New answers tagged

0

The OP is correct in the sense that some disciples had no problem in Jesus' words, even though others mistook His words and thought He was commanding them to do something against their own Law (consume human flesh and blood). That same Law He came to fulfill. So, what is going on? Why did some remain, while others left? Some miss the Matthew question and ...


0

Transubstantiaion vs. Consubstantiation There is an error in the question. The Latin Transubstantiation (or Greek Metaousios) is the term for the change of the substance of the Eucharistic elements (bread and wine), into the body and blood of Christ by the miracle of the same name, whereas Consubstantiation is the Lutheran doctrine that Christ is present ...


-1

In the Gospel of St. John we actually see a very strong reaction to this situation. 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and ...


3

It is true that the Jews ultimately did not accept the apocryphal books you listed in their canon, in a gradual process over several centuries at least spanning 1st century BC and 1st century AD. There was no definitive answer, but a lot of pointers showing the development, shown in the BIBLE CANON article of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Especially after ...


Top 50 recent answers are included