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...
My point all along is that Jesus was really saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.
I thought that you were arguing that the words of Jesus were only metaphorical, i.e., that by “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” he was only saying “Have faith in me.”
It seems that I was mistaken. It seems now that your position is that Jesus DID say, and mean, that he was going to give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink.
That is exactly the position I have been arguing for. That is exactly why they left.