The Bread of Life

[wil]

Why are we worshiping mysteries ?

How good and helpful is such a religion ?

Somewhere along the line we must realize that each religion is suffieciently good and helpful for its followers, hence the reason you are a member of yours.

While I understand the reason why everyone wants to coerce I mean convert others to their fold ie they think they know it all and need to save the rest...it just sort of gets to me after awhile...I suppose something I need to work on.

I am the bread...

ie to me his words are the spiritual substance that sustain us in the material world.

 

[shawn]

This thing about the bread, taken during communion reveals the mechanism of a placebo.
If you think it is something special and divine and able to work some wonder in you by eating it, then it will have a psychological effect in that fashion, even if it remains just bread (which is all it can ever be).

Jesus talking about how he is to be viewed as bread, his teachings are bread, etc, reveals the issue of allegory being a powerful component of religion.

 

[Thomas]

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

Not at all.

The point is, you're interpreting His words from a 21st century post-modern sensibility (philosophical relativism), His audience in Galilee interpret His words according to their Scriptures ... so for them the implication is unmistakable.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

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

Major technicality — show me where Catholicism says Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, two natures in one person ...

... I think you'll find that technically, by refuting the doctrine, you have refuted your faith.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

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

You seemed to have skipped over an important verse here:

John 6:63 - "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

If the flesh profiteth nothing, then eating on any actual food profiteth nothing. The Bread of Life which is alluded here is the Word of God. The bible is replete with the injunction to obey the Word of God.

"That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey...And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates." - Deuteronomy 6:2-3, 6-9

"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." - Joshua 1:8

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." - Acts 13:48

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17

"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." - James 1:21

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." - Genesis 1:3

What good is communion of the Lord's Supper if it doesn't change the person inside? It is the Word of God that affects souls.

 

[Netti-Netti]

... I think you'll find that technically, by refuting the doctrine, you have refuted your faith.

As you know, in logic a false argument is one where the conclusion does not follow from the predictate. By the same token, if doctrine is false in this philosophic sense, then the faith that is based on docrine becomes false as well (doctrine = the predicate). And that is the unfortunate bind of doctrinal fundamentalism.

 

[Dream]

Where were you last night?

As you know, in logic a false argument is one where the conclusion does not follow from the predictate. By the same token, if doctrine is false in this philosophic sense, then the faith that is based on docrine becomes false as well (doctrine = the predicate). And that is the unfortunate bind of doctrinal fundamentalism.

What is doctrinal fundamentalism? Probably rather than the doctrines themselves it is a faith in the method of presenting them, in answering the questions about them. My interest is the same as I've been saying all along. I'm worried about my own family and their situation, and I stand ready to find a way for them when I see one. I've been openly hostile to the church sometimes, so I would have understood a resistance to discuss things plainly. I expected it, but did not get it in the way I thought. Most things have been rationally discussible -- the only exception being these 'mysteries' which are recited like chemistry formulas. They stand in contrast to the modern expectation to have every question answered. Maybe there is a conscious decision not to answer rationally when faced with questions about mysteries to keep people asking questions.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Re: Where were you last night?

What is doctrinal fundamentalism? Probably rather than the doctrines themselves it is a faith in the method of presenting them, in answering the questions about them.

Certainly presentation is an issue. Consider the tendency to cite the Gospel of John as though the author was able to provide eye-witness account even though its authorship is dubious.

It seem to me that the biggest problem I have with doctrinal fundamentalism is the tendency to prefer church teachings to the Word. This seems to be an inevitable result of the position the church has taken that its authority is equivalent to Revelation. This is by no means just a matter of style. It can include intellectual dishonesty, mystification, and militant opposition to alternate viewpoints. It's not limited to the mysteries.

I notice doctrinal fundamentalism includes an element of authoritarianism that seems to lead to sloppy thinking and incoherence with regard to the Gospel. Consider for example that the Church emphasizes apostolic authority. Yet it ignores the fact that the gospel of John's authorship has been widely questioned by Bible scholars. The Church has in fact stated that it maintains "with the utmost certainty that John the Apostle, the favourite disciple of Jesus, was really the author of the Fourth Gospel."

