A Tale of Two Eucharists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, Socrates. A more complete quote might explain better what I was trying to convey. Jesus said:

“Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead [for the reason that it took the Israelites 40 years to complete a journey that could have been completed in 40 days, see A Journey Without A Destination]. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.”

I guess one can always argue that Jesus meant it metaphorically. However, the word Jesus used for “eat” did not merely mean “to consume”, but meant, literally, to “chew”. Jesus’s insistence that we must “chew” His flesh (rather than merely to “consume” it, which could more easily be taken as a metaphor) is indicative of His literal meaning. In other words, Jesus chose to use a word which meant “chew” rather than “consume” to show us there was no mistaking His literal intention.

Besides, if God Almighty has the power to leave us with such an awesome legacy (Jesus’s true presence in the Eucharist), why wouldn’t He? He can do it; He has done it; all things are possible with God. Why have doubts? If Jesus would go through all that trouble to humble Himself to share in our humanity, it wouldn’t make sense if we, in turn, couldn’t share in His divinity by being able to literally chew His flesh. The Holy Eucharist is our physical connection with God. Of course, this is onyl my faith talking - I don’t expect that to be your proof positive. That said, if you are truly struggling with this matter of the Catholic faith, I have a suggestion for you. If you have the opportunity to visit the Blessed Sacrament, if your parish or one near you has Eucharistic Adoration, please go and while you are there, ask Jesus to let you know the truth. This is one prayer He ALWAYS answers. The truth will be given to you.

God bless you on your faith journey.
 
jjformica said:
Hi, Socrates. A more complete quote might explain better what I was trying to convey. Jesus said:

“Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead [for the reason that it took the Israelites 40 years to complete a journey that could have been completed in 40 days, see A Journey Without A Destination]. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.”

I guess one can always argue that Jesus meant it metaphorically. However, the word Jesus used for “eat” did not merely mean “to consume”, but meant, literally, to “chew”. Jesus’s insistence that we must “chew” His flesh (rather than merely to “consume” it, which could more easily be taken as a metaphor) is indicative of His literal meaning. In other words, Jesus chose to use a word which meant “chew” rather than “consume” to show us there was no mistaking His literal intention.

Besides, if God Almighty has the power to leave us with such an awesome legacy (Jesus’s true presence in the Eucharist), why wouldn’t He? He can do it; He has done it; all things are possible with God. Why have doubts? If Jesus would go through all that trouble to humble Himself to share in our humanity, it wouldn’t make sense if we, in turn, couldn’t share in His divinity by being able to literally chew His flesh. The Holy Eucharist is our physical connection with God. Of course, this is onyl my faith talking - I don’t expect that to be your proof positive. That said, if you are truly struggling with this matter of the Catholic faith, I have a suggestion for you. If you have the opportunity to visit the Blessed Sacrament, if your parish or one near you has Eucharistic Adoration, please go and while you are there, ask Jesus to let you know the truth. This is one prayer He ALWAYS answers. The truth will be given to you.

God bless you on your faith journey.
Click to expand...
JJ:

Allow me to think about that and get back to you. Thanks again! Please check back later, if you want to see my reply.

🙂
 
jmcrae said:
This is actually the part that we know for sure.

What we don’t know is, the scientific explanation of how it works.
Click to expand...
Yes, JM, i definitely agree that there is no scientific evidence to support the Eucharist. For science deals with what is physical and observable, and no observable evidence demonstrates that the physical body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist. The appearance remains that of bread and wine. The DNA remains that of bread and wine. The molecular structure remains that of bread and wine. The atoms remain that of bread and wine.

However, it’s not only scientific evidence that is lacking; it’s rational evidence that is missing. For, as i mentioned, the idea of a physical body without atoms appears to be self-contradictory. An atomless body is a bodiless body.

So in our crime scened investigation, where the Catholic church has been apprehended by the Protestant police, i can imagine the apprehends saying, “See? What more evidence do we need? Let’s book her! A contradiction is never true, so she is guilty of murder of the Truth in the first degree.”

“Now, wait a minute, officers!” i should say in response, “You don’t have enough cause for prosecution, yet. The evidence is still inconclusive. You might think it a real contradiction, but you have not proven it to be so. It might be merely an apparent contradiction. Perhaps God could make a bodiless body, even though you or i cannot fathom how.”

