The Bread of Life

[soleil10]

But no, I am not saying we should engage in cannibalism in the carnal sense, but I am saying that there is a Mystery of the Eucharist which is alluded to here, as well as in the Synoptics and by Paul.

Jesus wanted to leave his sinless blood lineage(God's lineage on earth) to replace Satan lineage.

Because he had to go the way of the cross, the last supper and the eucharist are the symbolic and spiritual representation of it, waiting until his return.

 

[Gatekeeper]

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.

I think scripture can (At least in part) support both sides of the coin when it comes to issues of Jesus' divinity. My view is that I don't truly know my own nature, much less Jesus', so why worry bout it? I think this debate leads nowhere, as in the end we simply do not know if He was God, or a man with God attributes.

To me Jesus was like a container filled with God's substance. Born of God and of Mary, he possessed both human attributes and God attributes. Much like a pen being filled with ink, Jesus was filled with God's divine wisdom and power. To me this doesn't make Him God Himself, but more like a vessel whom poured out God's Spirit/Word/Wisdom on us (mankind). Which is good enough for me ...

To be perfectly honest, I don't think it matters how we view Jesus. what matters most [IMO] is whether we allow the Spirit He possessed to dwell in our own hearts.

GK

 

[Netti-Netti]

As we have seen in that UK survey on unchurched believers I cited some time ago, people are no less religious just because they are less dependent on the Church for their religion.

P
Actually that depends on one's definition of religion.

Exactly. This is why religious pluralism is considered a sign of secularization by some.

 

[Netti-Netti]

There are, or course, better verses that allude to His divinity. The 'Bread of Life' statement is not that implicit. Without reference to John 1:1-3, it would be hard to come to that conclusion. It is entirely possible for Jesus to be the Word of God, but not God Himself, wouldn't it?

This is the key.

In a certain manner of speaking, Jesus' words and his essence as a being are being equated: "The words I speak to you are spirit and they are life. " (John 6:63). But it's a didactic approach - a way of making a point - that compares to using the term "my blood" to designate one's life essence, for example.

Bread and wine were staples. Why not use them as symbols?

In the Gospel of John we see a contrast between two uses of the term flesh. One is the more ordinary use, referring to tissue of physical beings. Jesus is portrayed as having a dismissive attitude toward the physical: "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." So it seems he wanted to focus on another kind of substance. This focus become evident when he says his words are "spirit and life." The "bread" is a special source of sustenance, spiritual essence.

Jesus is portrayed as saying "one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven." The passage seems intended to underscore that a true life partakes of spirit.

Far from supporting the notion of consubstantiation or a singular incarnation, the passages from John would seem to reiterate the age old distinction between matter and spirit. To my knowledge, Jesus does not position himself as an exception to this basic duality. The dual nature is also taken up by Paul, who refers to the physical body and "the spiritual body."

Thomas wrote:

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.

It seems the Bible does not include the term "incarnation." So what is the Biblical support for the concept of incarnation?

 

[seattlegal]

Thomas wrote:
It seems the Bible does not include the term "incarnation." So what is the Biblical support for the concept of incarnation?

1 John 4:
The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits (A) to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (B) [a] is from God. (C) 3 But every spirit who does not confess Jesus [b] is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist; (D) you have heard that he is coming, and he is already in the world now.​

 

[Thomas]

There are, or course, better verses that allude to His divinity. The 'Bread of Life' statement is not that implicit. Without reference to John 1:1-3, it would be hard to come to that conclusion. It is entirely possible for Jesus to be the Word of God, but not God Himself, wouldn't it?

Not really. The prophets make it plain when they speak the Word of God, they are prophets, they are not God, nor are they the source of the Word.

Jesus does otherwise ... He is the Word, He forgives sin, He is the way, and so on ... the emphasis on on His own person, His own being, whereas to be the communicator of the Word, the emphasis would be on God.

The point about the Eucharist, which I don't really want to get drawn into, is that the Liturgy and the Eucharist was there before Scripture ... and here again we're back to Tradition ... but the point is that the Early Church was a liturgically orientated fellowship, and that was the central point of the Mystery of Christ upon which everything turns.

