Eat the Bread of Life and Not Die - John 6:50

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,184
168
Southern U.S.
✟103,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You can refer back to my post #60 of this thread showing Jesus for a fact used figurative, symbolic language.

Particularly where Jesus equated "eatheth my flesh" of John 6:54 to the "words" He spake in John 6:63.

Often this is understood as, 'spirit gives life', which can be accepted in a broad sense. However, instead focus on the distinctive quality of the individual human (i.e 'person') the essence of which are of two primary elements, the soul (the supernatural) and the body (the carnal). The soul animates or moves the body through the intellect. Whereby 'to quicken' can be seen as the strength of movement of the soul vivifies the carnal body toward Christ, the animating soul compels the person toward God's charity. The body cannot and does not move on its own, without soul the body is dead, so much meat for the market; however we find, "the body is perfected by being quickened by the soul, and the air by being enlightened by the sun. (St. Thomas, Summa). Death, therefore, is appropriately defined as that state of the body where the soul no longer resides. Likewise, life is the union of carnal body and the supernatural soul.

This is quite well known. “Saint Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem in the fourth century A.D., discusses the Lord’s Prayer: Common bread is not supersubstantial, [Cf. Matthew 6:11- I explained supersubstantial (Epiousios) elsewhere], but this Holy Bread is supersubstantial [Mystagogic Lectures, 23.15] as did other Early Church Fathers. We see in Matthew 6:10 the coming of the Kingdom, expected is sacrificial meat and blood, bread and wine. The Lord’s Prayer is definitely eschatological in nature. Hence, for the Jew on the mountainside the Lord’s Prayer including the petition for a daily bread would have several meanings, including manna, or "bread of the presence (of Yahweh)" as a super-substantial bread. The Jew of the first century was told to seek first the Kingdom of God; not to be apprehensive or anxious of earthly things to sustain life here on earth [Cf. Matthew 6:25-33]. It would profit none of those sitting on the mountainside, or us in our homes an office to pray for more stuff, more food more cloths. As Christ pointed out the flesh does not profits from the manna that is Himself, rather it is the soul that is quickened to eternal life. [Cf. John 6:64]

Also John 6:56 those who eat Christ's flesh results in Christ abiding in them and they abiding in Christ. Parallel verse to John 6:56 is 1 John 3:24 where keeping Christ's commands likewise results in one abiding in Christ and Christ abiding in him just as in John 6:56.

Hence eating Christ's flesh is symbolic and equivalent to literally keeping Christ's commands (words).
========

Dish - for an entire plate of food.
"That fancy fish dish you made was the best of the evening".

No one literally ate the dish itself but it was the contents of the dish that was eaten. Likewise Jesus did not tell them to literally drink the cup itself, with "cup" refering to content of the cup.

As already pointed out by other posters here, Jesus was not literally a door John 10:9 nor a literal vine John 15:5 nor were the disciples literally salt Matthew 5:13. Your argument fails for you are not consistent with figures of speeches Jesus used. You see the figures of speeches when you desire to see them and reject them when you desire to reject them simply because they do not fit your preconcieved ideas.
========

No, Jesus is not literally the door, the gate, the vine, etc. However in each case the metaphor is clear. And in John 6 we hear Christ say, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven." [John 6:51]. So, is He saying He is a metaphor from Heaven? He says "This [Jesus Christ] is the bread that came down from heaven."

Are you saying that Christ did not come down from heaven, just an cross lumber without corpus Christi.

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever." [John 6:58-59]

But, the hardest thing to explain is why so many of His own disciples turned their back on Christ in Capharnaum if it was all symbol. Metaphors don't have no reality but Christ's reality a manna from heaven, is the Real Presence.

Matthew 26:26-29 the contents never changed, what Jesus first called 'blood' was later called 'fruit of the vine' and it was 'fruit of the vine' that was given to the disciples to drink. If the content was first blood why did He not continue to call it blood? Paul referred to it as "bread" and "cup" 1 Corinthians 11:26-27. No indication at all the disciples tho't they were literally eating Christ's flesh and blood.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 Paul calls the church "bread" so is the church literally eating its own flesh in taking communion? Did Israel literally eat the altar, 1 Corinthians 10:18? OBVIOUSLY the language is symbolic about the communion.
Obviously, only in your own mind. Just as obvious to me there is a reason you can't accept the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

Yes the Apostles, disciples and all the early Church thought they were eating the Body of Christ and Drinking the Blood of Christ just as they taught those that succeeded, i.e. the Church.

