The example I've given in this thread is just one of many.
They omitted several key passages to make it look like many of the disciples left Him after He was talking about the flesh and blood and bread and wine. But that is not when they left. It was after the exchange when He said some do not believe and that none come to Him unless it has been granted him from the Father.
That is when many left Him.
Keeping the context of the chapter is the key to understanding the Bible. This is exegesis.
If not, you're reading into the verse an improper meaning.
Another point on context.
The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.
The title of priest is never translated that way in the greek. Bishops, overseers and deacons are usually the way the word is translated.
There is no Biblical support for the current leadership structure of the RCC as it exists today with the pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, etc.
*8taking a verse or verses out of context to prove their point. **
Non Catholics do that all the time.
What’s so terrible about their apologetics then?