What did Jesus mean by this?

[Anonymous No.14954312]

Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." (John 6:32-35)

[Anonymous No.14954336]

It seems to me that Jesus here is pointing to His nature as the embodiment of the Logos of all life, but apparently some Christians believe this is about the Eucharistic ritual or other sacrificial meals. Suffice it to say, I find the Eucharistic/ritualistic interpretation of the passage unpersuasive.

[Anonymous No.14954412]

Répondez s'il vous plaît !

[Anonymous No.14955549]

It's interesting how this parallels certain verses from the Sermon on the Mount in the gospel of Matthew, where Jesus says that the birds of the sky need not work -- that God takes care of them.

[Anonymous No.14955555]

So why are Christians still hungry?

[Anonymous No.14955606]

Jesus is the “bread of life” in the sense that he nourishes people spiritually and satisfies the deep spiritual longings of their souls. In that sense, those who trust in him shall not hunger (John 4:14). Their spiritual longing to know God will be satisfied. Eternal life comes from eating his flesh and drinking his blood (“flesh and blood” refers to the total person)—that is, from believing in him.

[Anonymous No.14955651]

>>14955606
How can one satisfy the mind without satisfying the body?

[Anonymous No.14955687]

>>14955555
>Sirach 24: 21Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more.

this also happens.

[Anonymous No.14955747]

>>14955687
>never be hungry
>hunger for more
>never be thirsty
>thirst for more
Hmmmmm.

[Anonymous No.14955802]

>>14955747
Can you not see in your own life how it is? Infinite desire + infinite love are the twin abysses from which all life Springs. so it is just as right to say that you will thirst for more just as much as that you will not. That is the nature of everlasting life. If there was no desire there would be no satisfaction. Infinite satisfaction implies infinite desire.

[Anonymous No.14955872]

>>14954312
>I am the bread of life.
Based...

[Anonymous No.14955911]

>>14954336
>I find the Eucharistic/ritualistic interpretation of the passage unpersuasive.
>It seems to me that Jesus here is pointing to His nature as the embodiment of the Logos of all life
Why would these two things be in conflict? It's both, because it's very obviously a foreshadowing of the Last Supper like a lot of other passages talking about bread. Christ was even born in Bethlehem, which literally translates to "house of bread".

[Anonymous No.14955935]

>>14955911
There is no breaking of the bread in the gospel of John.

[Anonymous No.14955956]

>>14955935
>the Gospel of John is the entirety of scripture

[Anonymous No.14955964]

>>14955956
Well, it's the only eye-witness account of Jesus' ministry so I'm going to believe it above the rest of the NT canon.

[Anonymous No.14956074]

>>14955964
Based. I too am a King James Only Gospel of John only Christian.

[Anonymous No.14956243]

>>14956074
Do you also, like me, prefer Parmenides to the Pentateuch?

[Anonymous No.14957351]

>>14954312
>Jesus said
based

[Anonymous No.14957441]

>>14954312
I have a new translation of these verses:

>pic related

[Anonymous No.14957984]

What did Christ say about anime?

[Anonymous No.14958791]

>anime thread
based & bumped.

[Anonymous No.14958826]

>>14954312
>Very truly, I tell you
Off-topic, but prefixing his statements like this is an obvious "tell" that Jesus is lying through his teeth. He would be so easy to beat in a poker game.

[Anonymous No.14958832]

>>14955964
Please tell me you're joking.
John was the last written gospel, and it's the only gospel that doesn't go in a chronological ordering of events.
The Gospel of John is primarily focused on theology, and is there for a writing of "themes" rather than events.
If you want a "start to finish" gospel, read Luke-Acts. That book (which is now split into two) covers everything.

[Anonymous No.14958845]

>>14954312
It's an attack on Judaism. The Bible makes sense if you read it through Gnostic lenses.

[Anonymous No.14958884]

>>14958832
>John was the last written gospel
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14959087]

>>14958884
why?

