Not really. The prohibition against drinking blood is from the Old Testament. I can’t find an example of Jesus saying ‘do not eat or drink blood.’ Jesus contradicted Old Testament laws on several occasions, by not requiring the apostles to follow strict handwashing laws, by associating with tax collectors and Samaritans. So by OT law, Jesus WAS a sinner. Is that the same standard you attempt to hold him to? Because He really did say what he said and contradicted the OT.
That was what caused the uproar, and when questioned about it He restated and clarified that that was indeed what He meant. Why would He allow people to leave Him without saying ‘of course I’m speaking figuratively’? Did He think they were too stupid to save? Why would He lose souls over misunderstanding? Why would He only want those to stay with Him who knew immediately that He was being figurative and not correct those who were upset because they mistakenly took Him literally? Did He drive them away on purpose?
He also confirmed His literal meaning at the last supper, saying ‘This is my blood’. He is not comparing Himself to it, He is saying that it is His, and He then tells us what to do with it. Nowhere is He stated to have said, ‘this represents my blood’. Surely He knew that the concept of eating flesh and drinking blood was controversial. And by now it was obvious that some people when told about this in the future would take Him literally as had happened before. Why would He risk losing disciples and having His purpose be misunderstood for all time at this most critical moment?
You do not wish to take this example of Christ’s words literally, I understand that. But you should not fault those who do accept those words as literal. You may believe that the people who stayed with Jesus did so because they understood him to be speaking figuratively, but I believe just the opposite, and there is again no clear explanation in scripture to tell us which one is the absolute truth. We have to make our own judgement based on our interpretation of the context and preceding and following events.
1 Corinthians 11:29 being a strong example for the literal interpretation. ‘For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.’ Would partaking of a symbol unworthily carry such a penalty?
I don’t think your interpretation is impossible, I just think it is wrong. I don’t judge you and I am not convinced that your beliefs are evil and will keep you from salvation even though you are apparently convinced of this about my beliefs.
Jesus also said He was the way, the truth and the life, and I believe that literally, too. Some may believe that this was also figurative. Who gets to draw the lines? And I actually do believe He was ‘the lamb’, literally. Not ‘a lamb’ but ‘The Lamb’ of God, the perfect sacrifice.
Love, O2
TAGLINETAGLINETAGLINETAGLINE
Forget your tagline tagline tagline and deal with this your statement:
omegatoo : “So by OT law, Jesus WAS a sinner.”
Those are the laws Jesus was born under and required to follow as a Jew. That was a law set down by God Himself and not part of the "add ons" by the Pharisees which are what they claimed Christ violated.
>>Jesus contradicted Old Testament laws on several occasions,<<
Not even one that was set down by God.
>>by not requiring the apostles to follow strict handwashing laws<<
Those which had been added by the Pharisees.
>>So by OT law, Jesus WAS a sinner.<<
No, He was not. The Pharisees had corrupted God's laws and it was those corruptions He was accused of breaking.
>>Because He really did say what he said and contradicted the OT.<<
But not what you think He said.
>>Why would He only want those to stay with Him who knew immediately that He was being figurative and not correct those who were upset because they mistakenly took Him literally?<<
He told us why in that same Chapter. Only those who the Father had given Him. "All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." He also said "“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,". Those who didn't stay had not been called by the Father.
>>Did He drive them away on purpose?<<
He surely knew they were not going to stay. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
>>Surely He knew that the concept of eating flesh and drinking blood was controversial.<<
He also knew that they knew the scriptures and that when Ezekiel and Jeremiah were told to "eat the scroll" it meant to internalize the word of God not eat the literal physical scroll.
>> and there is again no clear explanation in scripture to tell us which one is the absolute truth<<
There most certainly is. He said His words were "spirit" not literal. He also said the "flesh profits nothing". Twice He said His words were "spirit" rather than literal.
>>Not ‘a lamb’ but ‘The Lamb’ of God, the perfect sacrifice.<<
Surely you don't believe He was a literal physical sheep. Surely you don't expect a literal physical river of water to flow from you belly. Do you ever get hungry or thirsty? He also said those who "eat his flesh" will never get hungryu or thirsty and even said they would never die. Catholics still die every day.