A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Pax]

Yes, but before i begin, i think i should heed the advice of Old Socrates, which he gave to his friend:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting; for the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. The same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak. And if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them; for the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)
With this wise advise as my guide, what steps would you, Pax, suggest i take to best understand the true intentions of John’s words, so as not to be found guilty of unintentionally slandering him?

I personally favor a humble and prayerful approach to scripture. I would suggest caution when taking Socrates advice as your guide in reading scripture. I am not saying that his cautionary note is not worthwhile…I believe it is. The author of scripture is God himself and He has not left us as orphans in reading the inspired word. We have the Holy Spirit and the Church.

Scripture can at times be difficult to understand, but it provides many clues to keep us on track. Many of these clues have been presented on this thread. I think that the best approach is a cautious and prayerful look at all of the reasons presented that support the Catholic position. I would then weigh these against the scriptural evidence that seemingly teaches the contrary view. This must be done prayerfully and honestly.

Moreover, your favorite sage, Socrates, would have his pupils be as objective as possible. This is very difficult for most of us. If we do not already believe something it is truly a difficult thing to edge our way toward it if we believe that which is contrary to it. The discourse on the bread of life is a “hard saying.” It is a hard saying because it is so hard to accept and believe. It is also hard to believe and accept the fact that Jesus is the son of God, and that He is one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. We can only believe each of these important doctrines by way of God’s grace.

The intellect needs to be prepared to accept the truths of the bible. The preparation of the mind can be assisted by the Socratic method, but the Socratic method, like all other intellectual methods, cannot bring us to belief. Ultimately, we must come to accept God’s truth by grace.

In summation I would suggest openess, thoughtfulness, reflection, analysis, and above all prayer.

P.S. Socrates is one of my all time favorite thinkers…the whole hemlock thing was a real bummer.

 

[po18guy]

In other words, God is in control over everything. He can take the molecules that make up bread and say that, for this one little part of the universe that the bread occupies, the rules don’t apply. In this little patch of existence, this is human flesh. This is what He does with the Eucharist. To all of our senses and all of the tests we can do, the Eucharist looks like bread. Yet it is, in reality, Jesus’ body, because God has made it so. Think about these, Socrates. You can’t easily dismiss them. Don’t just read this, or view the videos, and move on. Take some time off from the forums when you’ve read this. Go and be alone, in the silence. Pray. Just go spend time with God, even if it has nothing to do with the Eucharist or anything else. It is the only way for you to know the truth, whatever that happens to be. Peace and God bless,

Wiser words have been spoken, but it has been a long time since I heard them. Simply excellent advice, and great examples. I have seen minor miracles in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, mostly healing. However, it remains for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to a man’s heart.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

If you read my profile, you will see that i call myself an Evangelical, however, i was raised Roman Catholic by my aunt, who was once a nun and is still a devout Catholic.

Please understand, however, that i’m not trying to evangelize anyone, here, in the radical sense of the word. The radical Evangelist seeks to convince others he possesses the truth and they do not, as if he knows the way and they are lost. I, on the other hand, seek only to convince myself of whatever the truth might be, as if i might be lost and should always keep my eyes on the Truth; whether i convince anyone else is not my primary concern.

Ah, but once you possess the truth, you are called to share it with all. I understand that, in our human frailty, we want to be sure that we are correct before we try to lead, so as to avoid error. As to evangelizing, the strangest thing happens to us sometimes. God is very mysterious that way.

There is much truth and much to admire in the Evangelical church. However, the Catholic church has everything that the Evangelical has, and more. More Sacraments. More scripture. More devotions. More roots. Apostolic succession. You may attend mass in virtually every nation on earth. The sins of a contrite heart will be forgiven - but in the manner and example of Christ, you are mercifully allowed to know the moment of grace. Every sin that Christ forgave was accompanied by the knowledge of that forgiveness. And, so it remains in the ancient church.

I can go nowhere else. I am home.

Christ’s peace be with you on your search.

 

[LSK]

I think it is important to remember that, when Jesus presented this particular teaching to those gathered around Him, many left. They said it was ‘too hard’. Those early people knew what He was talking about and never did Jesus run after them to assure them not to worry, that He was only speaking metaphorically and to just hold on because He would show them He was only doing just that - instead, He asked the important question of St Peter: “well, are you going to leave to?”.
Ok…so I paraphrased that…

In other words, the Earliest Christians knew that the Eucharist was the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. People DIED to protect the Consecrated Host. We were accused of cannibalism and St Justin Martyr went to great lengths to explain this foundational teaching to non-Christians.

