Passover vs Eucharist

[Eternally Grateful]

It would be quite easy if the OP who is completely ignorant would stop attacking and ask if they don't really understand something.

What makes you think he is ignorant?

That's one thing I am amazed at. Not only if they disagree with me, they BASH me, but if they disagree with me, they must be ignorant of what I think.

Maybe people are not as ignorant as others think.

I am sure the pharisees thought Jesus and his band of followers were prety ignorant about their beliefs also.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

What I wonder is why people think when someone disagrees with them they are "bashing" them.

Maybe if we would just open up. and stop being offended every time someone believes something we do not. We could actually have some decent conversations we all could learn from.

"Bashing" is indicated by the way a person treats another and their beliefs. In a person is being disrespectful in their approach, then that is bashing.

It is entirely possible to disagree and be respectful about it: honestly striving to listen, learn, and better understand things. I think that's great! But it is the higher road, and it's so easy for us flawed humans to take the low bashing route instead.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"Bashing" is indicated by the way a person treats another and their beliefs. In a person is being disrespectful in their approach, then that is bashing.

It is entirely possible to disagree and be respectful about it: honestly striving to listen, learn, and better understand things. I think that's great! But it is the higher road, and it's so easy for us flawed humans to take the low bashing route instead.

Yes I can see this, and agree

But most times in many conversations, I see people who think they are being bashed when they are not really being attacked or anything.

Take this op for example

He literally stated in his view he thinks a passage is misquoted. Then goes on to explain why he thinks the way he does.

I see no attack, No bashing, No anything but a person who is showing his view,

yet he was accused of bashing a certain group.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Jews were instructed to apply their lambs' blood themselves with a desert plant called hyssop (Ex 12:22). That was convenient because apparently hyssop was not only leafy but common too.
So; what might be a practical way to apply Christ's blood? Well; for some the Eucharist's wine species does the trick; and I guess that's okay if it works for them. But I suggest an even more common method. Why not just go to God in prayer; speak up for yourself and say something like this: "Father, I would like to appropriate your son's blood to protect myself from the wrath of God."

Yes, YOU suggest - but that's NOT what Scripture prescribes.
YOUR suggestion is just that - YOUR suggestion. It's not the Scriptural prescription.

This is what Christ said:
John 5:53-56
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Now - the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is NOTthe word used in these passages. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal rips apart his food. Jesus was again using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was NOT speaking metaphorically. He meant what He said.

Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said: "Does this shock you?" He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father. After His disciples leave Him in verse 66, He turns to the Twelve and says: "Do you ALSO want to leave?"
No explanation about "metaphors" or "symbols" as He usually gave His inner circle.

This is why in 1 Cor. 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a "symbol" . . .

 

[FollowHim]

Do you know whether this meal included leavened bread, or unleavened bread?

There are some simple issues here people forget.
1 bread and wine are that, but if they change, in essence but not show when and how?
2 After a change, it is descecration to leave lying around.
So on these two issues are founded priests and altars. You need to be very holy to "make" God's body and blood. But to cope with unholiness, the ceremony itself has power despite the failed priest. This is all unbiblical and a kind of superstition.

The wine becomes Jesus's blood as the believer drinks, the bread His body as the believer eats. That is the miracle, no priest, no desecration except if done in an unworthy manner.

God is not going to argue with respect and honour, but the ideas hold no power in holy buildings. Beauty yes, but holiness is in God's temple, His people.

I went to a church which in 1870 had a royal box. The King came on Sundays. The box is still there, and the church that could hold 100's holds 30 people. They have a box except they should have the King of Kings in their hearts, but clearly not as the empty box is more important to them.

So is the presence of God in ceremony and role more important than reality in one's life? A simple question about listening and following Jesus. God bless you.

 

[FollowHim]

For many years our fellowship wanted a new building. It's a Baptist church. The pastor gave a sermon claiming if one gave to the rebuild it would be the most important thing one could do in one's life.
Sad state for a pastor to get into. But many things were going wrong and he had no answers. The external becomes our last resort when the internal has gone wrong. Faith dies in this desperation. Getting real, bowing and openning up to the Lord, is our way to life. Saying no only on our terms always ends in failure.
A quiet life is God's blessing, having enough and blessing those you meet along the way. Service is there each day, each relationship, each chance to be a light in dark places. God bless you

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

When I was growing up a young Catholic boy back in the decade of the
1950s, the congregation was given the bread species at communion, but
never the wine. In other words; in accordance with the principles of
transubstantiation; we ate Jesus' flesh without his blood.

