(August 3, 2012 at 11:26 am)spockrates Wrote: I would never equivocate, "eats my flesh" with "eat me" but the idiom of eating flesh and drinking blood was well known to his ancient Jewish audience to mean killing someone. However, in the context of the rest of John, chapter 6, the analogy doesn't seem to fit.
Some Protestants claim the words, "eats my flesh and drinks my blood" mean "believes in me." Catholics claim he was speaking of eating and drinking the bread and wine served at Mass.
"It was a joke, son. It was a joke." -- Some rooster
But still... Heysuese was pretty clear when he said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. It's almost as if I was right or something.
(August 3, 2012 at 11:26 am)spockrates Wrote: The end game is to find the answer to the opening post. I want to examine the reasons why others believe I've found a real and significant contradiction.
Not just this thread. I am looking for the endgame,what you hope to learn from being in this thread as a whole, what you look to achieve in questioning religion.
I'm not so dull as to not understand that you are looking to evaluate the truth of the contradiction you offered, seeing as it is the title of the thread.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
