The Bread of Life

[Thomas]

I am often question over my belief in the Divinity of the Son, that Jesus Christ was a teacher, a prophet, a healer, a sage — but not God — and that to claim that Jesus Christ is God is to make a claim that is not supported by Scripture.

The Gospel reading for today (according to the Catholic lectionary), is from John 6 24:35, the Bread of Life discourse, one of the seven 'I am' statements recorded of Christ in that Gospel.

Here Jesus is questioned by the crowd, "who are you?" And He challenges them, "I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled," so they want not another miracle, not another a sign, but simply to see Him do something else (show a kiddie a trick and he or she will say, 'do it again' — there is a correlation here with the finger and the moon lesson in Buddhism).

So Jesus recalls the story from their history of the bread from heaven, the manna in the desert, and straight away says "Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life."

The implication is unmistakable, Jesus is declaring His consubstantiality with God, His own divine nature.

What follows then is His discourse on the Eucharist, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven ... Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." (my emphasis)

He was a Jew, talking to Jews, and knew exactly how the implication of His words would be received, not the least when He says "And I will raise him up in the last day" — something only God could do.

Now many will seek to relativise and rationalise this statement, to make it palatable (excuse the pun) — but it stands as it is, and He meant what He said — and it shocked and angered His audience, and many, even among His own disciples, left Him. So much so that He said even to the Twelve who followed Him: "Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?"
John 6:68

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for this. This was our reading for today as well, one of my favorites.

I agree that wherever one falls on the Jesus was God spectrum, it's impossible to deny that here Christ said he was God, the Bread of Life.

Lovely!

 

[Quahom1]

I am often question over my belief in the Divinity of the Son, that Jesus Christ was a teacher, a prophet, a healer, a sage — but not God — and that to claim that Jesus Christ is God is to make a claim that is not supported by Scripture.

The Gospel reading for today (according to the Catholic lectionary), is from John 6 24:35, the Bread of Life discourse, one of the seven 'I am' statements recorded of Christ in that Gospel.

Here Jesus is questioned by the crowd, "who are you?" And He challenges them, "I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled," so they want not another miracle, not another a sign, but simply to see Him do something else (show a kiddie a trick and he or she will say, 'do it again' — there is a correlation here with the finger and the moon lesson in Buddhism).

So Jesus recalls the story from their history of the bread from heaven, the manna in the desert, and straight away says "Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life."

The implication is unmistakable, Jesus is declaring His consubstantiality with God, His own divine nature.

What follows then is His discourse on the Eucharist, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven ... Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." (my emphasis)

He was a Jew, talking to Jews, and knew exactly how the implication of His words would be received, not the least when He says "And I will raise him up in the last day" — something only God could do.

Now many will seek to relativise and rationalise this statement, to make it palatable (excuse the pun) — but it stands as it is, and He meant what He said — and it shocked and angered His audience, and many, even among His own disciples, left Him. So much so that He said even to the Twelve who followed Him: "Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?"
John 6:68

Thomas

I never could quite put my finger on what I considered Jesus to be in realtionship to me, except of course this magnanimous being who took human form and gave up a lot for the rest of us...until I read a book called "The Shack", by William Paul Young.

Unlike the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus is a "man" and is God, rolled into one package.

In military terms, he is a Chief Warrant Officer (both officer and enlisted, a bridge between the two). He does exactly what the Father says to do, but the Father listens to him and does what he suggests. And he walks among us, as one of us, because he is one of us...the best one of us. And we do well to listen to him.

Like his mother told the servants at the wedding "What ever he tells you, you do".

 

[Dream]

Jesus purposely offends his Jewish brothers with his talk about drinking blood, however this offense cannot be the whole point of the mystery. Well, maybe it could. That could be the whole point, true, true. It could be a big 'No Jews allowed' sign.

 

[soleil10]

I am often question over my belief in the Divinity of the Son, that Jesus Christ was a teacher, a prophet, a healer, a sage — but not God — and that to claim that Jesus Christ is God is to make a claim that is not supported by Scripture.

Jesus was a man (born without original sin) who achieved what God and Jesus himself ask of each one of us.

Matt: 5-48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (pefect here means one with God)

Jesus became the masculine representation of God on earth

So Jesus recalls the story from their history of the bread from heaven, the manna in the desert, and straight away says "Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life."

Yes, for fallen men with Satan's blood in their veins, Jesus comes from heaven. God's lineage is heaven's lineage

The implication is unmistakable, Jesus is declaring His consubstantiality with God, His own divine nature.

Yes Jesus is a man with a divine nature, one with God. It does not mean, he is the incorporeal God. Jesus speaks of the " father who sent me" in these scriptures.

What follows then is His discourse on the Eucharist, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven ... Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." (my emphasis)

Yes, we need to be reborn and change our blood lineage from Satan's lineage to Jesus' lineage which is God's lineage. Only He (Jesus) has the Godly seed.
During the last supper Jesus gave to us his blood and flesh symbolically because he had to go the path of sufffering on the cross where his body was killed.
He could not leave as the second Adam his Godly and sinless seed on earth and start God's first substantial family.
Christianity is the spiritual 2nd Israel preparing for his return.
Through the Eucharist we connect spritually and symbolically to God's/Jesus lineage.