Well; Jesus' recipe for "life within you" consists of both his flesh and his
blood. Therefore, none of my communions counted because they were half
baked, i.e. incomplete. I obtained no life from them: none of them; not a
single one. I might just as well have used the host to make a peanut butter
and jelly hor d'oeuvre for all the good it did me without the wine species.

It is not only necessary to imbibe the wine species in order to obtain life, but
also to attain to Jesus' resurrection.

● John 6:53 . . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.

So then, according to the principles of transubstantiation, I was not only
deprived eternal life due to being denied Jesus' blood; but my afterlife future
was in grave peril too.

POSIT: It isn't necessary to partake of both species. According to 1Cor
11:27, Jesus' body and blood are contained in both; easily discerned by
Paul's use of the word "or" in his teachings.

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the
Lord."

RESPONSE: Seeing as how Christ is the undisputed lord and master of
Christianity; I do believe that whatever he says about his body and blood
should trump however we might interpret Paul.

When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, he had his men partake of both
species: the wine and the bread. He did not give them the option to select
between the two. No, he ordered them to partake of both species, and to do
so while he supervised.

● Matt 26:26-28 . .While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the
blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said: Take and eat; this is my
body. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink
from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on
behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matt 26:26-28 corroborates John 6:53-54 where Jesus testified: Amen,
amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

1Cor 11:23-25 also corroborates John 6:53-54 by assigning each species its
own special purpose: the bread for Christ's body, and the wine for his blood.

Therefore I must conclude that when Catholics partake of only one species of
the Lord's Supper instead of both; they fail to obtain the life about which he
spoke in John 6:53-54; ergo: they not only go away dead, but also in grave
danger of missing out on the better of the two resurrections spoken of in the
book of Revelation.

They also fail to properly proclaim the Lord's death.

● 1Cor 11:26 . . For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
_

 

[Philip James]

You need to be very holy to "make" God's body and blood

Hello Follow,
Well good thing it's Jesus working through the ordained priest that effects the change by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that is not a problem for the Faithful.
It is however a problem for the priest, if he is in a state of grave sin.. If eating and drinking unworthily brings condemnation, how much more, presiding over the offering unworthily..
And there is no way they could plead ignorance of that...

So; what might be a practical way to apply Christ's blood? Well; for some
the Eucharist's wine species does the trick; and I guess that's okay if it
works for them. But I suggest an even more common method. Why not just
go to God in prayer; speak up for yourself and say something like this:

Why not do what Jesus said?

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

In other words; in accordance with the principles of
transubstantiation; we ate Jesus' flesh without his blood.

This is incorrect. Jesus is risen! Where His body is, there also is His blood, soul, and divinity... He is alive!

While receiving under both species is a better symbol of Jesus passion (and why the offering is always made with both!), receiving one or the other (or both) is indeed receiving the Risen Christ, whole and entire.

Peace be with you!

 

[BreadOfLife]

.
● John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

When I was growing up a young Catholic boy back in the decade of the 1950s, the congregation was given the bread species at communion, but
never the wine. In other words; in accordance with the principles of transubstantiation; we ate Jesus' flesh without his blood.

Well; Jesus' recipe for "life within you" consists of both his flesh and his blood. Therefore, none of my communions counted because they were half
baked, i.e. incomplete. I obtained no life from them: none of them; not a single one. I might just as well have used the host to make a peanut butter and jelly hor d'oeuvre for all the good it did me without the wine species.

It is not only necessary to imbibe the wine species in order to obtain life, but also to attain to Jesus' resurrection.

● John 6:53 . . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

So then, according to the principles of transubstantiation, I was not only deprived eternal life due to being denied Jesus' blood; but my afterlife future was in grave peril too.

POSIT: It isn't necessary to partake of both species. According to 1Cor 11:27, Jesus' body and blood are contained in both; easily discerned by
Paul's use of the word "or" in his teachings.

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the
Lord."

RESPONSE: Seeing as how Christ is the undisputed lord and master of Christianity; I do believe that whatever he says about his body and blood
should trump however we might interpret Paul.

When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, he had his men partake of both species: the wine and the bread. He did not give them the option to select
between the two. No, he ordered them to partake of both species, and to do so while he supervised.