As a good CSI investigator, then, i should turn my investigation to other evidence.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I know Distracted and some others have washed their hands of this whole dirty mess. They think that i’ll never solve this case. My hope is that they are wrong. It has remained a cold case for me for far too long, and i’m eager to solve it.

Maybe they are right. Maybe this case can never be resolved. Maybe i am a fool who does not know when to give up. Maybe all this time and talent devoted to discovering the truth really is in vain. But how will i know unless i try? I think the wise decision is to keep trying, for Paul tells me:

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

(Galatians 6:9)

I do think, that despite to criticism of the naysayers, we’ve actually have made headway. For we have ruled out one area of investigation as having inconclusive evidence. Someone reading this might recall that there were three ways to come to the truth of the Eucharist, which are:A. -]The individual substance of the Eucharist itself./-]B. What Jesus said and did.C. What others have said and experienced.http://owll.massey.ac.nz/images/relation_b _venn_diagram.png

Notice that i have crossed (A) off our list. I did so because i think most (if not all) of us are satisfied that examining the substance of the Eucharist itself–with all that we know of science and reason–does not prove, nor disprove, the presence of the body and blood of Jesus within it.

That’s progress, i think, for now we can focus on examining the other two more thoroughly, which are (B) and (C). We’ve examined some of the evidence of (B) and (C), both for and against the Eucharist, and have not uncovered anything conclusive thus far (please correct me if i’m wrong) but i think we are getting closer to the truth.

Again, i do appreciate the time everyone has given to help me in my efforts to find some closure to this crime scene investigation. Does anyone have anything to add on why the evidence of (B) or (C) supports the truth of the Eucharist and finds the Catholic church innocent of the charges against her?
 
jjformica said:
… Besides, if God Almighty has the power to leave us with such an awesome legacy (Jesus’s true presence in the Eucharist), why wouldn’t He? He can do it; He has done it; all things are possible with God. Why have doubts? If Jesus would go through all that trouble to humble Himself to share in our humanity, it wouldn’t make sense if we, in turn, couldn’t share in His divinity by being able to literally chew His flesh. The Holy Eucharist is our physical connection with God. Of course, this is onyl my faith talking - I don’t expect that to be your proof positive. That said, if you are truly struggling with this matter of the Catholic faith, I have a suggestion for you. If you have the opportunity to visit the Blessed Sacrament, if your parish or one near you has Eucharistic Adoration, please go and while you are there, ask Jesus to let you know the truth. This is one prayer He ALWAYS answers. The truth will be given to you.

God bless you on your faith journey.
Click to expand...
Two questions, JJ:

  1. *]Is there anything that is impossible for God to do?
    *]Is faith more than a feeling?
    🤷
 
jjformica said:
Hi, Socrates. A more complete quote might explain better what I was trying to convey. Jesus said:

… “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.”

I guess one can always argue that Jesus meant it metaphorically. However, the word Jesus used for “eat” did not merely mean “to consume”, but meant, literally, to “chew”. Jesus’s insistence that we must “chew” His flesh (rather than merely to “consume” it, which could more easily be taken as a metaphor) is indicative of His literal meaning. In other words, Jesus chose to use a word which meant “chew” rather than “consume” to show us there was no mistaking His literal intention. …
Click to expand...
JJ:

Thanks for joining the investigation! I need all the help i can get, for i have no contact with Catholics who are willing to discuss this with me offline.

Thinking about what you said, i find these words of Jesus perhaps the strongest evidence supporting the Catholic view of the Eucharist:
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. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

(John 6)
biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31

Now, i have been using the Bible for many years to help me in my investigations of the truth. One of the methods i’ve employed that i’ve found invaluable is that of comparison. For example, when i find a passage difficult to understand or ambiguous (as this one is to me) i compare it to another that i find easier to understand and more clear. So, if you (or anyone else) is willing, i’d like to ask you to help me compare John 6 to John 4:

7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
9The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.a])
10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
11"Sir," the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” 13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

(John 4)

Please tell me, JJ, what is the water you or i must drink to receive eternal life?

🤷
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Thank you, JJ. What do you think Jesus meant when He said these words?

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)
Click to expand...
Would He give them manna to eat again, a second time.
Yes, they will eat bread again - real food indeed - and it will give them life and they will never die.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
And what water will Jesus give them to drink, Thing?

… “but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:14)🤷
Click to expand...
Who can give you eternal life.
How?
Take this, eat, this is My Flesh.
 