In summary, the contradiction and endless debate of Jesus being God or Jesus being man is resolved by Jesus is a man with a divine character/nature. As an individual he became the temple of God and he is asking the same of each one of us before creating a family which is the textbook to realise the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

 

[Dream]

[QUOTE="Soleil]
Only He (Jesus) has the Godly seed.
During the last supper Jesus gave to us his blood and flesh symbolically because he had to go the path of sufffering on the cross where his body was killed.

[/QUOTE]
That isn't what Thomas said, and it isn't what the liturgy says. "The contradiction and endless debate of Jesus being God or Jesus being man" as you've aptly described it can never be resolved. It is a permanent discussion. Every generation some poofy headed kid will be knocking his brains out trying to understand his faith.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for this. This was our reading for today as well, one of my favorites.

I agree that wherever one falls on the Jesus was God spectrum, it's impossible to deny that here Christ said he was God, the Bread of Life.

I'm not sure why you equate the Bread of Life with G-d. Bread was a staple back then as it is now. All the passage in question seems to be saying is that Jesus is representing something essential- i.e., a spiritual nourishment.

Jesus presents positions himself as an obedient servant who would offer spiritual nourishment. My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me." (John 4:32, 34) This has no apparent relevance to the concept of consubstantiality.

Since the gospel of John is believed to have been written in the second century, this passage tells me that the depiction of Jesus' divinity had not yet progressed to the point where he was recognized to have functioned autonomously or in a manner suggesting equality with G-d, as one would expect if G-d and Jesus were of the same spiritual substance.

 

[Quahom1]

I'm not sure why you equate the Bread of Life with G-d. Bread was a staple back then as it is now. All the passage in question seems to be saying is that Jesus is representing something essential- i.e., a spiritual nourishment.

Jesus presents positions himself as an obedient servant who would offer spiritual nourishment. My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me." (John 4:32, 34) This has no apparent relevance to the concept of consubstantiality.

Since the gospel of John is believed to have been written in the second century, this passage tells me that the depiction of Jesus' divinity had not yet progressed to the point where he was recognized to have functioned autonomously or in a manner suggesting equality with G-d, as one would expect if G-d and Jesus were of the same spiritual substance.

Read Post #1....

 

[Netti-Netti]

I am often question over my belief in the Divinity of the Son, that Jesus Christ was a teacher, a prophet, a healer, a sage — but not God — and that to claim that Jesus Christ is God is to make a claim that is not supported by Scripture.

...For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life."

The implication is unmistakable, Jesus is declaring His consubstantiality with God, His own divine nature.

Jesus presents positions himself as an obedient servant: My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me." (John 4:32, 34) Again, Jesus is acting on behalf of a higher power. If he were co-eternal with G-d he would not reference the transcendent One.

There is nothing in the Gospel of John on the subject of "the Bread of Life" that supports Jesus' divinity. The Bread of Life concept does not, in my opinion, lend itself to a Biblical proof for binitarian doctrine (let alone Trinitarian doctrine).

Bread was a staple food. All the "bread of life" passage seems to be saying is that Jesus is representing something essential. Jesus stands for love, mercy, and commitment. These are the essentials that give life meaning.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Read Post #1....

I disagree with Thomas' view and I believe his doctrine-bound view of the gospel of John makes the message virtually meaningless.

The valued nourishment that is the Bread of Life would be the religious meanings that can help us resolve the ambiguities of human existence. These are the meanings that facilitate the encounter between human and divine: "This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die." (John 6:50)

To suggest that John's discourse is somehow supportive of binitarian doctrine (Jesus' divinity) or Trinitarian doctrine completely misses the point of the Gospel, imho.

 

[Netti-Netti]

That isn't what Thomas said, and it isn't what the liturgy says. "The contradiction and endless debate of Jesus being God or Jesus being man" as you've aptly described it can never be resolved.

Maybe Thomas was just kidding when he said: "The implication is unmistakable, Jesus is declaring His consubstantiality with God, His own divine nature."

 

[shawn]

Interesting connection between Jesus and Bethlehem which means "the house of bread" and allegorically has to do with the spiritual substance of all life.

 

[Dream]

Maybe Thomas was just kidding when he said: "The implication is unmistakable, Jesus is declaring His consubstantiality with God, His own divine nature."