● Matt 26:26-28 . .While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said: Take and eat; this is my
body. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matt 26:26-28 corroborates John 6:53-54 where Jesus testified: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

1Cor 11:23-25 also corroborates John 6:53-54 by assigning each species its own special purpose: the bread for Christ's body, and the wine for his blood.

Therefore I must conclude that when Catholics partake of only one species of the Lord's Supper instead of both; they fail to obtain the life about which he
spoke in John 6:53-54; ergo: they not only go away dead, but also in grave danger of missing out on the better of the two resurrections spoken of in the book of Revelation.

They also fail to properly proclaim the Lord's death.

● 1Cor 11:26 . . For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
_

Thank you for yet another exercise in ignorance -= not only of Scripture - but of ALL things Catholic.

The Eucharist, under BOTH species contains the Real Presence of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity.
As usual, you quote Scripture selectively and leave out important verses in order to make your points. That's fine if you're trying to dup an ignoramus - but NOT an educated Catholic.

On no less than THREE occasions, Jesus told the leaders of His Church that WHATEVER His Church ordains on earth will ALSO be ordained in Heaven (Matt 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 20:21-23). He guaranteed those same leaders that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15). In fact, on this occasion - He said that he had MUCH to tell them but they were NOT ready to hear it yet (John 16:12).

The Holy Spirit HAS led His Church to ALL Truth and continues to do so. The Church has believed from the beginning that the Lord was present in the Eucharist - Body, Blood, soul & Divinity. We read this in verses like 1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 11:23-30 and We also read this in the writings of FIRST century Bishop Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans as well as his Letter to the Ephesians.

Christ's Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit , as He promised, to declare the truth that Christ is present Body, Blood, soul & Divinity in BOTH species.

 

[FollowHim]

Hello Follow,
Well good thing it's Jesus working through the ordained priest that effects the change by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that is not a problem for the Faithful.
It is however a problem for the priest, if he is in a state of grave sin.. If eating and drinking unworthily brings condemnation, how much more, presiding over the offering unworthily..
And there is no way they could plead ignorance of that...



Why not do what Jesus said?

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.



This is incorrect. Jesus is risen! Where His body is, there also is His blood, soul, and divinity... He is alive!

While receiving under both species is a better symbol of Jesus passion (and why the offering is always made with both!), receiving one or the other (or both) is indeed receiving the Risen Christ, whole and entire.

Peace be with you!

A belief system reliant on an ordained priest is broken. Too many priests either are in sin or unbelief, which makes the congregation practising something with no reality.

If one holds forgiveness is through the mass, then there is no forgiveness. For me Jesus over ruled, applied faith through symbols despite flawed understanding. The shadow of respect has value, except when it becomes idolatry.

 

[Mungo]

Christ presence is in the Holy Eucharist much more powerful than a lamb's blood. Let's make a deal, I won't hate on you evangelicals and you stop hating on us who choose to go by Scripture.

"Webers_Home" wanders from forum to forum under different names posting the same stuff.
He doesn't respond to any replies; he just goes on posting in a thread until he's got to the end of his diatribe.

 

[farouk]

For many years our fellowship wanted a new building. It's a Baptist church. The pastor gave a sermon claiming if one gave to the rebuild it would be the most important thing one could do in one's life.
Sad state for a pastor to get into. But many things were going wrong and he had no answers. The external becomes our last resort when the internal has gone wrong. Faith dies in this desperation. Getting real, bowing and openning up to the Lord, is our way to life. Saying no only on our terms always ends in failure.
A quiet life is God's blessing, having enough and blessing those you meet along the way. Service is there each day, each relationship, each chance to be a light in dark places. God bless you

Sticking to the activities of Acts 2.42 is safest...

 

[Eternally Grateful]

.
● John 6:53 . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

When I was growing up a young Catholic boy back in the decade of the
1950s, the congregation was given the bread species at communion, but
never the wine. In other words; in accordance with the principles of
transubstantiation; we ate Jesus' flesh without his blood.

Well; Jesus' recipe for "life within you" consists of both his flesh and his
blood. Therefore, none of my communions counted because they were half
baked, i.e. incomplete. I obtained no life from them: none of them; not a
single one. I might just as well have used the host to make a peanut butter
and jelly hor d'oeuvre for all the good it did me without the wine species.

It is not only necessary to imbibe the wine species in order to obtain life, but
also to attain to Jesus' resurrection.

● John 6:53 . . Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him on the last day.

