bibleapologist: "And what about the blood, the same thing, how could Jesus, being 100% man and 100% God sitting with them at the table miraculously put His blood into those 13 cups (which is alot of blood). Or how can it be that blood so highly esteemed by God return to earth every time the Catholic Church has mass. "
Well, it’d be 1 cup as he would have passed it around “Take this…”
Also, as this has gone into a rather extensive exegesis of these passages I can only add simply that there is a break at John 6 59 and John 6 60. The conversation changes and it appears it was later on. If it were to flow it wouldn’t have said “Jesus taught this in the synagogue.” So I disagree with you that one can take what Jesus said in 43-59 in conjunction with 60 - 71.
Also, Jesus talks about the Manna and Moses’ time in order to bring continuity between those scripture’s meanings and what he was saying to the Jews. If he was doing that and He said “eat my flesh and drink my blood” figurativly, then he would have been using it in the same way as God did in Micah 3:3 (and other O.T. Verses) and it is interpreted in those passages as God is referencing an understanding that eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood is a sort of assault or persecution. Why would Jesus be using these terms metaphorically if they would have contained such a message (remember everything which was refered to in such a way carried with it a very direct and well known meaning).
if you reread John 6 with this understanding, that if Jesus meant this all metaphorically the Jews would have seen this as a reference to how eating of flesh and drinking of blood had been used in the O.T., the John passage would read like this “He who ridicules the Son of Man has eternal life.” That is how the Jews would have understood it…
And finally, why would the Jews have left Jesus in disgust if he softened his teaching for them in John 6:60?
