Sophiee1 wrote:

bob wrote:
When (Jesus) said, "For my flesh is MEAT* indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him..." clearly (from context) is it possible he could have merely meant, . . .
Now you are making up your own "oral tradition" and assuming what you THINK it meant, ignoring what it clearly says.

Touche' Sophiee!  Actually, I have plenty of ancient scholars to back me up on this point, but sadly on judgment day none of them will be running interference for me.  We must give account for our own willful misinterpretations of G-d's Word (or from your perspective: my willful acceptance of what isn't G-d's Word).  As I understand John 6, Jesus (Uri said its okay to use the name) was actually trying to be offensive.  This mob was on the verge of crowning him king of Israel.  Nothing like a little crazy talk to convince them you're not their political savior.  (Just ask Howard Dean about his "I Have a Scream" speech.)  Yes, "drink my blood" was a very disgusting way to say, "Trust me."  But Jesus (as a Jewish rabbi speaking to a Jewish crowd that had just celebrated Pesach) could not have meant "Drink my literal blood."  But since you don't actually believe that this event even occurred, isn't it a tad disingenuous of you to insist that I have to believe that Jesus actually meant "Drink my literal blood and eat my literal flesh"?