That part of the bible is wrong. The entire flesh/blood ritual was completely out of line with all of scripture, and all that we know of Jesus. We have to judge all scripture according to Jesus. Eating human flesh and drinking human blood was never even hinted at. We have
a natural aversion to doing such. It is an inherently earthly idea, and has nothing to do with spiritual. Very fleshly, if you will. But why would they write such a thing, since it was so completely out of line with Jesus's personality?
I think your understanding is very earthly, very fleshly, yes.
manna from heaven... eating this bread... to keep the israelites alive in the desert and wilderness
Christ... eating from Him - the TRUE manna... giving life to those who eat of him.
Same as those who "eat from" the Tree of life... have life.
Well, I think the above explains it well. There was always a power struggle among the disciples. Who is closer to Christ? Who will sit at the left and right hand? Who has the authority to cast out demons? Christ was always trying to correct this, but they kept falling
back to the old ways of jostling for prestige.
Some of them, perhaps... though in the case between the two brothers, it was the mother who was vying for a position for her sons.
Of course the Jews would walk away when cannibalism was introduced. It was appalling to them.
When they thought cannibalism was introduced, yes. Because like yours above, that understanding was earthly/fleshly... not spiritual, as Christ said his words WERE.
But did Jesus really say that to the crowd, or was it later reported to make the core group look more faithful? I think the second option, because the way Jesus handled the new and shocking teaching was not in line with his teacher personality. He just dumped it on them! He would not have done that, especially knowing the prohibition on eating blood. He would have reasoned with them. He would not have asked them to just take his word for it. He may have said, 'you heard it was written that you must not consume blood, but I say to you . . ."
A lot of his teachings were 'dumped' on people, and explained to his disciples later. People could have asked him to clarify, to explain... instead of just walking away. And he did reason with them. Such as with using the manna as metaphor; such as stating that his words were of the spirit, and not of the flesh. They did not accept such reasoning.
So looking to Christ, rather than the scriptures, this does not jive. Christ didn't act like that. Lying scribes later added that bit to make themselves look more faithful, and to make it look like they were a part of a convenant that others walked away from. So today, when people decline because they know Christ and know he would not have commanded such a thing, those that go with the lying scribes can compare them to those that walked away in Jesus's day.
You are certainly entitled to believe and follow... or not... as you choose. I cannot agree, as I have been led to understand differently. Of course you are playing a parody, but my answer to anyone would be the same.
No. That doesn't flush with my understanding of Christ, therefore, the bible is wrong on that.
And what makes your understanding of Christ correct? (this is a question, so do not jump to the conclusion that I am throwing something in your face, please)
As well, you did not answer my question, but have gone off on this tangent.
Did you pass the bread and wine by because of these reasons you are stating above... or did you pass the bread and wine by because the WTS taught you to do so, and told you that it was right?
Peace,
tammy
