A Tale of Two Eucharists

[VociMike]

Servant:

If you are hoping for answers, you’ve come to the wrong person, for i’m looking for the truth myself! If you are willing to answer my questions, then perhaps one of us will discover the truth.

You mention two of the I AM statements our Lord made about Himself:

“I am the vine; you are the branches.”
(John 15:5)

and

“I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.”
(John 10:7)

Please tell me, how do these make metaphorical sense to you? I mean to ask, what did Jesus mean by comparing Himself to a grape vine and to a gate to a sheep pen?

These can clearly be seen as metaphor because they both make claims about human beings which we know are not true. We know that humans are not literally branches, nor are they literally sheep. Therefore we know that these statements do not contain literal truth, but other kinds of truth.

However, there is no such claim in John 6 to force it to be metaphorical.

And then there’s the fact that for 1500 years the entire Christian world believed what the Catholics and Orthodox still believe today regarding the Eucharist. That’s a really hard fact to explain away.

Finally, it must be remembered that the early Church did not look to John 6 to discover the truth regarding the Eucharist. No, they already had the truth. John 6 simply confirmed what they already knew, what had already been handed down from Christ to the apostles to the Church. It is always a mistake to try and derive doctrine from scripture (as opposed to confirming doctrine, which is one of the true purposes of scripture).

 

[Didi]

I’m not sure if your insights were meant for me or for all or both, but they are truly pregnant with many hours of thoughtful discussion. I’m not sure which child to spank first to see if it is alive with truth or stillborn.

I suppose i should start with the one you find most alive: Jesus’ meal after His trek with two of His followers:

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

(Luke 24)

Does verse 35 say they recognized Jesus in the bread or that they recognized Jesus because He broke the bread?

http://www.southmsemmaus.net/images/Breaking Bread.bmp

Yes, and yes. They recognized Jesus in the Bread Itself; they recognized Jesus in the manner in which He “took, blessed, broke and gave” for that is the manner He instituted at the Last Supper.

I’m not sure I indicated in any way that the verse you chose is the one I though was “most alive.” All of scripture is important and it’s all interconnected. You see, the wonderful thing about scripture is the depths of understanding that come from it. A verse or passage may have several layers of meanings, yet none of them contradict the other.

So it is with Sacred Scripture in its entirety. You can’t “pick and choose” certain verses – you look at the totality of the entire book. The totality of verses that point to Jesus, Truly Present, in the Holy Eucharist! The typology used in the Old Testament to foreshadow what happens in the New Testament!

As St. Augustine said: “The New Covenant is concealed in the Old, while the Old Covenant is revealed in the New.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Jesus, Truth Himself, always came to tell us the truth. But He also came so that “the thoughts of many hearts would be revealed”. He came not to bring peace but a sword – because when Truth is heard, some people embrace it and some people can’t stand it.

A little too close to the truth, people say.

God is always giving us choices. We can trust Him and follow Him, or we can run from hard sayings. Either way, the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. We can’t hide from the Truth.

“What is truth?” asked jesting Pilate, and would not stay to hear the answer.

Thank you, Mintaka. What is the truth of John, chapter 6?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It would seem that the multitude, as pointed out in verse 15 quoted in your post, wanted to make Jesus king. They, like most Jews of the time, believed that the messiah would be an earthly king that would free them from the Romans. …

Yes, and earlier you said:

Jesus risked his life to make the meaning of a relatively easy parable clear to his listeners because they did not understand him. In John 6 the Jews did understand his hard saying which was not a parable and they walked away from Him. Jesus risked losing His disciples by telling them the truth of the Eucharist that He would give them. He even risked alienating the twelve. If they did not understand what he was talking about they would not have walked away. He spoke literally and they understood Him literally. He did not explain His statements as metaphorical and He never changed the meaning by way of some other explanation.

…
Now, if i were to ask you, Pax, whether Jesus wanted to be declared king of the Jewish people at that juncture, i’m sure you would say that He did not. Likewise, if i asked you if Jesus wanted to lead an insurrection to overthrow the Roman government in Jerusalem, i’m certain you would also say this was not what He came to earth to do.