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Wow.

You are a denier of the inspiration of OT too. So all you have is your own opinion of what the NT means. I see why you are lost.

The church does certainly not get its authority from the bible! Carts in front of horses again. The bible is not written as a manual of faith. Jesus didn’t say “ write this or read this” , he said do this.

You don’t understand tradition. The NT does, as did all the early fathers. Read iraneus or Paul, for that matter.” Paradosis” The faith handed down. It was more or less the sole means of passage of faith in the days before the NT existed in coherent form. But until even recent times few could read , and less could afford a bible, so all learned by tradition, meaning of faith handed down.

tradition gives the meaning of scripture, without which you don’t have the word of God, you only have words and a personal opinion.

To prove how wayward sola scriptura is, is the fact that Luther and Calvin had massively different views of baptism and communion. Yet both claim to have deduced the meaning from the same scripture!

Without tradition and authority explicitly handed to the church as the power to bind and loose, Protestantism has fractured into 10000 mutually exclusive bits.

Because the ONLY logical definition of sola scriptura is everyone makes up their own meaning. If they bring meaning from elsewhere or others they bring in tradition or authority, but in reformationists case it certainly is ( the confessions, articles) man made at the time of the reformation.

Catholicism accepts the reality of both by bringing in what the apostolic succession says scripture means, and what the gospels say is authority.



The church has no authority of itself, it gets its authority from the Bible. The church belongs to Christ (Ephesians 5:23) and He alone has all authority (Matthew 28:18). The church has no authority of its own, no power to give itself authority or to take authority away from Christ. This is the cause of many errors within Catholicism, for example, original sin. OS was never taught from Adam to Moses, never taught from the time Abraham gave the OT law till Christ, and never taught from the time Christ gave the NT gospel till today.

Original Sin: Ask the Rabbi Response
Above is a Jewish website stating how the Torah never taught OS therefore never believed by the Jews. Equally OS was never taught by Christ or His Apostles. OS has its origins with UNinspired men whose writings were equally UNinspired.
"There also are abuses associated with these writings. For example, the Roman Church treats many of these documents as if they were inspired of God. “Tradition,” they say, “is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and . . . is infallible” (Donald Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, New York: MacMillan, 1961, 41). Invariably, when a Catholic scholar cannot sustain his doctrinal position by the Bible, he will appeal to the testimony of the “church fathers.” For example, in his popular book, The Question Box (San Francisco: Catholic Truth Society, 1929, 135), Bertrand Conway cited Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.III) in an effort to prove the Catholic dogma of apostolic succession. But the post-apostolic writers were not inspired. They never claimed to be. They frequently contradict one another, and especially the New Testament." (my emp) The Church Fathers: Benefits and Abuses

New Page 3
Above is a history of the church of Christ in Europe. An excerpt from it says "Out of the Celtic district of Galacia and Gaul messengers of the New Testament gospel must have entered the British Isles for the first time, for even as early as the year 422 the Catholic bishop Germanus, who had been sent there on inspection, wrote that numerous Christians in Britain had rejected Agustine’s doctrine of the original sin, practiced the immersion of adults only, did not follow the Roman ritual in their divine service, and did not recognize the hierarchy of Rome, especially the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope." So the error of OS (along with infant baptism) was correctly being rejected as far back as 422. (Even shows the structure/hierarchy of Catholicism was rejected for it is not like that of the first century church.)

The first century church had the Apostles and their inspired writings to instruct them. Books of the OT were settled by the birth of Christ. (Catholicism did not yet exist then to settle the OT, hence Catholicism did not give us the Bible). Canonizing the NT began in the first century with, for example, Paul and Peter calling various letters "scripture" so first century Christians had 'scripture' for their authority. Use of this authoratative 'scripture' continued into the 2nd century. Agreement on those first century NT letters came before the end of the second century (again, organized Catholicism did not yet exist to settle the NT). Legitamacy of some outlying books (apocrypha - not legit) came by the 4th century but Christians already had the core canon long before then."