So then, according to the principles of transubstantiation, I was not only
deprived eternal life due to being denied Jesus' blood; but my afterlife future
was in grave peril too.

POSIT: It isn't necessary to partake of both species. According to 1Cor
11:27, Jesus' body and blood are contained in both; easily discerned by
Paul's use of the word "or" in his teachings.

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the
Lord."

RESPONSE: Seeing as how Christ is the undisputed lord and master of
Christianity; I do believe that whatever he says about his body and blood
should trump however we might interpret Paul.

When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, he had his men partake of both
species: the wine and the bread. He did not give them the option to select
between the two. No, he ordered them to partake of both species, and to do
so while he supervised.

● Matt 26:26-28 . .While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the
blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said: Take and eat; this is my
body. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink
from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on
behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

Matt 26:26-28 corroborates John 6:53-54 where Jesus testified: Amen,
amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

1Cor 11:23-25 also corroborates John 6:53-54 by assigning each species its
own special purpose: the bread for Christ's body, and the wine for his blood.

Therefore I must conclude that when Catholics partake of only one species of
the Lord's Supper instead of both; they fail to obtain the life about which he
spoke in John 6:53-54; ergo: they not only go away dead, but also in grave
danger of missing out on the better of the two resurrections spoken of in the
book of Revelation.

They also fail to properly proclaim the Lord's death.

● 1Cor 11:26 . . For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
_

there is only one problem here

The food which Jesus said to partake of in John 6 is the food which endures forever.

It is not like the manna, Where they took daily or over and over, and had to continue to eat else they die. This is the food which one can eat. and never die, never hunger or drink and never thirst.

Hence it could not be the Eucharistic tradition passed down from man. Because the Eucharist is food which dies. Hence, like manna, Needed to be taken often because like manna it dies, thus it does not endure to eternal life.

As Jesus said, Do not work for food which perishes, But food which will endure to eternal life. which HE will give us. This bread from heaven, This flesh and blood. This food which is given by the spirit.

As Peter said, You have the WORDS of eternal life. where are we going to Go?

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Webers_Home" wanders from forum to forum under different names posting the same stuff.
He doesn't respond to any replies; he just goes on posting in a thread until he's got to the end of his diatribe.

Yes - I refer to these kinds of cowardly non-responsive posters as "hit-and-run" artists.

 

[BreadOfLife]

there is only one problem here
The food which Jesus said to partake of in John 6 is the food which endures forever.

It is not like the manna, Where they took daily or over and over, and had to continue to eat else they die. This is the food which one can eat. and never die, never hunger or drink and never thirst.

Hence it could not be the Eucharistic tradition passed down from man. Because the Eucharist is food which dies. Hence, like manna, Needed to be taken often because like manna it dies, thus it does not endure to eternal life.

As Jesus said, Do not work for food which perishes, But food which will endure to eternal life. which HE will give us. This bread from heaven, This flesh and blood. This food which is given by the spirit.

As Peter said, You have the WORDS of eternal life. where are we going to Go?

The glorified Body of Jesus Christ "dies"??

That's NOT what the Bible says (Heb. 7:25) . . .

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The glorified Body of Jesus Christ "dies"??

That's NOT what the Bible says (Heb. 7:25) . . .

Your right

Jesus said whoever partakes of this food and drink will never die.
So, Since Jesus body will never die, The one who eats of him and drinks of him will NEVER die either

Because the life sustaining food will never die. You will never hnger or thirst, but live forever.

So why does your traditional sacrament not teach this why do you keep eating of this flesh which will never die? and worse yet. claim if you stop eating this perfect. you have the possibility to die. even after you take it?.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your right

Jesus said whoever partakes of this food and drink will never die.
So, Since Jesus body will never die, The one who eats of him and drinks of him will NEVER die either

Because the life sustaining food will never die. You will never hnger or thirst, but live forever.

So why does your traditional sacrament not teach this why do you keep eating of this flesh which will never die? and worse yet. claim if you stop eating this perfect. you have the possibility to die. even after you take it?.

It's your inability to discern the symbolic from the literal.

Jesus calls Himself the "Good Shepherd" (John 10:11, 14). A shepherd is a herder of sheep.
Are you a person - or a sheep?

Exod. 15:8 says that God parted the sea with a "blast of His nostrils" (Exod. 15:8).
Is God Spirit (John 4:24) - or does He have a big nose that blows air??

