This is my body - no metaphysical change required

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Catholics typically suppose that for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ, a metaphysical change is required, that is, the "substance" of bread must be necessarily changed into the "substance" of Christ.

The point here is that Catholics almost always suppose that this (change of substance) is the ONLY way possible for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ.

But we know that premise is not true. Indeed, some of Rome's own theologicans recognized this was not correct (but of course Rome tried to silence this fact with Mysterium Fidei).

Why do Catholics continue to entirely base their claims upon this false premise?
 
Last edited:
Catholics typically suppose that for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ, a metaphysical change is required, that is, the "substance" of bread must be necessarily changed into the "substance" of Christ.

The point here is that Catholics almost always suppose that this (change of substance) is the ONLY way possible for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ.

But we know that premise is not true. Indeed, some of Rome's own theologicans recognized this was not correct (but of course Rome tried to silence this fact with Mysterium Fidei).

Why do Catholics continue to entirely base their claims upon this false premise?

There is no false premise. Here is what some of the apostolic fathers have to say on the matter:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)​

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)​

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)​

…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST(Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
 
Catholics typically suppose that for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ, a metaphysical change is required, that is, the "substance" of bread must be necessarily changed into the "substance" of Christ.

The point here is that Catholics almost always suppose that this (change of substance) is the ONLY way possible for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ.

But we know that premise is not true. Indeed, some of Rome's own theologicans recognized this was not correct (but of course Rome tried to silence this fact with Mysterium Fidei).

Why do Catholics continue to entirely base their claims upon this false premise?
Quick and simple: they unquestioningly place their total faith in the Church of Rome, which relieves them (they think) of testing "whether these things [are] so".

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
Quick and simple: they unquestioningly place their total faith in the Church of Rome, which relieves them (they think) of testing "whether these things [are] so".

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
The words of scripture says that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. There is nothing in scripture that says that Jesus was speaking figuratively. So who are the nCCs placing their faith in?
 
Catholics typically suppose that for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ, a metaphysical change is required, that is, the "substance" of bread must be necessarily changed into the "substance" of Christ.

The point here is that Catholics almost always suppose that this (change of substance) is the ONLY way possible for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ.

But we know that premise is not true. Indeed, some of Rome's own theologicans recognized this was not correct (but of course Rome tried to silence this fact with Mysterium Fidei).

Why do Catholics continue to entirely base their claims upon this false premise?
Because they cannot admit their faults, flaws and false techings.
 
The words of scripture says that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. There is nothing in scripture that says that Jesus was speaking figuratively. So who are the nCCs placing their faith in?
Please show the verse where it says it is a literal change. There are words which tell us it is commemorative and figurative but nowhere does it say it is literal. So why do you place you faith in false teachings.

No RCs tackle the fact that bread is nearly always symbolic.

We know Jesus was speaking symbolically.
  1. Jesus would not break the commandment or insist his followers do so. Even in the NT it is forbidden to drink blood.
  2. Jesus was at a meal that was symbolic.
  3. If it was real blood he would have cut his wrist and got real blood.
  4. If it was real, those evil priest would be dropping dead like flies after they were prayed with insect repellant.
  5. Jesus calls it the fruit of the vine, not my blood see Mark 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
  6. Jesus had not yet shed his blood, that happens on the cross.
  7. Paul is clear it is a memorial. 1 Cor 11: 2 This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me When Jesus said the apostles are salt or that they were lights, he was speaking symbolically. Matt 5:13+
  8. It is clear that Jesus was not saying to the apostles they were salt or a light in a literal sense: “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden
  9. Jesus says he is a door, this is also not a literal door.
  10. Hmm if the meal is important and the both the bread and wine are literal, why oh why for years was the priest the only one to drink the wine.
  11. John 16:25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. This shows He has been speaking figuratively for some time.
  12. Luke says it is commenorative. Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
  13. Bread is very symbolic in scripture it can be used for belief or as in the case of yeast it can represent sin.
  14. Bread is Symbolic language is used throughout the whole of scripture. In the OT and the NT.
Our Lord's God posted these verses in another post and they were ignored by RCs:

Jesus said WHAT is his body? Did you actually say that BREAD is his body?

Or is it that when Scriptural facts don't suit you, you just go right ahead and ignore them. See any problem with that?

Scripture says they are eating BREAD.

Since there is one BREAD, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one BREAD. 1 Cor 10:17

For as often as you eat this BREAD and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.... But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the BREAD and drink of the cup. 1 Cor 11:26,29M

this list is even stronger as to why Jesus is speaking symbolically and not literally. We get nothing form RCs other than it is literal, where does scripture claim Jesus is speaking literally, If we are going to say it is Literal then we need Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a literal, door the list of figurative language in scripture is long.
There is no false premise. Here is what some of the apostolic fathers have to say on the matter:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)​

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)​

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)​

…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST(Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
Just fallible men.
 
The words of scripture says that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. There is nothing in scripture that says that Jesus was speaking figuratively. So who are the nCCs placing their faith in?
You keep posting this rubbish. It never says literal body and blood. If we follow your false logic we have Peter as Satan, when did he stop being Satan? Herod as a fox. Jesus as a door. I could go on. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say this is figurative language or literal language. God gave us a brain which means He expects us to know when verses are symbolic. So RCs place your faith in the evil tree, no surprise
 
Please show the verse where it says it is a literal change. There are words which tell us it is commemorative and figurative but nowhere does it say it is literal. So why do you place you faith in false teachings.

