"Give us this day our daily Bread"

[PJM]

Could not relocate the thread.

Protestant teacher claims that “we must read the bible daily” in order to fulfill the petition: “Give us this day our daily bread”

Here is the “How” she reached her understanding
John.1: 1 to 5 “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Here is “WHY”
Luke.11: 1 to 4 “He was praying in a certain place, and when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” And he said to them, "When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread; and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.”

To aid our discussion here are the Commentaries of Matt. Henry [Prot.] Followed by Catholic: Haydock’s Commentary

Matt. Henry Protestant Commentary. LUKE 11: 3"Give us this day bread for many days to come;" but as the Israelites had manna, “Let us have bread to-day for to-day, and to-morrow for to-morrow;” for thus we may be kept in a continual dependence upon God, as children upon their parents, and may have our mercies fresh from his hand daily, and may find ourselves under fresh obligations to do the work of every day in the day, according as the duty of the day requires, because we have from God the supplies of every day in the day, according as the necessity of the day requires.”

Haydock’s Catholic Commentary. Luke 11: Ver. 3. In the Greek it is called epiousion; i.e. supersubstantial. This is not the bread that goeth into the body, but the bread of eternal life, that supports the life of the soul. It is here called daily bread. Receive then daily, what will daily profit you; and continue so to live, that you may be daily in proper dispositions for receiving it. All who are under sin, have received a wound, and must seek for a cure. The cure is this heavenly and most venerable sacrament. (St. Augustine, Serm. ii. de verbo Dei.)

Because very few Protestant faiths accept the bibles exceeding clear teaching on the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist; like the disciples who abandoned Christ, thinking carnally; body = flesh =m yuk! When the Actual reality is in John six Christ was Speaking of His SOON TO BE GLORIFIED Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Here as the ‘Real Presence” is a HUGE Protestant “NOT!” for lack of right understanding; the human mind seeking “human-logic” ties quite cleverly; John 1 and Luke 11 to conclude that Christ “MUST BE” speaking of His WORD.

It’s not WRONG, JUST very incomplete.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[bmonk]

Yes, of course it’s incomplete.

Too often we try to tie down a symbol to just one meaning. Which is kind of odd, if you think about it–the whole point of a symbol is to point beyond itself.

Daily bread, then, can be understood on several levels:

Physical nourishment–baked bread (and other food) that we eat each day.
Spiritual nourishment, such as the Word of God, read and chewed over in Lectio Divina.
The highest spiritual nourishment, the living Bread of Life, Christ himself, who gave himself as bread–which is available daily in the Catholic Church.

This is why many Protestants object to parts of John 6, especially 6:52-59. They claim, without evidence, that this part was added later, because it is “too physical” an understanding. Yet the Gospel switches to a particularly graphic and physical verb, used of animals–“to feed” on my flesh–precisely because Christ did not want that physical interpretation lost. (I always find it interesting that many believers leave Jesus over this episode.)

As Catholics, we believe that God took on human nature so that we may be saved, not just by believing, through the mind, but through the whole of our human nature, body and soul, together.

 

[I_Thirst]

Note that daily doesn’t necessarily mean daily. In Greek the word is epiousios, which has no exact English translation. It appears no where else in the NT or in Greek literature.

More here …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiousios

The Douay-Rheims translates it as supersubstantial, but that is from the Latin.

In other words, its real meaning mysterious and all commentary about it as “daily” is just guess work. If I make it to Heaven, it’s the first thing I’m asking Jesus about.

 

[kimbari]

Oh, shoot, I thought it was all about depending on God for everything you need each day and not worrying about the future. Silly me…

 

[Crumpy]

Oh, shoot, I thought it was all about depending on God for everything you need each day and not worrying about the future. Silly me…

Yup, it teaches us to have a lot more respect for God’s word, in any context. The Church teaches that scripture is an inexhaustible source of inspiration.

“Give” is a very big word here, too, beside the word “daily.”

How presumptuous of us to tell God what to do, except that in Jesus Christ, we are adopted daughters and sons, and we are privileged to be able to do so.

 

[TimothyH]

Note that daily doesn’t necessarily mean daily. In Greek the word is epiousios, which has no exact English translation. It appears no where else in the NT or in Greek literature.

More here …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiousios

The Douay-Rheims translates it as supersubstantial, but that is from the Latin.