It is the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it is directly responsible for the Bible we have today. Note the following quotes from their own works:

"The church...exercising the authority given her by Christ, fulfilling her duty as custodian and champion of the written word, separated the true from the false, the divine from the human, and gave men the New Testament, as it is today. And this in the year 397 A.D. -- nearly 400 years after Christ. Thus the Bible came from the church!" (Paulist Correspondence Course, No. 2, pp. 55-56)."

Still further, along the same line, we find:

"Now we have seen that the complete divine revelation is transmitted to us from Christ through the Apostles in the divine tradition of the Church. Hence the only certain guide as to the inspiration and canonicity of all the books of Sacred Scripture is the authoritative pronouncement of the Church" (The Teachings of the Catholic Church, Vol. I, p. 30)."

To emphasize the claims made by the Catholic Church in this matter, we note that they point out that "what the church, therefore teaches as divinely revealed, that most certainly is revealed by God and must be believed on the divine authority" (Ibid., p. 31). This claim is made because of their claim that they are "a visible Church with a living teaching authority, infallible because the Holy Ghost is with her, preserving her from error" (Ibid. p. 28). They even point out that many reject the church, "not knowing her claim to be the infallible guardian of divine truth" (Ibid., p. 27). I believe from these quotes we can readily recognize the position that is held by the Roman Catholic Church on the matter of revelation.

We might pause here though and also note that this claim is made in spite of the facts of history, and not because of them. Arvid McGuire, in an article on "The New Testament Canon" (Evidence Quarterly, Vol. II No. 2 -- 1961) pointed out that Justin Martyr (100-165 A. D.) knew the gospels, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, II Thessalonians, I Peter, Hebrews and Revelation. Clement of Alexandria (165-220) attributed Hebrews to Paul, and recognized all but James, II Peter and III John in his writings. Origen of Alexandria (185-253) quoted all the New Testament books, and Clement of Rome (30-100, same time as the apostles) quoted Matthew, Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews, James, I Timothy, Titus and Peter. Tertullian of Carthage (150-222) quoted all except Philemon and I John. In fact, William Fain noted that Sir David Dalrymple in the 19th century reproduced all but 11 verses from secular writings -- all written before 300 A. D. (Gospel Guardian, 6-9-66). Certainly from this evidence, it is recognized that the New Testament was in circulation and recognized before the Catholic Church ever made any decisions about it. Even the best existing manuscripts of the original language today existed before the date set by the Catholic Church. In reality all the Catholic Church did, as the soldier at the cross (Matthew 27:54), was to recognize what was already established as fact. This had already been preserved and protected by God. (II Peter 1:3)
"
The Extra Catholic Books
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeT
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,804
13,115
72
✟362,270.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Wow.

You are a denier of the inspiration of OT too. So all you have is your own opinion of what the NT means. I see why you are lost.

The church does certainly not get its authority from the bible! Carts in front of horses again. The bible is not written as a manual of faith. Jesus didn’t say “ write this or read this” , he said do this.

You don’t understand tradition. The NT does, as did all the early fathers. Read iraneus or Paul, for that matter.” Paradosis” The faith handed down. It was more or less the sole means of passage of faith in the days before the NT existed in coherent form. But until even recent times few could read , and less could afford a bible, so all learned by tradition, meaning of faith handed down.

tradition gives the meaning of scripture, without which you don’t have the word of God, you only have words and a personal opinion.

To prove how wayward sola scriptura is, is the fact that Luther and Calvin had massively different views of baptism and communion. Yet both claim to have deduced the meaning from the same scripture!

Without tradition and authority explicitly handed to the church as the power to bind and loose, Protestantism has fractured into 10000 mutually exclusive bits.

Because the ONLY logical definition of sola scriptura is everyone makes up their own meaning. If they bring meaning from elsewhere or others they bring in tradition or authority, but in reformationists case it certainly is ( the confessions, articles) man made at the time of the reformation.

Catholicism accepts the reality of both by bringing in what the apostolic succession says scripture means, and what the gospels say is authority.

You are quite correct. The RCC assuredly does not substantiate its authority by the Bible. It self-substantiates. Whatever it states to be true is absolutely true simply and only because it says it is true.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It substantiates by studying what early fathers believed scripture means, and those appointed in apostolic succession to tell us.

it fascinates me when those who accuse us invent wholly non biblical practices like “ asking Jesus into our lives “ or “ altar calls”

When Peter , clearly the leader says in his first sermon:

“37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

which is the Catholic way! So who has non biblical practices?



