Why are your conclusions about the Eucharist being metaphor more compelling than the teaching of the apostles as recorded by their disciples and the next generation of disciples?
What compelling evidence can you provide that I should take your conclusions over their teaching?
iakov the fool
Which of you can tell me that you drank actual blood and ate actual flesh.?
Because of the many other scriptures that state we are saved by faith in Jesus not be consuming His flesh and blood. As in those that come to Him and believe in Him. So I don't see your compelling evidence.
This cant be literal. If it is we are saved by communion alone. That not what was taught by the Apostles nor Jesus.
Most assuredly, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,
you have no life in you
I believe this
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and
believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
He drank wine not blood.
Luke 22
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the
fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “
This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
I have been hungry and thirsty. He's not talking about eating and drinking. He's talking about coming to Him by faith.
John 6
Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.