In other words, its real meaning mysterious and all commentary about it as “daily” is just guess work. If I make it to Heaven, it’s the first thing I’m asking Jesus about.

BrantPitre discusses this very subject in his book titled “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.”

He puts forth the premise that the literal translation of the word epiousios means epi (on, upon, or above) and ousia (being, substance, or nature). That would translate to above substance or similar. The translation supersubstantial that you see in the Douay-Rheims and referenced by Brant Pitre in his book actually comes from St. Jerome.

***Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. **(John 6:49-50)

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. (John 6:58)*

Thinking like a first century Jew, it would have been a reference to the manna from heaven which the Israelites ate in the desert during the exodus. A paraphrase of the line might therefor be, give us this day, our manna from heaven. The fact is that many Jews understood that the messiah would be a new Moses, who was to institute a new exodus during which the world would be transformed. The Jews would enter the Heavenly Jerusalem and the supernatural bread from heaven which they ate in the first exodus would return for all time.

Veering off topic a little, Jesus is actually stating “I am the manna from heaven, and my manna is better than the old manna because if you eat my manna you will not die.” Sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s a Eucharist thing. Non Catholics wouldn’t understand.

Anyway, Brant Pitre’s interpretation is not out of line with Catholic theology, and explains many things in light of what the Jews would have believed and understood given the line from the Lord’s Prayer currently under discussion.

-Tim-

 

[I_Thirst]

Tim, I think I’m going to have to read that book!

 

[mwok]

BrantPitre discusses this very subject in his book titled “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.”

He puts forth the premise that the literal translation of the word epiousios means epi (on, upon, or above) and ousia (being, substance, or nature). That would translate to above substance or similar. The translation supersubstantial that you see in the Douay-Rheims and referenced by Brant Pitre in his book actually comes from St. Jerome.

***Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. ***(John 6:49-50)

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. (John 6:58)

Thinking like a first century Jew, it would have been a reference to the manna from heaven which the Israelites ate in the desert during the exodus. A paraphrase of the line might therefor be, give us this day, our manna from heaven. The fact is that many Jews understood that the messiah would be a new Moses, who was to institute a new exodus during which the world would be transformed. The Jews would enter the Heavenly Jerusalem and the supernatural bread from heaven which they ate in the first exodus would return for all time.

Veering off topic a little, Jesus is actually stating “I am the manna from heaven, and my manna is better than the old manna because if you eat my manna you will not die.” Sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s a Eucharist thing. Non Catholics wouldn’t understand.

Anyway, Brant Pitre’s interpretation is not out of line with Catholic theology, and explains many things in light of what the Jews would have believed and understood given the line from the Lord’s Prayer currently under discussion.

-Tim-

Great point Tim! I also read Dr. Pitre’s book that you refered to, great read and very insightful.

Also, if you note before the bread of life discourse starts, the Jews even say “give us this manna”!

And for anyone who doubts that Christ was saying that his body and blood were what we were to eat to live life eternal, and that what he really meant is that we were to “digest his Word” as I’ve heard it put. Just turn to John ch. 1 “And the Word became flesh”!!!

 

[TimothyH]

Tim, I think I’m going to have to read that book!

It’s a hot book right now and a must read for every Catholic.

The book goes into the mysterious “Bread of the Presence” or “Bread of the Face of God” as the Jews called it, which was baked weekly and sat in the Holy Place outside of the Holy of Holies in the temple. Did you know that three times each year the men would go up to Jerusalem for the feasts and at that time, the priests would bring out the “Showbread” as it is sometimes called, and lifting up the golden table upon which it sat they would proclaim, “Behold, God’s love for you!” ?

It also recounts the methods used to sacrifice and prepare the unblemished lambs in the temple. After being sacrificed, the lambs were actually skewered with two sticks so that they could be skinned and prepared. One stick went from the hind quarters up through the mouth and the other stick was pierced through the front legs. The whole process looked like throusands of lambs being crucified!!!

Every Catholic must read this book. It is an easy read, not written for theologians or seminarians but approachable by the laity in the pews.

I give it

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

And for anyone who doubts that Christ was saying that his body and blood were what we were to eat to live life eternal, and that what he really meant is that we were to “digest his Word” as I’ve heard it put. Just turn to John ch. 1 “And the Word became flesh”!!!