My sense is that what we are talking about here is essentially a game that is concerned with organizational goals. Credibility is manipulated with those goals in mind. Even exegesis is driven by institutional credibility concerns. These processes reduces religion to a PR gimmick for self-serving institutions. In this sense doctrinal fundamentalism is a kind of fundamental disrespect.

I don't have the "modern expectation to have every question answered." But I do believe an honest approach to exploring questions is essential if there are to be meaningful answers.

 

[Dream]

Re: Where were you last night?

Certainly presentation is an issue. Consider the tendency to cite the Gospel of John as though the author was able to provide eye-witness account even though its authorship is dubious.

It seem to me that the biggest problem I have with doctrinal fundamentalism is the tendency to prefer church teachings to the Word. This seems to be an inevitable result of the position the church has taken that its authority is equivalent to Revelation. This is by no means just a matter of style. It can include intellectual dishonesty, mystification, and militant opposition to alternate viewpoints. It's not limited to the mysteries.

I notice doctrinal fundamentalism includes an element of authoritarianism that seems to lead to sloppy thinking and incoherence with regard to the Gospel. Consider for example that the Church emphasizes apostolic authority. Yet it ignores the fact that the gospel of John's authorship has been widely questioned by Bible scholars. The Church has in fact stated that it maintains "with the utmost certainty that John the Apostle, the favourite disciple of Jesus, was really the author of the Fourth Gospel."

My sense is that what we are talking about here is essentially a game that is concerned with organizational goals. Credibility is manipulated with those goals in mind. Even exegesis is driven by institutional credibility concerns. These processes reduces religion to a PR gimmick for self-serving institutions. In this sense doctrinal fundamentalism is a kind of fundamental disrespect.

I don't have the "modern expectation to have every question answered." But I do believe an honest approach to exploring questions is essential if there are to be meaningful answers.

So presentation is an issue then. About John, it seems like most Bible scholars i've heard of may not really understand the book at all. You probably know more about dating it than me, but how can they date it if they don't know what its talking about? Look at all of the ridiculous ideas out there about Revelation how little understood it is, and it is closely connected with John. In that case, I don't know how outside scholars can come up with a date for it. If I were, say, an archivist with a lot of understanding of mystical things, then my faith in the age of the liturgy would improve every time an outside Bible scholar came up with ridiculous theories. The more certain they were about it, the more ridiculous they would appear to me. The John books may be older than scholars think.

It is frustrating, as you say, that there seems to be a game; but there may be a purpose even for that. The church is a big organization originally incorporating Jewish ideas but it then got dunked into an emperial Roman government conspiracy. If you were a Jewish guy in the early church and Romans were taking over your religious Jewish faction, wouldn't you come up with some tricks to keep them out of the pudding? Wouldn't you try to protect the innermost tender vitals of your faith? Shoot, I know I would.

 

[Thomas]

John 6:63 - "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

You can't really say that A applies to B because they both use the word 'flesh', you have to read the text in context, for example in John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh" which suggests, at the very least, the divinity of Jesus ...

The commentary on 6:63 He is saying that man's natural and carnal apprehension, (of the flesh (Gk sarx) as opposed to the body Gk soma) in refusing to be subject to the spirit and words of Christ, profits nothing thereby.

But if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us, in the first place.

When He says "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (6:56) then He is making a distinction between Himself and other men.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

You can't really say that A applies to B because they both use the word 'flesh', you have to read the text in context, for example in John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh" which suggests, at the very least, the divinity of Jesus ...

The commentary on 6:63 He is saying that man's natural and carnal apprehension, (of the flesh (Gk sarx) as opposed to the body Gk soma) in refusing to be subject to the spirit and words of Christ, profits nothing thereby.

But if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us, in the first place.

When He says "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (6:56) then He is making a distinction between Himself and other men.

Thomas

I'm not suggesting that the death, burial, and resurrection are not important in the physical evidence confirming coming Resurrection. Nor do I have any issues of the Word becoming flesh as evidence of Jesus' divinity. But if you are going to be consistent, be consistent in your context, Thomas. If 'flesh' in 6:63 means man's carnal nature, then it ought to be interpreted this way throughout the passage, as in 6:56. Which would then read thus: 'For my (carnal nature) is meat indeed...'. And I know you don't believe that is what's meant. The problem is that you are taking the whole passage too literally (except of course in 6:63). When you do that, you miss the point. I'll show you what I mean.