So, would you say, then, that Jesus’ statements in John, chapter 6 had the effect of stopping them from making Him king and, thereby, stopped the Romans from attempting to squelch the rebellion that would likely ensue afterward?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Yes, i agree. And do you, NW, believe that God finds it offensive when a person partakes of the Eucharist at Mass, but fully intends to live like the devil come Monday?

*

Absolutely.

Yes, we agree. This brings us back to your objection that it would not be a sin to live like the devil and partake in the Eucharist IF the Eucharist was merely symbolic. I’d have to disagree, for just as some would find it offensive for someone to defecate on and burn the symbol of the United States (or flag), so too God would find it offensive for someone to treat the symbol of His Son’s sacrifice for our sins with such disdain.

I’m reminded of the words of the writer of Hebrews:

How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

(Hebrews 10:29)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, I do. And do you agree that these analogies were readily understandable to the Jews? The Bread of Life doesn’t exactly fit this mole.

Please read our Redeemer’s words carefully, NW, and see that He was comparing Himself to the bread that fell from heaven to feed Moses’ people.

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

32Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.” 35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

(John 6)

It appears that the metaphor of manna was exactly what Jesus meant, does it not?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates4Jesus;3400159:

I’m not sure why you believe Jesus used that Hebrew word. The New Testament was originally written in a form of Greek, and the passage to which you referred is translated to English this way:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it unto them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance
​

of me."*(Luke 22:19)*The English word remembrance in this verse is translated from the Greek word *anamnesis, *which means a commemoration or a memorial. …​

Socrates4Jesus,

For my own two cents, you seem to be overlooking the impact of the Judaic environment Jesus and the apostles were born and raised. … Even if they did not speak the ancient tongue of their forefathers and spoke only in Aramaic and Greek- Jesus and his followers being “mainstream Jewish men” of their era would still have the outlook of their cultural philosophy. The problem only occurs because the thought in the two systems are so different that they are hard to translate properly into each others’ languages.

With that in mind, the word he proposes is most likely the one meant even if the documentation we have of the event comes from sources in a language ill suited to convey the meaning.
…

Thumb:

Please feel free to call me Soc.

The Apostle John was Jewish, but he chose to write his gospel in Greek. The word he chose to express his thoughts was *anamnesis, *which means a memorial. If he meant that the Eucharist was more than merely a memorial, why did he not choose a different Greek word?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, and yes. They recognized Jesus in the Bread Itself; they recognized Jesus in the manner in which He “took, blessed, broke and gave” for that is the manner He instituted at the Last Supper. …

What i asked, Didi, was not your opinion of what they recognized. Your opinion does not matter any more than mine. What does matter is the opinion of God, expressed in the words of the gospel writer. In other words, what is Luke’s opinion of what they recognized in verse 35?

Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

(Luke 24:35)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Perhaps it might be helpful if i ask questions open to all to see what each of your answers might be. Please, anyone, answer yes or no to each question, and give an explanation of your answer, if you like.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

(John 1:29)

---

Question 1.

Is God an animal?

http://www.marketingcalendarfx.com/images/stories/questionmark.jpg

 

[mikeledes]

I understand.

Would you agree, then, that when Jesus said He was the gate for the sheep, He never meant that He had wooden veneerer instead of skin and a door knob in place of a navel?

Would you also say that when Jesus said He was the vine, He never meant that He had leaves for hair and grew grapes from His finger tips?

http://a767.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/2/s_8915ede5ce1db26df3f1bfaad995329e.jpg

Hi Socrates4Jesus! I wasn’t expecting to be online today and I won’t be for long, but if you follow the hermeneutic in my original post, you will see that when Jesus says “I am the Door” and , He is actually explaining the parable he just gave to his apostles:

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

What Jesus is explaining to the apostles is that the door in the parable He just gave represents Himself.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi Socrates4Jesus! I wasn’t expecting to be online today and I won’t be for long, but if you follow the hermeneutic in my original post, you will see that when Jesus says “I am the Door” and , He is actually explaining the parable he just gave to his apostles:

John 10:1-10

1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
**3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. **
**4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. **
**5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." **
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
**8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. **
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

What Jesus is explaining to the apostles is that the door in the parable He just gave represents Himself.

God Bless,
Michael

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Mike. So, i take it that you agree, then, that when Jesus says that He is the gate, or the door, to the sheep pen and we are the sheep, He is not speaking literally in any sense of the word.