This is why it is so important to remember that we, as Catholics, have so much more than the Bible on which to stand. We were partaking of the Eucharist before there was a cannonized Bible, and that must be taken into consideration when one is discerning Truth.

 

[po18guy]

I think it is important to remember that, when Jesus presented this particular teaching to those gathered around Him, many left. They said it was ‘too hard’. Those early people knew what He was talking about and never did Jesus run after them to assure them not to worry, that He was only speaking metaphorically and to just hold on because He would show them He was only doing just that - instead, He asked the important question of St Peter: “well, are you going to leave to?”.
Ok…so I paraphrased that…

In other words, the Earliest Christians knew that the Eucharist was the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. People DIED to protect the Consecrated Host. We were accused of cannibalism and St Justin Martyr went to great lengths to explain this foundational teaching to non-Christians.

This is why it is so important to remember that we, as Catholics, have so much more than the Bible on which to stand. We were partaking of the Eucharist before there was a cannonized Bible, and that must be taken into consideration when one is discerning Truth.

Amen! Well said.

 

[pneuma07]

“Nonsense!” the Eucharist antagonists counsel me, “Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically.” …
I really want to know the truth about Holy Communion, as the antagonists’ argument is one reason why i have not returned to the faith of my youth.

Hi Socrates,

      if a late comer is allowed ....

You did not exclude the Fathers from your research field, so…

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist.
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. " …

From “First Apology”, by Justin Martyr (ca 100 - 165)

I understand that so as the “is my body” in Scripture is explained away as a figure, likewise you can read any “IS” in Justin as well as in other ECFs as “represents”. You can and have to, indeed, coherently.
(Nevermind wondering what the poor guy had to write to mean “IS”, if any “IS” is said to mean “represents” ).

But let’s read the central part of our passage again, together with everyone holding to this view:

but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

Here Real Presence is explicitly connected to that central pillar of Christianity which is Incarnation.

It seems, then, that we have to say that, if the blessed food is only figuratively flesh, the Word became flesh only figuratively, and Jesus had no real flesh.
Is Justin telling that ? Or, becoming Christian around 130 AD,
not more than two generations after the Apostles and with disciples of John’s still there, he had his fellow believers had been taught that as Christ would walk in Galilee and Jerusalem in a real
body ( a real human flesh, not a figurative one) eucharistic bread is likewise the flesh of that Jesus.

I hope this can help

Blessings.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
MY GOD IS NOT BREAD-- HE TAKES THE FORM OF BREAD…
big difference!

God Bless, mary

Hey, MJ:

Would you also say that God the Son is not a man, He only takes the form of a man?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I personally favor a humble and prayerful approach to scripture. I would suggest caution when taking Socrates advice as your guide in reading scripture. I am not saying that his cautionary note is not worthwhile…I believe it is. The author of scripture is God himself and He has not left us as orphans in reading the inspired word. We have the Holy Spirit and the Church.

Scripture can at times be difficult to understand, but it provides many clues to keep us on track. Many of these clues have been presented on this thread. I think that the best approach is a cautious and prayerful look at all of the reasons presented that support the Catholic position. I would then weigh these against the scriptural evidence that seemingly teaches the contrary view. This must be done prayerfully and honestly.

Moreover, your favorite sage, Socrates, would have his pupils be as objective as possible. This is very difficult for most of us. If we do not already believe something it is truly a difficult thing to edge our way toward it if we believe that which is contrary to it. The discourse on the bread of life is a “hard saying.” It is a hard saying because it is so hard to accept and believe. It is also hard to believe and accept the fact that Jesus is the son of God, and that He is one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. We can only believe each of these important doctrines by way of God’s grace.

The intellect needs to be prepared to accept the truths of the bible. The preparation of the mind can be assisted by the Socratic method, but the Socratic method, like all other intellectual methods, cannot bring us to belief. Ultimately, we must come to accept God’s truth by grace.

In summation I would suggest openess, thoughtfulness, reflection, analysis, and above all prayer.

P.S. Socrates is one of my all time favorite thinkers…the whole hemlock thing was a real bummer.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Why do do you believe Our Savior is only “like” a lamb? Scripture records that He is the “lamb”.