For example, back a couple of chapters in John 4:33, the disciples asked Jesus, 'Hath any man brought him ought to eat?' and Jesus replied, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." It is obvious that Jesus isn't talking about real food, is He?

Now observe our text in John 6:27-29:

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

Again, Jesus is not speaking of a literal physical food. How do we know that? Because of the disciple's reply, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" The disciples reply echos the understanding of what Jesus said two chapters back, the work of God. And that work of God is to believe on Him whom God sent. It speaks nothing of the the Eucharest.

So in going back to 6:56, "For my flesh is meat indeed..." we now know that 'meat' means doing the will of God....via the Word of God.

Jesus in His temptation said, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." - Matthew 4:4

Where is it written? In Deuteronomy 8:3:

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."

And isn't it interesting that manna is precisely the topic in John 6. Any Jew with knowledge of the Torah would connect what Jesus said in John 6:31-33 with Deut. 8:3.

 

[Thomas]

As you know, in logic a false argument is one where the conclusion does not follow from the predictate. By the same token, if doctrine is false in this philosophic sense, then the faith that is based on docrine becomes false as well (doctrine = the predicate). And that is the unfortunate bind of doctrinal fundamentalism.

But as you have failed to demonstrate the doctrine is false, other than assert your own opinion and the opinion of others, to which Catholicism can and has made adequate answer.

To be Catholic means to adhere to Catholic doctrine, not shape the doctrine to suit oneself.

Thomas

 

[wil]

To be Catholic means to adhere to Catholic doctrine, not shape the doctrine to suit oneself.

Where does that line get drawn? Seems to me plenty of Catholics wouldn't be Catholic if it included things like, contraception, voting for Obama..don't go see that movie...and all the other stuff my friends tell me they are told not to do..or is that seperate?

And the whole weekly mass thing...unless special dispensation...

 

[Netti-Netti]

To be Catholic means to adhere to Catholic doctrine,....

Thomas

Faith is nonsectarian.

Your belief that the Church is necessary for people have faith is likely the reason you feel that Church doctrine is the basis for faith. Again, this is the bind of doctrinal fundamentalism and the attendant need to make a place for an institutional process.

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.

The data across several years seem to suggest that people are generally becoming MORE religious even as organized religion wanes.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Re: Where were you last night?

So presentation is an issue then. About John, it seems like most Bible scholars i've heard of may not really understand the book at all. You probably know more about dating it than me, but how can they date it if they don't know what its talking about?

Dating seems to be a separate and rather specialized area of theological study (paleography). This is the most comprehensive review of the dating issues for John I have found can be read here:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=sor_fac_pubs

It seems the 4th gospel has been subject to more controversy than any of the synoptic gospels with respect to authorship. The estimated dates vary widely. The author concludes that there is little support for a date before 70 AD.

Datings are based on historical detail (including estimates of when an author died), stylistic/linguistic aspects, the presence of theological/philosophical concepts (like "Logos" replacing the traditional "Wisdom"), and archeological research.

 

[Thomas]

Where does that line get drawn? Seems to me plenty of Catholics wouldn't be Catholic if it included things like, contraception, voting for Obama..don't go see that movie...and all the other stuff my friends tell me they are told not to do..or is that seperate?

Well hang on, contraception is a dogmatic issue on which the Church takes a stand — basically the sanctity of human life — and that life is not something we are at liberty to dispose of should it prove inconvenient.

Voting for whoever, going to the movies ... these are not dogmatic nor doctrinal issues. Individual pastors might have something to say, but their word is not doctrine.

And the whole weekly mass thing ... unless special dispensation...

Yep, that's another one.

Remember that although the Church, like its founder, calls for perfection, it is not without mercy nor unforgiving ... so we have a mechanism in place that when we fall, we can get up again.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Faith is nonsectarian.

People can have faith in anything ... God, science, football teams ...

Your belief that the Church is necessary for people have faith ...