Neither the Liturgy nor the Eucharist — nor any of the Sacraments — are made much of in Scripture precisely because they were an interior and secret teaching. The catechumen were instructed before admission into the Mysteries, and Scripture was a means of instruction, but what was taught them in private was more than what was written in Scripture.

Having broken with Tradition, all that's left is the material letter of the text.

Thomas

 

[wil]

On bread... a short and interesting read...

The Lord's supper; its origin and ... - Google Books

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil,

It should hardly be surprising that a meal should be modelled on cultural practice, surely? The point is what marks it different, that which is unique, not those elements common to every culture in the Mediterranean?

Anyway ... a more informed and somewhat less polemical approach to the origins of Christianity can be read here, which offers a sample of sxcerpts and audio files, including: The Bible and The Mass: The Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy

Thomas

 

[wil]

Namaste and thanx Thomas,

It is just that so much is made from this bread and wine as if it were new, where as it is the traditional sabbath ceremony and an integral part to passover.

But back to the bread...

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54) Just a few verses later (6:63) He said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life."

 

[Netti-Netti]

1 John 4:
The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits (A) to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (B) [a] is from God. (C) 3 But every spirit who does not confess Jesus [b] is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist; (D) you have heard that he is coming, and he is already in the world now.
​

Thank you for your response, SG.

The phrase of interest from John is "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh."
This seems to support the notion that Jesus was a historical person, not just a mythic figure. This would be consistent with a notion of incarnation, but doesn't seem to support the view of Christ as a unique incarnation.

Since the OP is focused on statements allegedly made by Jesus himself, I would ask: where does Jesus say he is a unique incarnation?

 

[Thomas]

The term symbol has been used more than once in this discussion, so let me offer this:

In metaphysical circles it is generally understood, and in esoteric circles it is insisted upon, that a symbol is not merely a representation, nor just a metaphor, an analogy, or a sign.

The easiest way to approach what is a huge and often overlooked subject is in the latter: A sign points to where something might be found, whereas the symbol possesses the essence of the thing to which it directs, in itself. A symbol is a sign, in that it points to a reality, but at the same time that reality is present, in essence, in the symbol, which it is not in the sign.

Carl Jung, for example, defined the symbol as other than a sign because the object of a sign is known, whereas the object of a symbol is a mystery — something that can be intimated but cannot be stated empirically or definitively.

So my whole point is that Jesus speaks in symbolic language and symbolic actions, investing his words and His actions with the essence of His own, divine, being. Hence the reserve for the Divine Name from Antiquity, because it was believed that to utter the name was to invoke the named.

In breaking bread with his disciples, He instituted a Mystical Rite of initiation, in that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood means that when we, in turn, receive of that meal, a transubstantiation can take place in the soul, which is vivified and fortified by the receipt of the Divine Substance mysteriously present in the Eucharistic species of bread and wine ... that is why the bread and the wine remain, to all outward appearances, bread and wine ... but they have been substantially changed, as we are substantially changed by the infusion of the Holy Spirit according to the Sacrament Our Lord established for our spiritual sustenance and advancement.

There ... that's enough to trigger a number of rebukes and rebuttals but, please save your effort, as I have already gone further than I had intended, and will discuss this point no further.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Not really. The prophets make it plain when they speak the Word of God, they are prophets, they are not God, nor are they the source of the Word.

Jesus does otherwise ... He is the Word, He forgives sin, He is the way, and so on ... the emphasis on on His own person, His own being, whereas to be the communicator of the Word, the emphasis would be on God.

How many times does Jesus refer to "Him who has sent me" in order to place an emphasis on G-d?

Why make the distinction between alleged claims of divinity and statements that emphasize the Father if you're going to ignore every instance of G-d dependence in order to make the case that Jesus was not dependent on G-d?

Btw, selectivity is a recognized aspect of the Catholic doctrinal fundamentalism.

 

[Netti-Netti]

the bread and the wine remain, to all outward appearances, bread and wine ... but they have been substantially changed

This sounds like magic to me.

 

[Dream]

Ok. Its another way of thinking, so that the change is in you to the point that for you the bread and wine are the body and blood. To some ways of thinking it may not appear so, but to you the body and blood appear because you are changed to believe so and are infused with their substance. I saw on The Matrix where a spoon appears to bend but really the observer is the one bending so that a straight spoon is to them bent. Similarly those around them are partially bent with them. It is like seeing the universe as having instead of a gravitational force that attracts, a pressure force that compresses all things together. Really it sounds like a deep perspective change, like a hypnotic perspective change.