I think he is serious. When you are discussing this topic, you have entered into an ancient pageant. Imagine it is the famous story about a wolf and three little pigs. In this story you are either a wolf or a little pig and nothing else. (You are not a mouse, or bird or any other thing other than what is in the story.) Little pigs do not let wolves come in, not by the hair of their chinny chin chins. It is up to the insider piggies (Catholic) to build a house (argument about consubstantiation), and it is up to the wolf(you) to try to blow the house down. You are saying 'Little pig, little pig, let me come in!' He is saying 'Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin.' It is a neverending story, a pageant of some kind, and you are never going to find agreement until you stop huffing-and-puffing and become a little pig or else go away hungry. If you blow the house down of paper/hay/sticks/whatever make, then the little pig will run into another house made of something else. Apparently the pageant of approaching the house is very important, possibly central. I have not figured it out why; and maybe nobody remembers anymore or how it got started, Netti. Go ahead, blow the house down.

 

[Netti-Netti]

... you have entered into an ancient pageant. Imagine it is the famous story about a wolf and three little pigs. In this story you are either a wolf or a little pig and nothing else. ...Little pigs do not let wolves come in, not by the hair of their chinny chin chins. It is up to the insider piggies (Catholic) to build a house (argument about consubstantiation), and it is up to the wolf(you) to try to blow the house down.

Minor technicality: I was raised Catholic and have never disavowed my faith.

Go ahead, blow the house down.

I don't believe there is a house to be blown down and most of my reactions to doctrinal fundamentalisms are just my way of stating that belief.

 

[Dream]

Netti, I'm not suggesting you aren't Catholic. I am suggesting that the presentation of consubstantiation is a koan, like SG thinks it is. For some reason it is important. Why it is important I'm not sure, but the answer lies in either the doctrine or the history of the church. It was instituted to jump over some hurdle, to preserve something, to somehow out-manipulate the Roman governors, or to outmanipulate the original church bishops. Whatever the reason for the koan, it filters people.

Either it filters who joins the church or it sorts them as they enter. You, Netti, are a certain type of coin and will only go through this 'koan slot' (coin slot) in a certain way. You have been classified by it. I also can only pass it in a certain way, so I am also classified as I pass by. The way I respond tells you some thing about me. That classification tells the church what I think, who I am and what actions to expect from me.

 

[soleil10]

That isn't what Thomas said, and it isn't what the liturgy says. "The contradiction and endless debate of Jesus being God or Jesus being man" as you've aptly described it can never be resolved.

I gave a response how it is resolved

 

[Dream]

I gave a response how it is resolved

Yes, you have proposed to resolve the issue, but the official traditional authority says it does not need resolving. You have resolved the mystery to your mind, but the mystery of the bread is itself considered to be an important thing to continue. The church thinks mystery is itself important to have in its liturgy, so the questions you are asking will continue to be asked in the future. They can never be resolved, because that would end the mystery. They mystery is important for some reason. Don't you want to know what that reason is? I have no idea.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Dream,

That classification tells the church what I think, who I am and what actions to expect from me.

I understand the rule of the game. I'm not sure what value the game has in relation to an Internet discussion forum. This is not a church and, as far as I know, the forumhas no functional connection with a church. As far as I can tell, online doctrinal fundamentalisms have no organizational value at all except maybe as dress rehearsal.

I'm not sure what the dress rehearsal is for. My sense is that laity has traditionally had a very small role in a Catholic church environment. I believe this is a by-product of the professional priesthood, ironically an aspect of the institutional religion Jesus took issue with.

Sorry if I'm taking your explantion too literally.

 

[Netti-Netti]

The Gospel reading for today (according to the Catholic lectionary), is from John 6 24:35, the Bread of Life discourse, one of the seven 'I am' statements recorded of Christ in that Gospel.

.... He was a Jew, talking to Jews, and knew exactly how the implication of His words would be received, not the least when He says "And I will raise him up in the last day" — something only God could do.

Now many will seek to relativise and rationalise this statement, to make it palatable (excuse the pun) — but it stands as it is, and He meant what He said — and it shocked and angered His audience, and many, even among His own disciples, left Him.

Which of disciples left him as a result of the discourse in question?

The Gospel of John is dated to the second century AD. Whoever wrote it could not have been a witness to any of the events or statements or reactions that you seem to believe are recorded in said Gospel.

That someone would portray the Gospel of John as a literal rendering of Jesus' words without recognizing these issues concerning how controversial a Gospel it is strikes me as baffling from the standpoint of Biblical scholarship.

Btw, I have no problem at all with Jesus' divinity. What I find puzzling is the persistent tendency to try to make certain isolated passages of scripture say something they simply don't say - i.e., to try to prove doctrine on the basis of scripture that has nothing to say on the subject, to offer doctrinal interpretations that are inconsistent with other parts of scripture, etc.

 

[soleil10]

Yes, you have proposed to resolve the issue, but the official traditional authority says it does not need resolving. You have resolved the mystery to your mind, but the mystery of the bread is itself considered to be an important thing to continue. The church thinks mystery is itself important to have in its liturgy, so the questions you are asking will continue to be asked in the future. They can never be resolved, because that would end the mystery. They mystery is important for some reason. Don't you want to know what that reason is? I have no idea.

Why are we worshiping mysteries ?

How good and helpful is such a religion ?