You are quite correct. The RCC assuredly does not substantiate its authority by the Bible. It self-substantiates. Whatever it states to be true is absolutely true simply and only because it says it is true.
 
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,600.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus uses figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths. Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says in John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His broken body and shed blood on the cross, receiving and enjoying eternal life. Eating and drinking is not cannibalism here, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as Jesus makes it clear below:

John 6:40 - Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

"He who believes" in Christ is equivalent to "he who eats this bread and drinks My blood" as we clearly see the result is the same, eternal life. John 6 does not support transubstantiation. On the contrary, it's a statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and live forever when we believe in Him unto salvation.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,122
7,243
Dallas
✟873,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You might recall Brother Joe said, "Judas ate of the Bread of life unworthily and look what happened to him. [Cf. Corinthians 11:27, 29]" I even suggest that some say Judas left before Christ offered His Body and Blood.

Which confirms my point that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally when He said that. If He was speaking literally then Judas would’ve had to receive eternal life otherwise Jesus’ statement would’ve been a lie. The only way that Judas could spiritual die after receiving the Eucharist is if Jesus wasn’t speaking literally in that statement.
 
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,184
168
Southern U.S.
✟103,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Which confirms my point that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally when He said that.
It doesn't confirm your point, in fact it demolishes your point. The only one between you and participating in communion is the priest. If you are taking unworthily, he doesn't know it; it's all on you. The guilt and the blood of Christ is on you. Not the priest, not Christ, but you are responsible for your own acts - it's an immoral act to receive unworthily.

If He was speaking literally then Judas would’ve had to receive eternal life otherwise Jesus’ statement would’ve been a lie. The only way that Judas could spiritual die after receiving the Eucharist is if Jesus wasn’t speaking literally in that statement.

Your 'literal' attack has run into the brick wall of reality. The argument has been confuted posts ago. Judas killed himself.

JoeT
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Watch the doubters jump around on this one:

Jesus made the clear distinction of not dying like the fathers in the wilderness.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,
that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
So, if one doesn't take this at face value, then you are a doubter?

Did Jesus in fact say that they would not die like the fathers in the wilderness?
Seems to be more than one kind of bread being discussed here.
And more than one kind of death.

Did those who heard Jesus and believed, NOT die like the fathers in the wilderness?
What have you concluded (without jumping around) collectively, now that you are up to page 11 ???
Or, more importantly, what did you learn from the participants?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. ...
Spot on.
Such a beautiful analogy Jesus makes here. Everyone understood that the Manna was bread that came down from heaven. (at least figuratively) And Jesus explains that he too is the bread that came down from heaven, with a major difference. Those who ate that original manna all died in the wilderness. Those that receive the "bread" that is Jesus (a relationship with him) will never "die". However we are no longer speaking of bread made from flour, or physical death. Which your quote above explains clearly. Thanks.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,122
7,243
Dallas
✟873,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't confirm your point, in fact it demolishes your point. The only one between you and participating in communion is the priest. If you are taking unworthily, he doesn't know it; it's all on you. The guilt and the blood of Christ is on you. Not the priest, not Christ, but you are responsible for your own acts - it's an immoral act to receive unworthily.



Your 'literal' attack has run into the brick wall of reality. The argument has been confuted posts ago. Judas killed himself.

JoeT

No you just refuse to admit what is plain to see. Jesus didn’t say anything about receiving the Eucharist unworthily. He never added any stipulation except that a person must eat His flesh and drink His blood and that person WILL receive eternal life. Judas received the Eucharist and did not receive eternal life so it’s completely clear that Jesus’ statement was not literal otherwise Judas would’ve received eternal life. We’re not talking about Paul’s statements that’s completely irrelevant. If Jesus has added that stipulation into His statement then it would be relevant but He didn’t. The statement Jesus made cannot be taken literally because Judas literally ate His flesh and drank His blood and he literally DID NOT receive eternal life. Whether or not he was worthy does not make any difference according to Jesus’ statement.
 