Was John the Baptist speaking literally or metaphorically, Davey?

http://www.mikban.com/images/Davey_Comm.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. God IS. But, He subsists in the presence of the Eucharist.

What definition of subsist should i understand you to be using, Davey?

sub·sist http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif/səbˈsɪst/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationsuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngb-sist]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

*–verb (used without object) *1.to exist; continue in existence. 2.to remain alive; live, as on food, resources, etc. 3.to have existence in, or by reason of, something. 4.to reside, lie, or consist (usually fol. by in). 5.Philosophy. a.to have timeless or abstract existence, as a number, relation, etc. b.to have existence, esp. independent existence. *–verb (used with object) *6.to provide sustenance or support for; maintain.

[Origin: 1540–50; < L *subsistere to remain, equiv. to sub- sub- + sistere to stand, make stand; see standhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It would show up as flour.

In our existence, there are two sides of a thing. There is what a thing really is, and there is a thing’s physical characteristics. The physical characteristics are dictated by the molecules that make the thing up. Now think about this very carefully: why do sodium-chloride molecules make up salt? Why don’t they make up something else?

The reason is that the particular properties of the sodium-chloride molecule, as dictated by the strength of the bonds involved, the electrical charge, and so forth, give it the properties that we know of as salt. But God made everything, so there’s a deeper question: why did He make those particular properties create a substance like salt, as opposed to something else? Ultimately, it’s becuase He chose to. He could have designed the physical laws of the universe so that different basic properties made a subatance that tastes salty.

In other words, God is in control over everything. He can take the molecules that make up bread and say that, for this one little part of the universe that the bread occupies, the rules don’t apply. In this little patch of existence, this is human flesh. This is what He does with the Eucharist. To all of our senses and all of the tests we can do, the Eucharist looks like bread. Yet it is, in reality, Jesus’ body, because God has made it so.

That doesn’t mean God always chooses to hide the flesh of Christ. Sometimes, He shows it. These are called Eucharistic miracles. In a Eucharistic miracle, God does not change the rules of the universe, so to speak, and we see the true flesh of Christ as it really is.

The most famous example is the miracle of Lanciano. While offering the Mass one day, a priest began to doubt that the Eucharist was truly Christ. God performed a miracle so that, in his very hands, the Eucharist took ok the appearences of flesh. It was witnessed by the entire congregation in the Mass. The piece of flesh has passed down now 800 years completely unpreserved. In 8 centuries, it has not decayed.

In the 1970s, the flesh was permitted to be studied by a team of over 70 unbiased scientists from the World Health Organization. They discovered that the flesh was a piece of human heart. The most astonishing part was that when they cut off several pieces for study, they weighed the same no matter what combination they were weighed in. In other words, piece A weighed the same as piece B, and piece B weighed the same as piece C, but piece A and B weighed that same amount as well, and adding piece C to the scale didn’t change it either! This is consistent with the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist contains the entire body of Christ, no matter how large or small a piece you receive.

There are plenty of other miracles around. If I am nost mistaken, the most amazing thing about them is that the DNA from them is always the same, and matches the DNA from the shroud of Turin.

Several of the Eucharistic miracles are available on video. Here are a few:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8021437065680936367&q=Eucharistic+Miracle&total=138&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 - the “bread” turns red and beats like a heart at certain intervals.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8070995291235752072&q=Eucharistic+Miracle&total=138&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3 - the "bread’ turns into flesh and blood on the tongue of a communicant.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4009479065184218241&q=Eucharistic+Miracle&total=138&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 - a documentary of several different miracles

Think about these, Socrates. You can’t easily dismiss them. Don’t just read this, or view the videos, and move on. Take some time off from the forums when you’ve read this. Go and be alone, in the silence. Pray. Just go spend time with God, even if it has nothing to do with the Eucharist or anything else. It is the only way for you to know the truth, whatever that happens to be.

Peace and God bless,

So, Lazer, in essentially what you are saying is that Jesus is, in essence, the Pilsbury Doe Boy?

http://thumbnail.search.aolcdn.com/truveo/images/thumbnails/F0/74/F074ED11886263.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

OK then how do you explain miracles like Lanciano?

I don’t understand the question, MJ, but i’m intrigued. Please elaborate.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The appearance of the bread remains, right down to the molecular level. Apart from rare events such as the Miracle at Lanciano, we don’t find DNA in it.

Interestingly, when these miracles do occur, we find the same DNA every time.