Please don't put words into my mouth, I've said nothing of the sort. People drawn to Christ are drawn to His Church, He calls them ...

is likely the reason you feel that Church doctrine is the basis for faith.

Yep ... I sought the unadulterated message of Scripture.

Again, this is the bind of doctrinal fundamentalism and the attendant need to make a place for an institutional process.

So you say. Yet, curiously, the greatest spiritual commentators throughout history, and not all of them Catholic, beg to differ. The Dalai Lama for one.

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.

Actually tyhat depends on one's definition of religion.

The data across several years seem to suggest that people are generally becoming MORE religious even as organized religion wanes.

well what seems to be happening to me is a growing diffusion of the idea of what religion is. For most people personal religion is the measure of self-satisfaction.

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.

And actually, post-recession, there has been a swing back to traditional religious forms as people ask the deeper questions.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Re: Where were you last night?

Dating seems to be a separate and rather specialized area of theological study (paleography). This is the most comprehensive review of the dating issues for John I have found can be read here:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=sor_fac_pubs

Actually that's far from comprehensive, it's a good shot, but it's not current thinking. But the point is made ... John could be an eye witness account, there's nothing that says it isn't.

It seems the 4th gospel has been subject to more controversy than any of the synoptic gospels with respect to authorship.

And I can argue a number of reasons: Basically though, the common thread is that it upset's the arguments of the rationalists who seek, in some degree, to 'explain Christ away' from the image of Traditional Christian image of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and render Him as something else.

The review you cite makes no comment that the language of John has now been shown to be steeped in first century speculative Judiasm, whereas for a long time the assumption was gnosticism. This historical evidence also suggests a date earlier rather than later.

I'm quite happy with a late date of the Gospel, but I am also quite happy with the idea of an eye-witness testimony. I wouldn't discount Buddhism because the words of the Buddha were not written down for some hundreds of years.

Nobody has given me sufficient reason why it cannot be an eye-witness testimony, other than it upsets their pet theory, and nobody has come up with a better contender for authorship than John the sone of Zebedee, the beloved disciple, which tradition has always asserted.

I might note that I am not obliged, as a Catholic, to believe that John wrote the Gospel, or believe in when they were written. We acknowledge that it's an open question ... but the Synoptic Problem, as the name suggests, is an unanswered and as yet unanswerable question, as it the authorship of John ... so when someone says that such-and-such is the case, then you know they are wrong.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I'm not suggesting that the death, burial, and resurrection are not important in the physical evidence confirming coming Resurrection. Nor do I have any issues of the Word becoming flesh as evidence of Jesus' divinity.

OK.

But if you are going to be consistent, be consistent in your context, Thomas. If 'flesh' in 6:63 means man's carnal nature, then it ought to be interpreted this way throughout the passage, as in 6:56. Which would then read thus: 'For my (carnal nature) is meat indeed...'. And I know you don't believe that is what's meant. The problem is that you are taking the whole passage too literally (except of course in 6:63). When you do that, you miss the point. I'll show you what I mean.

OK, I accept that my argument is becoming tangential, and perhaps too focussed ... but my initial point is that when Jesus was talking, by saying "I am the bread of life" He is saying He is divine, not that the Divine manifests through Him.

The Eucharist is another issue altogether, and I fully accept one cannot argue the Eucharist from these verses alone ... although I would argue they are not inconsistent with it, nor do they contradict it.

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.

But I am over-reaching my point here ... that in this address, as in others, the only logical conclusion for His audience was that Christ was proclaiming His own divinity.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

OK, I accept that my argument is becoming tangential, and perhaps too focussed ... but my initial point is that when Jesus was talking, by saying "I am the bread of life" He is saying He is divine, not that the Divine manifests through Him.

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?

It is my belief that the analogy with the bread has more to do with the distribution of the life of Christ in the heart of every believer, just as He distributed to the 5000, from just a few loaves, as the finite man upon His death, burial, resurrection and ascention to the Father opened the door to the Spirit of God to indwell in everyone that believes. It was expedient for Him to go to the Father so that the Spirit would come down upon us, as He alluded to in John 16:7:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

On the day of Pentacost, the Spirit fell upon the disciples and thus began the church. The life in Christ is thus distributed by the Spirit through the Word.