The Breaking of the Bread

This phrase is incredibly important, as it is used throughout the Bible. I am going to show verses related to this phrase (or a variant of it) to emphasize the importance of it, and why it ought to be done every week, and what exactly is meant by the phrase.

Acts 2: 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 20: 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,[a] Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 10: 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Luke 24: 28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 29 but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,34 who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

John 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Hebrews 13: 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent[c] have no right to eat.

So I will leave you these questions: does your community acknowledge the importance of the celebration of the Eucharist? Do you celebrate it as often as possible, cognizant of the fact that you are proclaiming the Lord's death every time you do so? Do you celebrate every Sunday, at the very least, as the early Christians did? And if not, why not?

phattonez said:

This phrase is incredibly important, as it is used throughout the Bible. I am going to show verses related to this phrase (or a variant of it) to emphasize the importance of it, and why it ought to be done every week, and what exactly is meant by the phrase.

Acts 2: 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 20: 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,[a] Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 10: 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Luke 24: 28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 29 but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,34 who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

John 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Hebrews 13: 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent[c] have no right to eat.

So I will leave you these questions: does your community acknowledge the importance of the celebration of the Eucharist? Do you celebrate it as often as possible, cognizant of the fact that you are proclaiming the Lord's death every time you do so? Do you celebrate every Sunday, at the very least, as the early Christians did? And if not, why not?

Click to expand...

No, I can't really say I celebrate it anymore. Being a visual person, though, I thought it nice to have a picture. I took this last year a bit out of focus, seeing by the cat on the bench, but this is where they say in Jerusalem it all took place, the Last Supper, albeit in a building now built over again.

phattonez said:

This phrase is incredibly important, as it is used throughout the Bible. I am going to show verses related to this phrase (or a variant of it) to emphasize the importance of it, and why it ought to be done every week, and what exactly is meant by the phrase.

Acts 2: 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 20: 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,[a] Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 10: 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Luke 24: 28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 29 but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,34 who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

John 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Hebrews 13: 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent[c] have no right to eat.

So I will leave you these questions: does your community acknowledge the importance of the celebration of the Eucharist? Do you celebrate it as often as possible, cognizant of the fact that you are proclaiming the Lord's death every time you do so? Do you celebrate every Sunday, at the very least, as the early Christians did? And if not, why not?

Click to expand...

Yes, we acknowledge and celebrate the importance of that breaking of bread, which Jesus had instructed His Apostles - to do it in remembrance of Him.

We don't do it to "proclaim His death." He's already died and risen. We celebrate it in REMEMBRANCE of what He'd gone through for us - which include dying for us.
So I suppose, that in a way is "proclaiming His death." That He died for us.

The breaking of bread symbolizing His broken body.

We don't do it every Sunday. We do that ritual once a month.
However, every service.....we are always reminded of His sacrifice and love for us. Our hymns reflect all that, and they're filled with grateful worship and glorification of God and Jesus.

Also, when Jesus did that with the Apostles - it was as they were partaking food at a home or a place. They were literally eating together, and they were not in a temple at the time. I believe that we can also commemorate and remember even when at home with our family, or as group.

The importance of that is the act of remembering what He's done and given for us.


Luke 22
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

tosca1 said:

We don't do it to "proclaim His death." He's already died and risen. We celebrate it in REMEMBRANCE of what He'd gone through for us - which include dying for us.
So I suppose, that in a way is "proclaiming His death." That He died for us.

Click to expand...

We do it exactly for that reason. St. Paul is explicit: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

The breaking of bread symbolizing His broken body.

Click to expand...

This IS my body. He did not say, this represents my body, or this is a symbol for my body. This IS my body.

We don't do it every Sunday. We do that ritual once a month.

Click to expand...

It seems that the early Church did it every Sunday. Is there a reason to do it less often?

However, every service.....we are always reminded of His sacrifice and love for us. Our hymns reflect all that, and they're filled with grateful worship and glorification of God and Jesus.

Click to expand...

And that's well and good and He deserves every bit of it.

Also, when Jesus did that with the Apostles - it was as they were partaking food at a home or a place. They were literally eating together, and they were not in a temple at the time. I believe that we can also commemorate and remember even when at home with our family, or as group.

Click to expand...

They were also celebrating the Passover, during which the Paschal Lamb was slaughtered, the lamb without blemish. This is not a coincidence: remember that St. John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God.

The importance of that is the act of remembering what He's done and given for us.