In the Bread of Life Discourse - Jesus tells the crowd that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life within them.
In verse 52, the people started grumbling and saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

PRIOR to verse 56, Jesus uses the ordinary term for human eating (Phagon). In verse 56, he switches to the term "Trogon", which is the word for the way an animal rips apart his food. He is using hyperbole to show that He means what He is saying.

Question:
If Jesus was speaking metaphorically - WHY didn't He simply stay on track by using the normal word for human eating (Phagon)?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It's your inability to discern the symbolic from the literal.

There is nothign symbolic about it. Except for the flesh and blood

Jesus said the food he would give woud endure forever.

The food you and your church offers does not endure forever.

Thus I must accept what Jesus offers.

Jesus calls Himself the "Good Shepherd" (John 10:11, 14). A shepherd is a herder of sheep.
Are you a person - or a sheep?

Exod. 15:8 says that God parted the sea with a "blast of His nostrils" (Exod. 15:8).
Is God Spirit (John 4:24) - or does He have a big nose that blows air??

In the Bread of Life Discourse - Jesus tells the crowd that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life within them.
In verse 52, the people started grumbling and saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

PRIOR to verse 56, Jesus uses the ordinary term for human eating (Phagon). In verse 56, he switches to the term "Trogon", which is the word for the way an animal rips apart his food. He is using hyperbole to show that He means what He is saying.

Question:
If Jesus was speaking metaphorically - WHY didn't He simply stay on track by using the normal word for human eating (Phagon)?

You still have an issue, that the SYMBOLIC food which he offered (the real food was the words of eternal life. Which as Jesus said, it is the spirit who gives life, the words I speak are spirit and they are life) which is represented by Blood, Flesh, bread, etc etc.

Yet what is offered GIVES ALL who partake of it, eternal life

Your Eucharist does not offer this...

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is nothign symbolic about it. Except for the flesh and blood
Jesus said the food he would give woud endure forever.
The food you and your church offers does not endure forever.

Thus I must accept what Jesus offers.
You still have an issue, that the SYMBOLIC food which he offered (the real food was the words of eternal life. Which as Jesus said, it is the spirit who gives life, the words I speak are spirit and they are life) which is represented by Blood, Flesh, bread, etc etc.

Yet what is offered GIVES ALL who partake of it, eternal life

Your Eucharist does not offer this...

Once again - the food He gave us endures FOREVER in the Person of Christ in Heaven.
I'm not sure why you can't accept this or why you're having trouble understanding that He is Eternal.

As for your total lack of understanding of John 6:63 - let's review . . .
John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

YOUR blunder is that you actually believe that Jesus is talking about HIS flesh here - and that HIS flesh profits "nothing".
Jesus' flesh and blood profits us EVERYTHING, as it was the sacrifice of His flesh that paid for the SINS of the world.

To properly understand this verse - you need to look at ALL of the verses leading up to it. Jesus was telling an UNBELIEVING crown that they need to eat (trogo) His flesh and drink His blood in order to have Life. He went onto say that His flesh was TRUE FOOD and His blood was TRUE DRINK (John 6:55). He told the crowd: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day" (John 6:44).

By the time we get to verse 63 - the crown is just about ready to walk away from Him. THIS is where He tells them that they are thinking with fleshly human logic instead of spiritual logic from above. Christ was trying to
He wasn't telling the crowd that HIS FLESH didn't profit them.
He was telling them that their FLESHLY THINKING didn't profit them.

THIS is why He says right after this:
John 6:64-65
"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

This truth had not yet been revealed to them by the Father, so they could ONLY use their fleshly minds to discern it.

As we know - in the very next verse (John 6:66) - they abandoned Him and returned to their former way of life.
Did Jesus try to stop them to say, "Hey - I was just speaking metaphorically! Let me explain!"

NO. He turns to the Twelve and says: "Do you ALSO want to leave?" (John 6:67).
Peter speaks for ALL of them when he responds with. "Master, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life" (John 6:68).

They didn't quite understand either - but they TRUSTED in Him.
MOST of His followers abandoned him that day for the SAME reasons YOU are arguing because they leaned on their OWN understanding instead of relying on God's (Prov. 3:5-6).

 

[Philip James]

A belief system reliant on an ordained priest is broken

Well. I would say it is reliant on our High Priest, Jesus Himself.
But as for ordaining priests, youll have to take it up with Jesus. He's the one that established that system through the apostles, as you will find in every apostolic community.
.
For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,

Peace!