Thing said:
Himself. He is the water of Life. Only God could give a human eternal life. How?
He is the Bread of Life. He is the Blood of Life.
Here, take this piece of bread, put it in your mouth and move your jaws and eat it, It is My Flesh.
If you eat It you will not die.
Click to expand...
I’m confused, Thing. I thought the Eucharist was bread and wine, not bread and water. I mean, instead of saying:

… “but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” *(John 4:14)*Jesus really should have said this:

… “but forget water, woman! I’ll give you wine, instead, and whoever drinks the wine I give her will never thirst. Indeed, the wine I give her will be my blood, and will become in her a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Why should He talk about water when it is not water but blood that gives eternal life?

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/wine glass.jpg
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
I’m confused, Thing. I thought the Eucharist was bread and wine, not bread and water. I mean, instead of saying:

… “but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” *(John 4:14)*Jesus really should have said this:

… “but forget water, woman! I’ll give you wine, instead, and whoever drinks the wine I give her will never thirst. Indeed, the wine I give her will be my blood, and will become in her a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” Why should He talk about water when it is not water but blood that gives eternal life?

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/wine glass.jpg
Click to expand...
Because He was sitting on a well at the time, and the woman was hard at work going to and fro to the well for water - a continuous labour if you want to survive in deserty areas.
He used that opportunity of drawing water as something she could relate to immediately.
If she drew on Him for Life her continuous labour after truth would finally find an end. He would give her Life.
Take this and eat it, this is My Flesh. Whoever eats My Flesh will never die.
I am the way the truth and the Life.
 
Thing said:
Because He was sitting on a well at the time, and the woman was hard at work going to and fro to the well for water - a continuous labour if you want to survive in deserty areas.
He used that opportunity of drawing water as something she could relate to immediately.
If she drew on Him for Life her continuous labour after truth would finally find an end. He would give her Life.
Take this and eat it, this is My Flesh. Whoever eats My Flesh will never die.
I am the way the truth and the Life.
Click to expand...
O my dog! Yes, that makes sense to me! Jesus used what she was thinking about (her most immediate physical need, which was her great thirst) to teach her about what He was thinking about (her more pressing spiritual need, which was her need for righteousness and eternal life).

Is that what you are saying, Thing?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
O my dog! Yes, that makes sense to me! Jesus used what she was thinking about (her most immediate physical need, which was her great thirst) to teach her about what He was thinking about (her more pressing spiritual need, which was her need for righteousness and eternal life).

Is that what you are saying, Thing?
Click to expand...
When it dawned on her what He was talking about He then went on to say that she (her people) worshipped what they did not know but that the Jews worshipped what they did know, and that salvation was to come from the Jews.
And I suppose, that Christ, as the Messiah, had come - to give them Life.
And give it to them as He decided how.
 
Thing said:
When it dawned on her what He was talking about He then went on to say that she (her people) worshipped what they did not know but that the Jews worshipped what they did know, and that salvation was to come from the Jews.
And I suppose, that Christ, as the Messiah, had come - to give them Life.
And give it to them as He decided how.
Click to expand...
I’ve returned from my trip to the hardware store. Sorry for not letting you know i had to go.

Getting back to what you were saying, i think that when Jesus told the woman at the well He would give her living water to drink, He must have been speaking not of His blood, but of the Holy Spirit. For we read later in John’s gospel:

37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. *(John 7)*Do you think, then, Thing, that what she wanted was a drink of water, but what she needed was the Holy Spirit? Do you think this is why Jesus compared receiving the Holy Spirit to drinking living water?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
(I’m coming over from your thread on the Philosophy forum).

So… I’m a little confused. Are you saying you aren’t sure whether Jesus was speaking just metaphorically, just literally, or both?
 
BlaineTog said:
(I’m coming over from your thread on the Philosophy forum).

So… I’m a little confused. Are you saying you aren’t sure whether Jesus was speaking just metaphorically, just literally, or both?
Click to expand...
Thanks, Blaine. Welcome to this long discussion thread! It is the best of threads; it is the worst of threads; depending on one’s perspective.

😃

At the moment, i’m considering the meaning of Jesus’ words to the woman at the well:

10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? … 13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” *(John 4)*I’m wondering if Jesus was talking of literal water, or speaking figuratively about the Holy Spirit. I don’t see how living water could be both literal and not literal, for that, i think, would be a contradiction.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top