Gargovic Malkav
Well-Known Member
What I (and/or God) is offering is very useful for mankind.
If you take what I have to offer to heart, you're going to be alright.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am the living bread
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
What I (and/or God) is offering is very useful for mankind.
If you take what I have to offer to heart, you're going to be alright.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Thanks, Loverofhumanity.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Is bread best when it's served live?
Was it a prefiguring of the Eucharist, though? From what I've been able to find from a quick Googling, it sounds like the odds are pretty high that the Eucharistic tradition was already a thing before the Gospel of John was written.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Sure, I meant the words attributed to Jesus in St John's gospel are a prefiguring, not that the gospel itself was a prefiguring. Obviously none of them could be that, since all were written decades after the Last Supper and Crucifixion.
I like St. John's gospel, but it does have signs of retrofitting the nascent Christian theology to the historical narrative it purports to be reporting.
Colt
Well-Known Member
The Word of Living Truth. He was the Word made flesh, so trusting the word of truth leads to eternal life.
I don't understand what you mean by layers. I understand the word symbols.
DNB
Christian
The context of the passage takes place shortly after Jesus performed the miracle of feeding around 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and two fish, and knowing that his immediate audience was only there to see him because of their desire for food. Thus, using the metaphor of bread, and an allusion to God feeding the Israelites during the desert wanderings in Exodus, Jesus explains what truly gives man nourishment and life: God's word. Therefore, those who accept Jesus as the one God sent according to His word, shall receive eternal life - something that no food on earth can offer.
It's the mystery of the Eucharist - God Himself coming down from Heaven to nourish us with His very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under the appearance of bread and wine.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is quite false. Transsubstantiation or equivalent terms were in use centuries before the Reformation. Moreover the same idea is part of Orthodox tradition, so it is plain that it can have nothing to do with the Reformation, which was a phenomenon within the Western church.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Nevertheless eating the physical Jesus means nothing.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
So whether transubstantiation is true or not mean nothing in regards salvation.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Ah, that's a different point. I'm not here to defend the doctrine, just to keep the history of it accurate.
I quote the Wiki article:
From the earliest centuries, the Church spoke of the elements used in celebrating the Eucharist as being changed into the body and blood of Christ. Terms used to speak of the alteration included "trans-elementation"[9] and "transformation".[10] The bread and wine were said to be "made",[11] "changed into",[12] the body and blood of Christ. Similarly, Augustine said: "Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ becomes the body of Christ."[13]
There are few old-fashioned anti-Catholic myths still floating around, by which some Protestants try to pretend it is untrue to say everyone in Western Christendom was Catholic before the Reformation, and that Catholicism was somehow invented in the Counter-Reformation. I recall the chaplain at my (Anglican) school used to come out with this sort of stuff, at the end of the 60s. I suspect this nonsense about transubstantiation may come from that.
It is true that the doctrine was re-affirmed at the Council of Trent, so maybe it is a garbled version of that which gave rise to the myth.
The slightly odd thing, to my mind, is that Protestants who profess biblical inerrancy have chosen the actual words of Christ, "This is my body", reported in all three synoptic gospels, as the one line in the whole bible that they refuse to take at face value.
Brian2
Veteran Member
It is also interesting that the Church has taken it on itself to nullify the wording and say that the drinking of the blood (wine) is not necessary for the laity.
But yes it does look as if Jesus is saying that the bread is His body and wine His blood. But that is understood to mean that they represent His body and blood in a feast of remembrance of the death of Jesus.
After all Jesus was sitting there with a body and with His blood in Him when He said, "this is my body and blood" about the bread and wine, and so it was clear that the bread and wine were not His body and blood in that situation.
The Council of Trent it seems was in relation to the Reformation and this site says that the Church went down the path, not of reconciliation with the Protestants, but of reaffirming the Catholic Church and it's doctrines.
https://revelpreview.pearson.com/epubs/pearson_hopfe/OPS/xhtml/ch11_sec_19.xhtml#:~:text=The Council of Trent not,of Jesus during the mass.
Certainly the idea that the bread and wine is really the body and blood and that the Catholic priest only has the power to do that transubstantiation (along with some other doctrines) does imo seem to be pointing to the RCC as the source of salvation and not Jesus.
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
Their words cant be heard.
Because their language is symbolic. Their words are symbols.
This is a layer of three symbols:
Moon - Star - Sun
"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring". Luke
And this is another layer of three symbols:
Spear - Sword - Bow.
"Therefore set I in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows". Habakkuk
Both layers of symbols represent the same three things.
Moon - Star - Sun
Spear - Sword - Bow
Which is confirmed as the symbols are woven together in their speech.
Even like in this verse there are two symbols taken from the two different layers (Notice the two symbols that are missing, one from each layer)
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.
Sun and moon, arrows and spear.
Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Moon - Star - Sun
Spear - Sword - Bow
Only one symbol is missing from each layer. Star and sword.
Star and sword are the same thing.
So if I try to talk about the desert, the wilderness, and the mountain I am talking about another layer of symbols which also represent the same things.
Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Brass - Silver - Gold
Moon - Star - Sun
Spear - Sword - Bow
Desert - Wilderness - Mountain
"We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness". Lamentations.
Do you understand?
syo
Well-Known Member
That maya can't be destroyed.
I like it.
InChrist
Free4ever
I believe further on in the chapter it clarifies that Jesus was speaking spiritually and referring to the fact that believing and trusting Him as Savior provides eternal life. The rest of the NT also attests to this.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
This is according to (anonymous) John, kindly quote about it from Matthew and Mark, please? Right?
Isn't there every possibility/probability that (anonymous) John had been doctored by the Hellenist Paulines since the time Hellenist Paul heard (might be a devilish) voice posing as Jesus , while Hellenist Paul never was in the company of Jesus to recognize this voice, please? Right?
If it is an important matter, it must have been reported in consensus by all the four Gospel, please, right?
Does it not make Jesus a subordinate of the whims of the scribes/clergy/church, and smells like they were inventing a new religion than following the path of Jesus in his teachings and deeds, please? Right?
It is a point to ponder, please. Right?
Regards
__________
For timeline post #123
If you want to trash the foundations of Christianity including the Gospel of John and the Apostle Paul, start your own thread. Thanks.
Five Solas
Active Member
This chapter reveals/exposes the kind of Messiah those people wanted - one who would provide for their physical and or security needs. If that was the case, they were anxious to lead him in triumph to Jerusalem to crown him as king.
But He was not at all what they wanted him to be. He came to save people from the guilt and misery of sin. So, we see that many turned their backs upon him and walked no longer with him.
Many today still want a problem solver Jesus with instant solutions else they refuse to believe.
In verses 47–51 Jesus said: I most solemnly assure you, he who believes has everlasting life. (Note: the believer already has it; he has it here and now.)
So, I myself am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eat of this bread, he will live forever. Symbolic language: One must eat this bread, not merely taste it (Heb. 6:4, 5). To eat Christ, as the bread of life, means to accept, appropriate, and assimilate him — in other words, to believe in him (6:47) so that he begins to live in us and we in him.
Sola Fide