[Anonymous No.14959130]

>>14954336
>Jesus: I am real bread, by which I mean symbolic bread, and by eating I just mean following me, also do this in remembrance of me, even though its just bread, but im the bread, but the bread isnt me, im the real bread but you cant eat me
>Every single Church Father: You are mystically present in the body and blood during our liturgies, got it.
>Holy Spirit: fuck I forgot to tell them you just meant it symbolically, shit what are we gonna do?
>Jesus: lets wait until martin luther is born is FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS and then we'll correct this stupid mistake that every single one of my followers has made
>Holy Spirit: sounds like a plan

[Anonymous No.14959141]

>>14958845
>The Bible makes sense if you read it through Gnostic lenses
yeah, the bible's gnostic, that must be why it PROMISES THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY ALONG WITH THE SOUL

[Anonymous No.14959171]

>>14959130
>applying human perception of time to divine entities

[Anonymous No.14959172]

>>14959141
the Book of John is pretty Gnostic influenced though.

[Anonymous No.14959181]

>>14959172
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.14959195]

Is it too much to ask for a religion that follows the laws of physics?

[Anonymous No.14959216]

>>14959195
Prove that the physical world actually exists

[Anonymous No.14959224]

>>14959181
it is and it isn't, if you know what I mean. It is in some ways about "secret knowledge" and in-groups and out-groups, but it obviously doesn't incorporate the cosmology of Gnosticism proper. Plus it carries on a pretty constant conversation with the content of the Gospel of Thomas

[Anonymous No.14959232]

>>14959130
Imagine being so retarded you don't understand basic symbolism

[Anonymous No.14959236]

>>14959171
I mean Jesus' time on earth was supposed to be the be all end all of divine revelation. That's a pretty major thing to leave mal-interpreted

[Anonymous No.14959253]

>>14959216
I don't have to; a religion shouldn't break the rules of the simulation it purports to explain.

[Anonymous No.14959272]

>>14959253
Wait are you taking the bread thing literally

[Anonymous No.14959300]

>>14959272
No, the resurrection, that's what I can't take seriously

[Anonymous No.14959305]

>>14959236
It's not as if luther was a prophet and it's not as if there hasn't always been different readings of jesus. He gave us his word, all the revelations we would need, and left us to sort through it. The conflict between luther and the catholic church is no different from what happened to the gnostics, it's just humans being humans

[Anonymous No.14959310]

>>14959130
John 6:63
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.

[Anonymous No.14959316]

>>14959300
Why not?

[Anonymous No.14959332]

>>14959300
Unless they find a corpse, nobidy can say for certain

[Anonymous No.14959338]

>>14959232
The spirituality of the Gospels can be summed up simply as "the possibility of entering into divine intimacy". All that mutual-indwelling and becoming one with Christ and uniting over a meal and Christ becoming the sacrificial offering and all that--all that was the path to salvation in Judaism becomes crystallised as simply intimacy with Christ, and what better way to be intimate with Christ than to have Him literally, physically, enter your body as nourishment. There is a remarkable coherence and beauty to the mystery, and I think the truth here is revealed by the fact that a merely symbolic Eucharist is less beautiful. The real presence is an awe-inspiring teaching, and that's why you have Protestants all over the place returning to this teaching, because it is so in keeping with the way that Jesus loves us. To reduce it to a mere symbol is to fail to see how interconnected all of Christ's statements are, and how interconnected union with Him is. And there is the witness of literally every Church Father on this point. Not until the Protestant Reformation did theologians start rejecting the doctrine of the real presence, and even then not universally. 'High' Protestants still believe in the literal Eucharist too.

[Anonymous No.14959348]

>>14959300
If it was a supernatural force that made the laws of the universe, why can't that same force break the laws?

[Anonymous No.14959355]

>>14959305
Sounds like either the Church was right, or the Holy Spirit was lazy in guiding councils

[Anonymous No.14959357]

>>14959338
Cope

[Anonymous No.14959361]

>>14959310
>the flesh profiteth nothing
Then why was the word made flesh?

[Anonymous No.14959367]

>>14959357
>a post that isn't sarcastic meme bullshit
>LOOK AT THIS COPE BRUH FUCKING CRINGE KYS XD

[Anonymous No.14959463]

>>14959367
Appealing to the ECF is the biggest cope there is.

[Anonymous No.14959605]

>>14959463
i didnt appeal only to them, i appealed to every theologian up to the reformation

that's a 1500 year tradition

[Anonymous No.14959992]

>>14954312
It's just another warning against idolatry. Moses physically led them from Egypt but not spiritually, it would be sin to worship Moses > God because of this. Basically fuck the physical

[Anonymous No.14960074]

>>14954312
https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/jesus/ministry-in-galilee/bread-of-life/

[Anonymous No.14960080]

>>14959992
that is an extremely shit reading

[Anonymous No.14960313]

>>14958884
Why would you stand in contrast to all biblical studies throughout the ages and just refuse to provide any substantive evidence for your claims?