Substance isn’t a physical quality, as such, and I am not sufficiently educated to be able to explain exactly what it is - however, I have read Plato’s explanation of it, and he talks about the “chairness” of a chair that is its substance, and that there is a non-physical “chairness” that is the “substance” of the chair. All chairs, regardless of their design, share the same “substance” of “chairness,” even if they look nothing at all like each other.

(And now, I have gone beyond the reaches of my intelligence, and a philosopher is going to have to come and explain it to you correctly. )

What definition of substance should i understand you to be using, JM?

sub·stance http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif/ˈsʌbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngstəns/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationsuhb-stuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation*–noun *1.that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: *form and substance. *2.a species of matter of definite chemical composition: *a chalky substance. *3.[controlled substance.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=controlled substance) 4.the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc. 5.the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. 6.substantial or solid character or quality: *claims lacking in substance. *7.consistency; body: *soup without much substance. *8.the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing. 9.something that has separate or independent existence. 10.Philosophy. a.something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b.the essential part of a thing; essence. c.a thing considered as a continuing whole. 11.possessions, means, or wealth: *to squander one’s substance. *12.Linguistics. the articulatory or acoustic reality or the perceptual manifestation of a word or other construction (distinguished from form). 13.a standard of weights for paper.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Hey, MJ:

Would you also say that God the Son is not a man, He only takes the form of a man?

There is a difference between the incarnation and transubstantiation, after all God made man in His image so God planned that part of His creation so that He could become united to His creation through that form which has a soul, intellect,memory,imagination,emotion…and those are so much more a part of a ‘person’ than the molecular structure…
The ‘hypostatic’ union of Christ as God-Man was meant to occur only through Mary in the incarnation, but certainly God also foresaw that all of creation would partake in the event of the incarnation in some way. Everytime Jesus ate food, that food did become part of Him… so why not honor the way that aspect of nature sustained Him during His life?.

I am sorry I am not a theologian and not the best apologist, but it does seem that upon reflection that God has created this wonderful creation and every part of it belongs to Him and glorifies Him

The host we partake in was once a tiny seed in the ground. The earth covered it, rains fell upon it. The seed grew and was nourished by the minerals in the ground…the breezes blew upon it, sun fell upon it, the moon and stars shone upon the humble wheat stalk in the field. It is was harvested by human hands, ground and water and oil mixed with it to be come the unleavened bread. Then it was blessed and broken by Jesus at the Last Supper… and all of creation in some way was held in Jesus’ hands in that piece of bread…Is it so strange that he would honor the creation of His Father by using it for the miracle of transubstantiation?

We can all argue words and as you have said words and pictures can mean different things to different people, so maybe the real words you need to work out are what Jesus meant when He told Peter He was bulding His church on a Rock and not shifting sands
which change and erode…

God Bless you, maryJohnZ

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

To paraphrase our Lord: "Which is easier to believe? “The bread and wine are just that” - or - “The bread and wine, by the power of God and the promise of Christ, have become My Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity”?

Again, belief in the Eucharist is a Grace from God. Many have not received this grace, but it is available for the asking. Have you “gnawed” on the early church fathers’ writings? They all practiced the Eucharist. Action speaks louder than words. Could that be why Christ acted and did not write? He, above all others on earth, knew how scripture was distorted and abused by the Pharisees to make void the Word of God.

Christ is the Word of God. I will burn my bible when He approaches, as He alone is the word made flesh. The bible, by itself, can lead away from God, if it is separated from the faith Traditions that were instituted by Him in Christ.

May the peace of the Eucharistic Christ, which you have never experienced, be yours for ever and ever. Amen.

If our Lord’s body was the bread, Po, then what was the skin He was in when He held His body in His hands? In otherwords, how do you know, without a doubt, that He was not using a metaphor?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

There is a difference between the incarnation and transubstantiation, after all God made man in His image so God planned that part of His creation so that He could become united to His creation through that form which has a soul, intellect,memory,imagination,emotion…and those are so much more a part of a ‘person’ than the molecular structure…
The ‘hypostatic’ union of Christ as God-Man was meant to occur only through Mary in the incarnation, but certainly God also foresaw that all of creation would partake in the event of the incarnation in some way. Everytime Jesus ate food, that food did become part of Him… so why not honor the way that aspect of nature sustained Him during His life?.

