A Tale of Two Eucharists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Socrates4Jesus said:
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
Click to expand...
No offense, but I really don’t see how these questions have anything to do with John 6, especially when the above verse perfectly fits the hermeneutic I mentioned in my earlier posts? In fact this verse was one of the examples. The explanation of what jesus meant is found in verse 21. The answer to your question is self-evident and already explained by the inspired author himself, the same way Jesus explains to the Jews what He meant by reaffirming what He told them and using even stronger and more specific language.

God Bless,
Michael
 
mikeledes said:
No offense, but I really don’t see how these questions have anything to do with John 6, especially when the above verse perfectly fits the hermeneutic I mentioned in my earlier posts? In fact this verse was one of the examples. The explanation of what jesus meant is found in verse 21. The answer to your question is self-evident and already explained by the inspired author himself, the same way Jesus explains to the Jews what He meant by reaffirming what He told them and using even stronger and more specific language.

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Maybe there is a point, maybe there is none. I suppose God will make the point clear to your or me soon enough. I only ask the questions as they come to me, Mike. Like the Socrates of ancient times, i do not claim to have any answers of my own. I’m just looking for the truth by testing the spirits to see whether they are from God.

🙂

With this as my goal, i’ll ask the last question again, and hope you will be patient and kind enough to answer:

What reason does Jesus give for choosing to speak in parables, Mike?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
What reason does Jesus give for choosing to speak in parables, Mike?

🤷
Click to expand...
I see where this is headed. 🙂 When Jesus spoke in parables, we know when He does and He often explains them to his apostles. If you read the verses I gave in my earlier posts, you will see that a number of the clarifying responses were given to unbelieving Jews. Whenever an objection or question is raised regarding a statement given by Jesus, Jesus gives a clarification.

God bless,
Michael
 
mikeledes said:
I see where this is headed. 🙂 When Jesus spoke in parables, we know when He does and He often explains them to his apostles. If you read the verses I gave in my earlier posts, you will see that a number of the clarifying responses were given to unbelieving Jews. Whenever an objection or question is raised regarding a statement given by Jesus, Jesus gives a clarification.

God bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
Does often mean always, Mike?

Also, you have not answered my question: Why did Jesus say He spoke in parables? Do you remember the reason He gave for doing this?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
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?

🤷
Click to expand...
Very well,

Soc 🙂 ,

I beg to differ with you on a few points. Though I have no doubt that the Apostle John was heavily invested and instrumental to the creation of the Gospel of John, I believe we do not have sufficient evidence in how the actual process (ie. who put the pen to paper, who added the last chapter, if John commissioned it or if it was culled together from his witnessing…) of how the Gospel came about. Without this information, it would be hard to presume that John decided to convey his thoughts in Greek.
What we do know is that the earliest manuscript we have of John’s Gospel (which if memory serves me, is around 115 AD) is in the Greek language.

However the source came about, my contention is a word anamnesis is only formally adaptable to Jewish thought. I am saying memorial in Jewish thought differs from the Greek concept. The ideas are not functionally compatible or interchangable due to the difference of time in (biblical) Jewish thought and Greek thought.

When we talk about time, and forgive me if I assume too much, we have mutual concepts because we grew up in the western world which relies heavily on the Greek thought. We can speak of a “timeline” or a “point in time.” We talk of time as an event unfolding in a “linear fashion.” Time is geometrical for us- we have linear lines and points in which to measure and define it. It is spatial for Greeks; but for the Jews this was not so. The difference can be seen in language, where the tenses of verbs between Indo-European languages and Semetic languages are incompatible. There is no real “was, is, will be” in Semetic languages.

So we are unable to translate correctly the use of memorial, or amamnesis, even with a formally comparable word in the Jewish language (which is zikkaron as Aaron I posted.) When you look at zikkaron, and how Jews used it, the meaning is to make a past event present- to show the continuity of the act. Because of this, I believe the Catholic Eucharistic celebration reflects nicely on Jewish thought. Just as rememberance in Jewish thought was to make ‘literally real’ the presence of a past event- the Church does the same with the Eucharistic celebration.