How about when Jesus says that He is the vine and we are the branches? Does He mean He is literally exists a grape vine in a vineyard somewhere, or that He can morph into some kind of plant man?

 

[mikeledes]

Perhaps it might be helpful if i ask questions open to all to see what each of your answers might be. Please, anyone, answer yes or no to each question, and give an explanation of your answer, if you like.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

(John 1:29)

---

Question 1.

Is God an animal?

http://www.marketingcalendarfx.com/images/stories/questionmark.jpg

There are metaphors and figures that are self-evident and thus do not need explanation. Jesus is obviously not an actual lamb. There were no objections raised that elicited a clarifying response, no questions that needed answers. However, following the hermeneutic I pointed out in my earlier post, Jesus in John 6 is speaking literally, as literally as when He said He came down from heaven. Remember the response of the Jews?

1At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?"

The Jews grumbled - the same reaction given to Jesus’s teaching on His flesh and blood - and asked a question that was rooted in rejection. What did they object to? That He said He came down from heaven! In other words, they questioned His divine origin. They objected to the very literal truth that Jesus came down from heaven and they subsequently rejected the literal truth regarding eating His flesh and His blood, grumbling and asking a question rooted in rejection.

Jesus is the Lamb of God. And just as the passover lamb was eaten by members of national Israel, the Lamb of God is consumed by the members of spiritual Israel.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Question 2.

---

Is God a vegetation?

1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5**“I am the vine**; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”

(John 15)

http://digital-media-works.co.uk/assets/images/questionmark.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

There are metaphors and figures that are self-evident and thus do not need explanation. Jesus is obviously not an actual lamb. There were no objections raised that elicited a clarifying response, no questions that needed answers. However, following the hermeneutic I pointed out in my earlier post, Jesus in John 6 is speaking literally, as literally as when He said He came down from heaven. Remember the response of the Jews?

1At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?"

The Jews grumbled - the same reaction given to Jesus’s teaching on His flesh and blood - and asked a question that was rooted in rejection. What did they object to? That He said He came down from heaven! In other words, they questioned His divine origin. They objected to the very literal truth that Jesus came down from heaven and they subsequently rejected the literal truth regarding eating His flesh and His blood, grumbling and asking a question rooted in rejection.

Jesus is the Lamb of God. And just as the passover lamb was eaten by members of national Israel, the Lamb of God is consumed by the members of spiritual Israel.

God bless,
Michael

Would you say, then, Mike, that Jesus sometimes spoke in parables, and that a parable is a kind of metaphor?

 

[mikeledes]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Mike. So, i take it that you agree, then, that when Jesus says that He is the gate, or the door, to the sheep pen and we are the sheep, He is not speaking literally in any sense of the word.

How about when Jesus says that He is the vine and we are the branches? Does He mean He is literally exists a grape vine in a vineyard somewhere, or that He can morph into some kind of plant man?

http://www.dragonhero.com/graphics/marvel2/plantman2.jpg

As I stated earlier, there are metaphors that are self evident and hence there are no objections raised that elicits a clarifying response from Jesus and no questions asked which He answers. The passage in John 10 fits perfectly the hermeneutic in my first couple of posts, the same hermeneutic that demonstrates that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous/ hard to understand statement - whether he’s speaking literally or figuratively - that leads to an objection or a question, Jesus gives a clarifying response. The apostles didn’t need to argue whether Jesus was an actual vine or not because the fact that He is not a literal vine is self-evident. John 15 gives a pretty thorough explanation of what the Vine and the branches represent. Hence, there is no room for confusion or misunderstanding.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Question 3.

Is God a rock, or a stone building?

18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

(John 2)

http://www.jefferson.lib.la.us/images/questionmark.gif

 

[mikeledes]

Would you say, then, Mike, that Jesus sometimes spoke in parables, and that a parable is a kind of metaphor?