No RCs tackle the fact that bread is nearly always symbolic.

We know Jesus was speaking symbolically.
  1. Jesus would not break the commandment or insist his followers do so. Even in the NT it is forbidden to drink blood.
  2. Jesus was at a meal that was symbolic.
  3. If it was real blood he would have cut his wrist and got real blood.
  4. If it was real, those evil priest would be dropping dead like flies after they were prayed with insect repellant.
  5. Jesus calls it the fruit of the vine, not my blood see Mark 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
  6. Jesus had not yet shed his blood, that happens on the cross.
  7. Paul is clear it is a memorial. 1 Cor 11: 2 This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me When Jesus said the apostles are salt or that they were lights, he was speaking symbolically. Matt 5:13+
  8. It is clear that Jesus was not saying to the apostles they were salt or a light in a literal sense: “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden
  9. Jesus says he is a door, this is also not a literal door.
  10. Hmm if the meal is important and the both the bread and wine are literal, why oh why for years was the priest the only one to drink the wine.
  11. John 16:25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. This shows He has been speaking figuratively for some time.
  12. Luke says it is commenorative. Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
  13. Bread is very symbolic in scripture it can be used for belief or as in the case of yeast it can represent sin.
  14. Bread is Symbolic language is used throughout the whole of scripture. In the OT and the NT.
Our Lord's God posted these verses in another post and they were ignored by RCs:

Jesus said WHAT is his body? Did you actually say that BREAD is his body?

Or is it that when Scriptural facts don't suit you, you just go right ahead and ignore them. See any problem with that?

Scripture says they are eating BREAD.

Since there is one BREAD, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one BREAD. 1 Cor 10:17

For as often as you eat this BREAD and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.... But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the BREAD and drink of the cup. 1 Cor 11:26,29M

this list is even stronger as to why Jesus is speaking symbolically and not literally. We get nothing form RCs other than it is literal, where does scripture claim Jesus is speaking literally, If we are going to say it is Literal then we need Peter is Satan, Herod is a fox, Jesus is a literal, door the list of figurative language in scripture is long.

Just fallible men.
You didn't answer my question.
 
There is no false premise. Here is what some of the apostolic fathers have to say on the matter:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)​

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)​

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)​

…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST(Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
You will never understand it unless you become born again biblically.
 
You didn't answer my question.
I did but it went over your head. Show me the verse that says Jesus is speaking literally. You have the same problem. No speakers says I am speaking literally or symbolically. You need to understand speech and how it is used. You have nothing to support your false believes. I have so much more evidence that Jesus is speaking symbolically.

Using RC logic then Peter is Satan, because Jesus never says He is speaking symbolically when He calls Peter Satan. That is how flawed RC logic is for that verse.
 
Catholics typically suppose that for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ, a metaphysical change is required, that is, the "substance" of bread must be necessarily changed into the "substance" of Christ.

The point here is that Catholics almost always suppose that this (change of substance) is the ONLY way possible for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ.
No, we do not almost always suppose that this change is the ONLY way possible for the bread to become the Body of Christ, anymore than we almost always suppose that the only way for Christ to redeem us was to die on a cross.

We believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ becasue Christ said they do--not becasue that is the only possibility, just like we believe Christ died on the cross to redeem us---becasue that is what Christ did--not becasue it was the only way possible for Christ to redeem us.
But we know that premise is not true. Indeed, some of Rome's own theologians recognized this was not correct (but of course Rome tried to silence this fact with Mysterium Fidei).
What does what a bunch of dissenting theologians think have to do with anything?

If I pointed you to Protestant theologians who dissent on Biblical teaching regarding homosexuality--and argue that the Church misunderstood the commands against homosexuality--that homosexuality is never used in Scripture, rather the word should be translated effeminate, blah, blah, blah--would you go "Oh, well, I guess if a bunch of theologians are claiming this, we should re-examine our beliefs regarding homosexuality?"
 
Catholics typically suppose that for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ, a metaphysical change is required, that is, the "substance" of bread must be necessarily changed into the "substance" of Christ.

The point here is that Catholics almost always suppose that this (change of substance) is the ONLY way possible for the bread to be[come] the true body of Christ.

But we know that premise is not true. Indeed, some of Rome's own theologicans recognized this was not correct (but of course Rome tried to silence this fact with Mysterium Fidei).

Why do Catholics continue to entirely base their claims upon this false premise?
Are you saying that Catholics do have the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? And are you saying there are other ways that bread becomes the body,blood,soul and divinity of Jesus?
 
You keep posting this rubbish. It never says literal body and blood. If we follow your false logic we have Peter as Satan, when did he stop being Satan? Herod as a fox. Jesus as a door. I could go on. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus say this is figurative language or literal language. God gave us a brain which means He expects us to know when verses are symbolic. So RCs place your faith in the evil tree, no surprise
Everyone in Jesus' presence during the Bread of Life discourse took Him literally. That is why His disciples left Him. Did He stop them to correct the "misunderstanding" He caused?

No. There was no misunderstanding.

So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” John 6:67
 
Back
Top