If this tradition could be passed down in spite of language difficulties due to divergent thinking between cultures, then I believe it is much easier to assume that all the other doctrines associated with the Eucharistic celebration in which all Apostlic Churches profess must be what Jesus had in mind and told to the Apostles.
 
Question 4.
Why did Jesus speak in metaphors and parables?

12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

(Matthew 13)

http://hot105fm.com/MARKET/images/questionmark.gif
 
ALotLessThumb said:
Very well,

Soc 🙂 ,

I beg to differ with you on a few points. Though I have no doubt that the Apostle John was heavily invested and instrumental to the creation of the Gospel of John, I believe we do not have sufficient evidence in how the actual process (ie. who put the pen to paper, who added the last chapter, if John commissioned it or if it was culled together from his witnessing…) of how the Gospel came about. Without this information, it would be hard to presume that John decided to convey his thoughts in Greek.
What we do know is that the earliest manuscript we have of John’s Gospel (which if memory serves me, is around 115 AD) is in the Greek language.

However the source came about, my contention is a word anamnesis is only formally adaptable to Jewish thought. I am saying memorial in Jewish thought differs from the Greek concept. The ideas are not functionally compatible or interchangable due to the difference of time in (biblical) Jewish thought and Greek thought.
…
Click to expand...
What would these words mean to an ancient Jewish person, Thumb, and what would they mean to an ancient gentile?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

(John 1:1-2)

*🤷 *
 
Lazerlike42 said:
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:

PM me if you have any questions.

Peace and God bless
Click to expand...
I do have a question, Lazer, and it would take just as much time for you to answer it by private message as by posting a reply:

Please tell me why Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors?

🤷
 
Laser, the article is fabulous. thank you for posting it. I marked it as a favorite, and will for sure be going back to it for help. Thanks again. Mj
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Does anyone know why Jesus spoke in metaphors and parables?

http://pantsshrapnel.com/images/questionmark.jpg
Click to expand...
Well, this isn’t something that I can say with absolute certainty
but Jesus came from a period of time when people tranferred knowledge through oral traditions and a story is much easier to remember. Also stories are one of the most potent ways of teaching because they involve a person’s total imagination, knowledge – visual as well as emotional…

Parables also allow for different layers or levels of understanding …

I believe that all of creation is a metaphor for God anyway and you can look at creation as another form of ‘scripture’ in a sense, but we haven’t unlocked many of those mysteries especially in our century. The people of the Middle Ages were more ready to see nature in that way.

I better not say any more since I am not a philosopher!

I do know that I once asked some non-Catholics that I thought it was worth praying to Jesus and asking Him whether the Eucharist was His Real Presence and they complained against me for that (a local ecumenical bible study). Well, I believe enough that Jesus is real and He certainly would hear that question and it struck me as very strange that they held it against me for merely suggesting they pray about it.

My sister Ann Astell is a Theology teacher at Notre Dame and she wrote a book on the Eucharist called “Eating Beauty”, and a Protestant who did a review on the book said that she would re-read the book because it was a book that judged the reader…
interesting way to put it.

God Bless, Mary
 
MaryJohnZ said:
… I do know that I once asked some non-Catholics that I thought it was worth praying to Jesus and asking Him whether the Eucharist was His Real Presence and they complained against me for that (a local ecumenical bible study). Well, I believe enough that Jesus is real and He certainly would hear that question and it struck me as very strange that they held it against me for merely suggesting they pray about it.
…God Bless, Mary
Click to expand...
Apparently these non-Catholics did not read or remember James’ advice:
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

What wisdom did God give you, Mary, and how did He give this insight into the Eucharist to you?

🙂
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Question 4.

Why did Jesus speak in metaphors and parables?

12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see;

though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

(Matthew 13)

http://hot105fm.com/MARKET/images/questionmark.gif
Click to expand...
Anyone want to try to answer this question?

🤷
 
Lazerlike42 said:
I am hesitant to become involved in a discussion that spans 7 pages, the context of which I am not familiar with.
Click to expand...
No problem, Lazer! The topic of the discussion is still related to my original post:
Socrates4Jesus said:
It occurred to me, recently, that i’m a Eucharist agonist. For i’m agonizing over two tales of this sacrament introduced by Jesus at His last supper. There are protagonists to the left of me, antagonists to the right; here i am stuck in the middle not knowing who is true.