Jesus used parables and we know that because he identified them as parables or said things like “The kingdom of heaven is like…” Many of his parables and metaphors are self-evident that they are parables and metaphors. Moreover, the pattern I pointed out in my earlier posts makes it clear that when an ambiguous statement caused a controversy or led to a question, Jesus explains what He meant. Based on His response, we know not only what that original ambiguous statement meant, but we also find out whether he was using a figure or not. If He was using a figure, his clarifying response clearly indicates that He was not speaking literally.
When He speaks literally, His clarifying response indicates that He was speaking literally.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Lazerlike42]

As I stated earlier, there are metaphors that are self evident and hence there are no objections raised that elicits a clarifying response from Jesus and no questions asked which He answers. The passage in John 10 fits perfectly the hermeneutic in my first couple of posts, the same hermeneutic that demonstrates that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous/ hard to understand statement - whether he’s speaking literally or figuratively - that leads to an objection or a question, Jesus gives a clarifying response. The apostles didn’t need to argue whether Jesus was an actual vine or not because the fact that He is not a literal vine is self-evident. John 15 gives a pretty thorough explanation of what the Vine and the branches represent. Hence, there is no room for confusion or misunderstanding.

God bless,
Michael

I have no idea what’s going on here, nor do I (at this time) intend to get involved in the thread, but it sounds to me like you’re involved in a discussion of the sort that this article I wrote a while back, drawing on some CAF users, may help you with.

An excerpt:

John consistently presents Jesus teaching in a way that follows the pattern:

1. • Jesus presents a metaphor
   • Jesus applies the metaphor to people
   • Jesus states the literal fulfillment of the metaphor
     To apply it to the cases which Dr. White mentions, the principle works as such:
     John 8:12 -
   • “I am the light of the world” - The metaphor
   • “Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness” - An application of the metaphor to people
   • “But will have the light of life” - The literal fulfillment
     John 10:7ff -
   • “I am the gate” - The metaphor
   • ”Whoever enters through me will be saved.” - An application of the metaphor to people
   • ”I came so that they might have life and have it abundantly” - The literal fulfillment
     John 15:1ff -
   • “I am the vine, you are the branches” - The metaphor
   • “Those who abide in me and I in them will bear much fruit.” - An application of the metaphor to people
   • “If my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish and it will be done” - The literal fulfillment
     John 10:7ff -
   • “I am the door” - The metaphor
   • ”Whoever enters through me will be saved.” - An application of the metaphor to people
   • ”I came so that they might have life and have it abundantly” - The literal fulfillment
     The same principle applies to John 14:6f and 11:25f. When one interprets John 6 in the light of this consistent pattern, as Dr. White has stated is important to do, the result is that Jesus will indeed give His flesh as bread:
     John 6:35ff -
   • “I am the Living Bread come down from heaven” - The metaphor
   • “the one who eats this bread will live forever” - An application of the metaphor to people
   • “the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” - The literal fulfillment

1. 
   PM me if you have any questions.
   
   Peace and God bless

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As I stated earlier, there are metaphors that are self evident and hence there are no objections raised that elicits a clarifying response from Jesus and no questions asked which He answers. The passage in John 10 fits perfectly the hermeneutic in my first couple of posts, the same hermeneutic that demonstrates that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous/ hard to understand statement - whether he’s speaking literally or figuratively - that leads to an objection or a question, Jesus gives a clarifying response. The apostles didn’t need to argue whether Jesus was an actual vine or not because the fact that He is not a literal vine is self-evident. John 15 gives a pretty thorough explanation of what the Vine and the branches represent. Hence, there is no room for confusion or misunderstanding.

God bless,
Michael

Yes, i just am following the wise advise given to me by my first full-time employer: “Do not assume, or you will make an *** out of u and me!” I do not want to assume that i understand you, if i am mistaken.

I take it, then, that you do not believe Jesus was saying God is an animal, or vegetable, or mineral? Is this correct, or am i making an *** of myself?

http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/images/Issues/donkey.gif

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Jesus used parables and we know that because he identified them as parables or said things like “The kingdom of heaven is like…” Many of his parables and metaphors are self-evident that they are parables and metaphors. Moreover, the pattern I pointed out in my earlier posts makes it clear that when an ambiguous statement caused a controversy or led to a question, Jesus explains what He meant. Based on His response, we know not only what that original ambiguous statement meant, but we also find out whether he was using a figure or not. If He was using a figure, his clarifying response clearly indicates that He was not speaking literally.
When He speaks literally, His clarifying response indicates that He was speaking literally.

God Bless,
Michael

What reason does Jesus give for choosing to speak in parables, Mike?