Both views may hold some truth, Mary. Perhaps God had Moses leave it ambiguous so we might have cause for some good discussions like the one we are having now?
Yes, thank you, Rebecca, for sharing your experience with me. And thank you for your prayers; i sure can use them! I might check out newadvent.org, if i ever have the time.
Great question, Mary! I do not want you to misunderstand me, though. It appears from the account of the miracle of water flowing from a rock in the desert that God was NOT upset with the people. Moses was God’s representative on earth to the people. By his acting angry, they thought God was angry with them for asking for water, but He was not.
… On top of that, the VERY early church recognized Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist:
Writing in AD151 Justin Martyr said, “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151])
In AD110, Irenaeus wrote: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1 [A.D. 110])
There are many records of the Early Church Fathers writing of Christ being truly, not metaphorically, present in the Eucharist. In fact, early Christians were FREQUENTLY accused of being cannibals. Rather than correcting their accusers, the church leaders embraced language that would continue to provoke this accusation.
…*
Thanks, Doc, you’ve given me some good food for thought!
It’s good to read your thoughts, again. Do you have a link to the Letter to the Smyrnaeans and the First Apology?
I thought God dwelled with you or i by the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I’ll carefully read what you wrote later, when i have more time, Doc. I do appreciate the time you’ve put in to giving a thoughtful response to my questions.
The “explanation” is that Jesus was not talking about the water in the well, which is what the Samaritan woman was talking about. The point is that when Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, his response - or the inspired author’s comments - will clarify whether that statement was figurative or literal and will give us some insight into what He meant. The inspired author later gives us an idea of what Jesus was talking about:Where is the explanation as to what Living Water means in this passage, Michael? I see none.
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.)
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.”
15The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17"I have no husband," she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
19"Sir," the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
(John 4)
Since there is no explanation, am i supposed to believe that God is composed of molecules of H2O?
I’ll carefully read what you wrote later, when i have more time, Doc. I do appreciate the time you’ve put in to giving a thoughtful response to my questions.
I have another question: You say the Eucharist is the Divinity of Christ. God the Father is also Divine. Do you believe the Eucharist is the Father?
Are you a Oneness Penetecostal? If you’re a Trinitarian, you should know the answer to this.First you have to prove that He was speaking with a parable in John 6. Then you have to deal with the passages in John - particularly chapter 8 - in which Jesus clarifies what He says to the Jews. Also, the clarification is not only for the benefit of the immediate audience, but also for all who will be reading what Jesus said. Hence we have the following example:
And Luke 3:22 says:Now, that is a good question!
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
(Matthew 3:16-17)
Nope, Matthew used the word like, which makes it a simile instead of a metaphor. If he had not used the word like, Mike, i suppose i might have to ponder that one.
Here is another one to ponder:
Hmm… I would have preferred to say that the Eucharist is the Son of God. Sounds, and feels, better.Are you saying that the Son of God is the Eucharist?
The same way the One True God and Almighty Creator of all can appear under the form of a bird.
It is that kind of doubt, Socrates4Jesus, that I always see and feel in Jesus’ hearers when I read John chapter 6. Heck, I feel it sometimes too.
BTW, I never said that Jesus or the gospel writer always explains every metaphor Jesus uses. What I did say was that whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement - whether literal or figurative - that leads to a question, objection, or confusion, either Jesus indicates what He meant in His response to that objection/confusion/question or the inspired author explains what He meant, as John does throughout his Gospel.