 

[soleil10]

On bread... a short and interesting read...
The Lord's supper; its origin and ... - Google Books

Yes the new testament comes on the foundation of the Old testament.
God's blood lineage was lost to Satan during the human fall.

The whole bible shows God's unrelenting effort to bring back his blood lineage on earth so he can graft humanity back to Him

During Passover, God protected the chosen people whose blood lineage Jesus would be born from. During the last supper Jesus symbolically showed that our liberation and salvation comes from his sinless blood and flesh.

 

[wil]

In breaking bread with his disciples, He instituted a Mystical Rite of initiation, in that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood means that when we, in turn, receive of that meal, a transubstantiation can take place in the soul, which is vivified and fortified by the receipt of the Divine Substance mysteriously present in the Eucharistic species of bread and wine ... that is why the bread and the wine remain, to all outward appearances, bread and wine ... but they have been substantially changed, as we are substantially changed by the infusion of the Holy Spirit according to the Sacrament Our Lord established for our spiritual sustenance and advancement.

There ... that's enough to trigger a number of rebukes and rebuttals but, please save your effort, as I have already gone further than I had intended, and will discuss this point no further.

Namaste Thomas

and once again....poppycock.

You are freakin hillarious. "I've got the last word on this discussion, nanny nanny poo poo" (no insult to path)

Instituted a mystical rite of inititation?? He did EXACTLY what every Jew did at the meal.

And as that little booklet contemplates, if this was the initiation of the first communion...exactly how did it go? His most trusted, most schooled followers, his disciples, his apostles...what did they do afterwords? They fell asleep when he asked them to be with them, one betrays him, his 'rock' deny's him three times, and the rest run and hide till well after his resurrection....

Oh and that is the last word, don't waste your breath, I'll take no rebuttal.

Seriously, the fact that you get so much out of the ceremony is fine with me, but it just aint the be all end all.

 

[soleil10]

But back to the bread..."He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:54) Just a few verses later (6:63) He said, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life."

Jesus was speaking in a spiritual sense. We are spiritual beings. During the human fall A&E spirit died and they lost God's blood lineage.

This is what the Messiah as a second Adam comes to restore:He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life;

"It is the Spirit who gives life". Yes we have to be reborn spiritually.

The way a denomination chooses to express such a belief is really not a problem worth fighting over it.

For me the real issue is that Jesus could accomplish this only on a spiritual level. He wanted to bring God's blood lineage cut from the original sin in reality.
Until that time, God cannot dwell really on earth as the true owner of His creation. Like Jesus said , this world is under satan's dominion. He is not form this world

 

[Netti-Netti]

Certainly you can redefine things all you like ... but I stick to tradition, tried and tested, not the ephemeral, which tends to dissipate like a mirage.

A problem arises when tradition is discontinuous with scripture.

The Church's transubstantiation doctrine means that the host and the wine are the literal body and blood of Christ that are implicated in the sacrifice that accomplishes the remission of sins. The Church's eucharistic ritual is presumably comparable to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. This is actually very puzzling because the Bible tells us that Jesus' sacrifice was one-and-for-all:

who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
​

~Hebrews 7:27

Why does the Church presume to repeat something accomplished by Christ Jesus that supposedly would need to be done only once?

 

[Thomas]

A problem arises when tradition is discontinuous with scripture.

I agree. But in the case of the Catholic Tradition, one can hardly argue that. And as no-one has ever been able to successfully prove that, if you think you have, I suggest you revisit your proof, and if you have, your fortune is made.

The Church's transubstantiation doctrine means that the host and the wine are the literal body and blood of Christ that are implicated in the sacrifice that accomplishes the remission of sins.

No it doesn't.

The Church's eucharistic ritual is presumably comparable to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Well you presume wrong.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti
The Church's eucharistic ritual is presumably comparable to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Well you presume wrong.

Thomas,

You're right. The Church doesn't say that the eucharistic ritual is comparable to Jesus' sacrifice. The Church actually maintains that the two are identical.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them.

htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
​