I am sorry I am not a theologian and not the best apologist, but it does seem that upon reflection that God has created this wonderful creation and every part of it belongs to Him and glorifies Him

The host we partake in was once a tiny seed in the ground. The earth covered it, rains fell upon it. The seed grew and was nourished by the minerals in the ground…the breezes blew upon it, sun fell upon it, the moon and stars shone upon the humble wheat stalk in the field. It is was harvested by human hands, ground and water and oil mixed with it to be come the unleavened bread. Then it was blessed and broken by Jesus at the Last Supper… and all of creation in some way was held in Jesus’ hands in that piece of bread…Is it so strange that he would honor the creation of His Father by using it for the miracle of transubstantiation?

We can all argue words and as you have said words and pictures can mean different things to different people, so maybe the real words you need to work out are what Jesus meant when He told Peter He was bulding His church on a Rock and not shifting sands
which change and erode…

God Bless you, maryJohnZ

How do you know, sweet MJ, that what Paul wrote does not apply to the Eucharist?

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink… These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

(Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I don’t understand the question, MJ, but i’m intrigued. Please elaborate.

I think you love questions period!
Nothing wrong with that as they cause us to ponder things…

How do interpret and event like Lanciano in which a piece of unleavened bread is miraculously transformed before people’s eyes into a piece of human flesh which can be tested, analyzed by scientists, and which remains incorrupt for hundreds of years…
now could that posssibly be a miracle from God to help people who have doubts with the Eucharist? Does it not cause you to stop and think about the fact that it points to transubstantiation?

MaryJohnZ

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think I’m saying something that is either #2 or #3 - I’m not exactly sure which. Unfortunately I don’t know how much better or clearer I can explain it.

Jesus is not 100% bread. The “bread” or the “host” after the consecration is 100% Jesus. Its substance of “bread” has been replaced by the substance of Christ. In general, Jesus does this “in disguise” (for lack of a better metaphor).

Its kind of like when I put on a costume (although NOT exactly). I can change my appearance to look old or to look like a woman from the Renaissance. I can even look “kind of” like a cat. Fortunately or unfortunately I don’t have God’s omnipotent power to change myself into something that looks non-humanoid. Jesus has that power and can. He can make himself “look like” bread, even though he usually doesn’t. Just like the Holy Spirit made himself “look like” a bird (during Jesus’ baptism) or a pillar of fire (during the Exodus). The Holy Spirit isn’t a bird and he isn’t a pillar of fire - but he can look like it. And I bet touching that pillar of fire would cause a burn.

Jesus takes on a disguise - as a piece of bread - and comes to us to teach us a lesson: We must feast on him, the way we feast on food. He is our sustainer. He gets incorporated into our body - in a way similar to the way my body incorporates what I eat into every cell. Christ should permeate our being.

Bread isn’t Jesus. Jesus takes on the appearance of bread (including its molecular structure) in a beautiful sacrament of Grace. It’s an amazing miracle - but one that is not beyond the limits of God.

Very good, Doc; now we are making progress, i think!

Old Socrates would be proud that you and i are wise enough to follow his counsel:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning, and as they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves.

(Phaedrus 237)

Now, you and i, Doc, must not become guilty of this fundamental error which we might condemn in others; but as the question lies before us what the essence of the Eucharist actually is, let us first of all agree on a definition before we continue.

Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? Do the Catechism or the Scriptures define the Eucharist for us? Once we have a definition, we will save much time knocking down straw men, i think, and get right to the truth of the matter.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Question 11.

What is the truth about the true nature of the Eucharist?

1. 
   *]The bread is more than bread; it is a vehicle through which we receive the Spirit of the Son of God.
   *]The bread is not really bread; it is actually the human flesh of the Son of God in disguise.
   *]The bread is a metaphor and a solemn reminder of the depth of God’s love in suffering torture and death and even worse than we might imagine, so that we might receive eternal life as an absolutely free gift.
   *]Something completely different.
   http://www.sava.org.uk/images/upload/SAVA Assessment Centre/faq.jpg

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, now that you mention it, that is the correct interpretation of our Rabbi’s words. I take it then, Mike, that you believe Jesus might not have given the meaning of the metaphor of Living Water to the party girl at the well. However, He did give the meaning later on to others.

Tell me, please, where does Jesus give the meaning of His words that He is the bread from heaven?

John 6:51-57

51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven

If you follow the hermeneutic I gave you, you have the answer to your question.

God Bless,
Michael