripture but try to deflect the questions and statements you apparently can't respond to...