Oh man, did you come up with that apologetic yourself? Dude, you should be given an award for that, like an all expense paid trip to participate in a private audience and Mass and personal tour of the Vatican with the Holy Father.

Ive heard that many times, that the Bread of Life is the Gospel… And the word became flesh. Brilliant!

LOL.

-Tim-

 

[NotWorthy]

Could not relocate the thread.

Protestant teacher claims that “we must read the bible daily” in order to fulfill the petition: “Give us this day our daily bread”

…so if I’m illiterate, I can’t fill that petition?

 

[byeveryword]

BrantPitre discusses this very subject in his book titled “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.”

He puts forth the premise that the literal translation of the word epiousios means epi (on, upon, or above) and ousia (being, substance, or nature). That would translate to above substance or similar. The translation supersubstantial that you see in the Douay-Rheims and referenced by Brant Pitre in his book actually comes from St. Jerome.

***Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. ***(John 6:49-50)

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. (John 6:58)

Thinking like a first century Jew, it would have been a reference to the manna from heaven which the Israelites ate in the desert during the exodus. A paraphrase of the line might therefor be, give us this day, our manna from heaven. The fact is that many Jews understood that the messiah would be a new Moses, who was to institute a new exodus during which the world would be transformed. The Jews would enter the Heavenly Jerusalem and the supernatural bread from heaven which they ate in the first exodus would return for all time.

Veering off topic a little, Jesus is actually stating “I am the manna from heaven, and my manna is better than the old manna because if you eat my manna you will not die.” Sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s a Eucharist thing. Non Catholics wouldn’t understand.

Anyway, Brant Pitre’s interpretation is not out of line with Catholic theology, and explains many things in light of what the Jews would have believed and understood given the line from the Lord’s Prayer currently under discussion.

-Tim-

Thanks Tim, for a reference book not only for myself, but for some Messianic Jews I am acquainted with.

 

[PJM]

=bmonk;8197123]Yes, of course it’s incomplete.

Too often we try to tie down a symbol to just one meaning. Which is kind of odd, if you think about it–the whole point of a symbol is to point beyond itself.

Daily bread, then, can be understood on several levels:

Physical nourishment–baked bread (and other food) that we eat each day.
Spiritual nourishment, such as the Word of God, read and chewed over in Lectio Divina.
The highest spiritual nourishment, the living Bread of Life, Christ himself, who gave himself as bread–which is available daily in the Catholic Church.

This is why many Protestants object to parts of John 6, especially 6:52-59. They claim, without evidence, that this part was added later, because it is “too physical” an understanding. Yet the Gospel switches to a particularly graphic and physical verb, used of animals–“to feed” on my flesh–precisely because Christ did not want that physical interpretation lost. (I always find it interesting that many believers leave Jesus over this episode.)

As Catholics, we believe that God took on human nature so that we may be saved, not just by believing, through the mind, but through the whole of our human nature, body and soul, together.

GREAT reply, Thank you,

Hope we get some conversation on your final point.

God Bless,

Pat

 

[PJM]

=TimothyH;8197873]BrantPitre discusses this very subject in his book titled “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.”

He puts forth the premise that the literal translation of the word epiousios means epi (on, upon, or above) and ousia (being, substance, or nature). That would translate to above substance or similar. The translation supersubstantial that you see in the Douay-Rheims and referenced by Brant Pitre in his book actually comes from St. Jerome.

***Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. ***(John 6:49-50)

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. (John 6:58)

Thinking like a first century Jew, it would have been a reference to the manna from heaven which the Israelites ate in the desert during the exodus. A paraphrase of the line might therefor be, give us this day, our manna from heaven. The fact is that many Jews understood that the messiah would be a new Moses, who was to institute a new exodus during which the world would be transformed. The Jews would enter the Heavenly Jerusalem and the supernatural bread from heaven which they ate in the first exodus would return for all time.

Veering off topic a little, Jesus is actually stating “I am the manna from heaven, and my manna is better than the old manna because if you eat my manna you will not die.” Sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s a Eucharist thing. Non Catholics wouldn’t understand.

Anyway, Brant Pitre’s interpretation is not out of line with Catholic theology, and explains many things in light of what the Jews would have believed and understood given the line from the Lord’s Prayer currently under discussion.

-Tim-

Never thought of Christ as the New Moses; BUT it sure MAKES sense:thumbsup: