He was still talking to far more than just the 12. People left because they did not like what He said, not because it did not apply to them. In fact, their complaining shows they understood His words to be directed to them. Show me where it says they left because it did not apply to them.
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Sounds like they took it too literal to me.
I thought that the words in 1Cor are Jehovah’s.
As someone who does not belive the bible to be totally inerrant, no, they are Paul's words.
Are you saying that only the words in red can be trusted? Or, are you saying that the words in red are more the word’s of Jehovah than the words in black? Do you ignore everything after the Gospel of John?
no, not ignore, but I do take it as less literal to modern life. I don't feel that just because Paul told the early congreations something, that it has to be applied that same to us. The scripture we are talking about for instance, Paul speaks in such a way that I belive the congreation was practicing a form of the memorial or communion, what ever you want to call it. but, does that mean we HAVE to do that now, or could it mean that the action really didn't matter but the motive?
Are you saying that with the passing of the 12, nobody should have done it since?
yes, that is exactly what I am saying.... but can you partake if you choose to? I see no harm in this, it is the commanding (by Clergy and/or the GB) of others to partake or not to partake that I see as the problem.
