The Gospel According to Freud.

[John D. Brey]

When blood atonement is peculiarly jewish, or at least Old Testament, it is very strange that a Jew providing such a atonement on a permanent basis in fulfillment of the prophecies, is not recognized historically by fellow Jews purporting to believe in God. After all, the Jews do not assert that Jesus never existed. Thus belief in the concept must be linked to belief in the man. The present non-Christian Jews do not believe in the concept, and so do not believe in the man.

As Jesus said, it was only those "who eat [his] flesh and drank [his] blood who have eternal life" John 5:64.

Not trying to be argumentative, but what you said seems to support my position more than yours since many Jews accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and are not saved ---- in your parlance ---- by belief in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Ditto your quote of John. Eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood isn't really a historical, literal, event. The language speaks more to the psyche than to the stomach.



John

 

[eik]

Not trying to be argumentative, but what you said seems to support my position more than yours since many Jews accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and are not saved ---- in your parlance ---- by belief in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Why does that support your argument? The belief must be not only in his historicity but that he is the son of God.

Ditto your quote of John. Eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood isn't really a historical, literal, event. The language speaks more to the psyche than to the stomach.
John

It speaks to faith in the man himself.