The protagonists of the Eucharist tell me the bread really is Christ’s body and the wine really is His blood, and eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary for obtaining eternal life. They tell me to read my Redeemer’s words and consider them carefully:

Jesus 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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just 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. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

(John 6:53-58)“Nonsense!” the Eucharist antagonists counsel me, “Our Savior was speaking merely metaphorically.” They caution me to heed Paul’s words:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
Now, i’m not asking for the sake of debate (however, i realize i’ll have to play devil’s advocate to learn the rebuttal to the opposing viewpoint). 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. Please help this agonist get the genuine gist of the true tale of the Eucharist.

🙂
​
Click to expand...

​
I asked question 4 after the suggestion was made that John, chapter 6 should be taken literally. The reason i should take Jesus’ words literally, i was told, is because He did not explain what He meant by calling Himself the bread from heaven.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
No problem, Lazer! The topic of the discussion is still related to my original post:

I asked question 4 after the suggestion was made that John, chapter 6 should be taken literally. The reason i should take Jesus’ words literally, i was told, is because He did not explain what He meant by calling Himself the bread from heaven.
Click to expand...
Aha.

Well, Jesus said that He spoke in parables so that those with hardened hearts would not understand.

I don’t believe that the argument that Jesus’ words were literal because He didn’t explain them is, the way you put it, a good one but that is only because it is incomplete.

What the person probably said, or at least what they meant, was that Jesus did not clarify Himself after the people misunderstood His figurative expression. The argument runs that Jesus preached that His body and blood must be eaten, and then people began to leave Him. Rather than correcting them, saying something like, “No, you misunderstood me, I was speaking figuratively,” He reiterates what He said about eating His flesh. Thus, the argument says, if Jesus really *were *speaking figuratively, He allowed 20,000 people to leave Him and be damned over a misunderstanding.

Some have responded to this argument by claiming that it is perfectly consistent with Jesus’ methodology to leave the people in their misunderstandings, because He spoke in parables so that people would not understand, according to Mark and Matthew.

However, this argument is erroneous for at least four reasons:

First, Jesus is not speaking in parables in John 6. There is a difference between figurative or symbolic language and a parable. A parable is presented as either a story or an analogy. In presenting a parable, Jesus says, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a…” Here, Jesus does not do this. He simply says “You must eat my flesh.”

Second, Jesus does not use parables in John’s gospel, but only in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Third, John’s gospel is full of instances when Jesus did clarify His meaning to confused or misunderstanding crowds. For example, in John 3:3ff, Jesus clarifies His symbolic reference to being born again. In John 11:11ff, Jesus clarifies what He means by having said that Lazarus had fallen asleep. In other passages in which there is confusion over a symbolic reference, such as John 2:21f and John 7:38f, John himself clarifies Jesus’ symbolic statements.

Fourth, even in the synoptic gospels, Jesus clarifies His parables to the apostles after others have left. However, in John 6, Jesus fails to clarify anything even for the apostles, which rules out the possibility that He was speaking in any way that required clarification. When He said His flesh must be eaten and His blood drunk, everybody present understood it literally and was scandalized by it, including the apostles. He did not clarify Himself to the people, and He did not clarify Himself to the apostles, but reitterated Himself. He was understood in the way He intended to be.

Peace and God bless
 
Question 5.

Is God the air we breath?

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

(John 3)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Lazerlike42 said:
Aha.

Well, Jesus said that He spoke in parables so that those with hardened hearts would not understand.

I don’t believe that the argument that Jesus’ words were literal because He didn’t explain them is, the way you put it, a good one but that is only because it is incomplete.

What the person probably said, or at least what they meant, was that Jesus did not clarify Himself after the people misunderstood His figurative expression. The argument runs that Jesus preached that His body and blood must be eaten, and then people began to leave Him. Rather than correcting them, saying something like, “No, you misunderstood me, I was speaking figuratively,” He reiterates what He said about eating His flesh. Thus, the argument says, if Jesus really *were *speaking figuratively, He allowed 20,000 people to leave Him and be damned over a misunderstanding.
…
Click to expand...
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.”

(John 6)
Do you think, Lazer, that Jesus will damn those who believe in Him? (cf. verse 29).

🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top