[Anonymous No.14960333]

>>14960074
You're in a cult.

[Anonymous No.14960631]

>>14959338
>muh Eucharist

[Anonymous No.14960707]

>>14960313
My view is minoritary but truth is not decided by consensus. One key argument you can make is that the Gospel of John has no equivalent to the Olivet Discourse, i.e. that it makes no reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. So it either post-dates 70AD by enough time that the memories of the event would become distant, placing its composition somewhere after 150AD, or it pre-dates 70AD. But we have manuscript fragments of the gospel of John from before 150AD, ergo it must have been written before 70AD.

[Anonymous No.14960729]

>Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life within you. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

It's hard to get any clearer than this.

[Anonymous No.14960730]

>>14960313
>all biblical studies throughout the ages
Nobody cares about secular (((biblical studies))) on the /lit/erature board of 4channel.

[Anonymous No.14960736]

>>14959338
See >>14955935
There is no breaking of the bread discourse at the Last Supper in the gospel of John. That's a startling omission if what Jesus is actually talking about is the Eucharistic ritual.

[Anonymous No.14960789]

>>14960736
>God's foreknowledge is so limited that He needs to include every single detail in a single text, he doesn't know that other Gospels would be written filling in the blanks
>the bread was just lying there on the table, if it didn't explicitly write about breaking the bread, it didn't happen
why?

[Anonymous No.14960811]

>>14960789
>the Bible is divinely inspired
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14960820]

The earliest reference to the Eucharistic ritual/formula is from Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians (chapter 11, verse 24). It's clearly a Pauline innovation that was added to the Synoptic gospels as the practice spread through the Church and became tradition.

[Anonymous No.14960832]

>>14960729
See >>14955935 & >>14960736

[Anonymous No.14961031]

>>14960811
why would it not be?

[Anonymous No.14961072]

>>14960820
>The earliest reference to the Eucharistic ritual/formula is from Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians (chapter 11, verse 24).

[Anonymous No.14961258]

>>14961072
Paul's epistles predate the written gospels anon, with the exception of maybe (maybe) the gospel of John which could have been contemporaneous with his letters.

[Anonymous No.14961286]

>>14961031
Because it is inconsistent. God does not contradict Himself, but the biblical canon does. The canon was put together by fallible humans. You can add "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit" but that is irrelevant, as the Holy Spirit used imperfect vessels and these imperfections come across in the written text.

In short: the proof is in the pudding.

[Anonymous No.14961656]

>>14960707
You're arguing without proof. Matthew was written 41AD, Mark and Luke was written around 60AD. John was written about 98 around Ephesus. There' no question he was last. We know for example he wrote Revelation in year 96 at Patmos when he was exiled

[Anonymous No.14961665]

>>14961656
>You're arguing without proof
>proceeds to throw dates around as if they were fact
>ignores the argument
You're arguing without proof.

[Anonymous No.14961770]

>>14959361
To save those in the flesh. To more directly communicate himself to us.

[Anonymous No.14962292]

>>14961665
>You're arguing without proof
That's what you're doing, yes

[Anonymous No.14962421]

>>14962292
No. :)

[Anonymous No.14962601]

Would it be correct to describe Jesus as a bread person?

[Anonymous No.14962927]

>>14954312
Who reads Bible will be better off and who beleves in him will live fullfiled life. Jesus uses metaphor becouse he is talking about celestial realm, witch human mand can't imagine.

[Anonymous No.14963068]

>>14961656
But aside from any possible popular traditional attributions there doesn't appear to be conclusive evidence that John the Apostle and John of Patmos were the same person though.
#dualist apostology

[Anonymous No.14964425]

>>14954312
"Moses" means the whole Jew as a collective.

[Anonymous No.14964460]

>>14964425
Explain further. Moses as an exponent of the "Law" is more appropriate, with Jesus as its replacement.

[Anonymous No.14964493]

Not him but what I'm seeing is that Moses as the law is the copy in an image or in a shadow of the logos who is the spirit of the law. So the logos is the Tree of Life and Moses is the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

[Anonymous No.14964502]

>>14964493
And that is how this whole reality is and in trying to get to the truth.