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,184
168
Southern U.S.
✟103,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
No you just refuse to admit what is plain to see. Jesus didn’t say anything about receiving the Eucharist unworthily. He never added any stipulation except that a person must eat His flesh and drink His blood and that person WILL receive eternal life.
. Given the Latin adage, qui mentiri omne mendacium, I suppose we'll have to throw out all Epistles from St. Paul.

Judas received the Eucharist and did not receive eternal life so it’s completely clear that Jesus’ statement was not literal otherwise Judas would’ve received eternal life. We’re not talking about Paul’s statements that’s completely irrelevant. If Jesus has added that stipulation into His statement then it would be relevant but He didn’t. The statement Jesus made cannot be taken literally because Judas literally ate His flesh and drank His blood and he literally DID NOT receive eternal life. Whether or not he was worthy does not make any difference according to Jesus’ statement.

I believe Jesus did say something about taking communion unworthily.

And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." [Luke 22:19-21].
Do you intend to sit at the lord's table take His graces and then with a weak faith betray Him by mocking Him?

St. Paul was speaking from his tradition in Judaism. You do recall Nadab and Abiu, they seemed to have gotten themselves, you might say, 'fired-up'

And Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it, offering before the Lord strange fire: which was not commanded them. And fire coming out from the Lord destroyed them, and they died before the Lord." [Leviticus 10:1-2]
The belief we are talking about requires heart, soul and mind, i.e. the whole enchilada.

JoeT

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,184
168
Southern U.S.
✟103,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Spot on.
Such a beautiful analogy Jesus makes here. Everyone understood that the Manna was bread that came down from heaven. (at least figuratively) And Jesus explains that he too is the bread that came down from heaven, with a major difference. Those who ate that original manna all died in the wilderness. Those that receive the "bread" that is Jesus (a relationship with him) will never "die". However we are no longer speaking of bread made from flour, or physical death. Which your quote above explains clearly. Thanks.
Seems to me that a wafer thin piece of bread isn't substantial meal for the physical body nor is a symbol. But, Christ calls his food super-subsantial, "Give us this day our supersubstantial (epiousios) bread." [Matthew 6:11].

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,804
13,115
72
✟362,270.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Seems to me that a wafer thin piece of bread isn't substantial meal for the physical body nor is a symbol. But, Christ calls his food super-subsantial, "Give us this day our supersubstantial (epiousios) bread." [Matthew 6:11].

JoeT

Curiously, the use of wafers in the Eucharist does not have a very lengthy history. Even to this day the EO use a single loaf of substantial bread, as do many other denominations.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JoeT

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2020
1,184
168
Southern U.S.
✟103,383.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Curiously, the use of wafers in the Eucharist does not have a very lengthy history. Even to this day the EO use a single loaf of substantial bread, as do many other denominations.

I wouldn't know about the EO or other denomination. It needs be unleavened bread sacrificed by priests with heredity. What makes it supersubstantial is the Real Presence of Christ.

JoeT
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,804
13,115
72
✟362,270.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I wouldn't know about the EO or other denominations. It needs be unleavened bread sacrificed by priests with heredity. What makes it supersubstantial is the Real Presence of Christ.

JoeT

Your point about the bread and wine in the Eucharist being insufficient for an actual meal is moot.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Seems to me that a wafer thin piece of bread isn't substantial meal for the physical body nor is a symbol. But, Christ calls his food super-subsantial, "Give us this day our supersubstantial (epiousios) bread." [Matthew 6:11].

JoeT
That seems like an odd connection to me. You appear to be claiming that Christ was referring to the Eucharist when he said "daily bread". Did I misunderstand you?

Matthew 6:11
Give us today our daily bread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That seems like an odd connection to me. You appear to be claiming that Christ was referring to the Eucharist when he said "daily bread". Did I misunderstand you?

Matthew 6:11
Give us today our daily bread.
Furthermore, @JoeT
I was writing about Jesus being the bread that came down from heaven.

Saint Steven said:
Spot on.
Such a beautiful analogy Jesus makes here. Everyone understood that the Manna was bread that came down from heaven. (at least figuratively) And Jesus explains that he too is the bread that came down from heaven, with a major difference. Those who ate that original manna all died in the wilderness. Those that receive the "bread" that is Jesus (a relationship with him) will never "die". However we are no longer speaking of bread made from flour, or physical death. Which your quote above explains clearly. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0