Click to expand...

Was the Passover a mere commemoration of God bringing Israel out of Egypt?

Luke 22
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Click to expand...

This IS my body.

phattonez said:

We do it exactly for that reason. St. Paul is explicit: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

This IS my body. He did not say, this represents my body, or this is a symbol for my body. This IS my body.

Click to expand...

He meant it as a symbol. That's understood. As He break the bread and say, "This is My body, " He didn't instruct, "Do this to Me."

He said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me."

It seems that the early Church did it every Sunday. Is there a reason to do it less often?

Click to expand...

It seems. Or maybe everytime they meet. That could've been everyday, too.

Bottom line, there is no specific instructions on how many times we have to do it.

Furthermore, the important message is REMEMBERING WHAT HE GAVE FOR US.

They were also celebrating the Passover, during which the Paschal Lamb was slaughtered, the lamb without blemish. This is not a coincidence: remember that St. John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God.

Click to expand...

Whatever the occasion, the point is THEY WERE EATING!
LITERALLY HAVING A MEAL!

And as far as I know, they were eating real bread! There is nothing in the Scriptures that described the bread as circular paper thin wafers.

We use real bread in our service. I don't think it's unleavened, though.

I don't mean to be exacting, but since you asked about the numbers of times we have to do this, I have to ask.....

If we're going to try to be as authentic as we can.....is there any reason why we cannot use real bread?

tosca1 said:

Furthermore, the important message is REMEMBERING WHAT HE GAVE FOR US.

Click to expand...

I agree, rituals help us to do that. They are not the thing in itself, but they lead us to it. How often something is repeated is not necessarily important. As it says in this section of Matthew I read recently: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

phattonez said:

This IS my body. He did not say, this represents my body, or this is a symbol for my body. This IS my body.

Click to expand...

That just means he chose to use metaphor rather than simile. Immediately after calling the wine his blood, Jesus proceeds to refer to it as wine again:
Matthew 26:28-29 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.

Jesus also says: “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep." John 10:7b, yet we haven't built a theology around this claiming that Jesus is not a person, but rather a gate. He also referred to himself as being "the light" yet we don't build a theology around this claiming that Jesus was not a physical being but a being of light. He called himself a shepherd, yet we know he was a carpenter, and he called us sheep yet we know we are humans. That's the way metaphors work, you use them without explicitly saying you are, expecting that from the context people will understand that you are using a metaphor.

It seems to me that Jesus would have needed to explain far more to the disciples if he really meant to say that the wine and bread had become his blood and body. The natural reaction to him saying that would be to assume he is speaking metaphorically, especially when you eat of the bread and wine and find that it still tastes exactly like bread and wine. If he really meant to say that they had transformed into his body and blood, he would have needed more explanation.

CrabCake said:

That just means he chose to use metaphor rather than simile. Immediately after calling the wine his blood, Jesus proceeds to refer to it as wine again:
Matthew 26:28-29 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.

Jesus also says: “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep." John 10:7b, yet we haven't built a theology around this claiming that Jesus is not a person, but rather a gate. He also referred to himself as being "the light" yet we don't build a theology around this claiming that Jesus was not a physical being but a being of light. He called himself a shepherd, yet we know he was a carpenter, and he called us sheep yet we know we are humans. That's the way metaphors work, you use them without explicitly saying you are, expecting that from the context people will understand that you are using a metaphor.

It seems to me that Jesus would have needed to explain far more to the disciples if he really meant to say that the wine and bread had become his blood and body. The natural reaction to him saying that would be to assume he is speaking metaphorically, especially when you eat of the bread and wine and find that it still tastes exactly like bread and wine. If he really meant to say that they had transformed into his body and blood, he would have needed more explanation.

Click to expand...

He would have needed more explanation, you say? Look no further than John 6:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

And 1 Corinthians 11:

"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

tosca1 said:

He meant it as a symbol. That's understood. As He break the bread and say, "This is My body, " He didn't instruct, "Do this to Me."

He said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me."

Click to expand...

He said explicitly "This IS my body" and in John 6 was very clear that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

It seems. Or maybe everytime they meet. That could've been everyday, too.

Bottom line, there is no specific instructions on how many times we have to do it.

Furthermore, the important message is REMEMBERING WHAT HE GAVE FOR US.

Click to expand...

Of course that is important, but it seems that every Sunday is the deal, at the very least. Also, the Lord's Prayer implies DAILY bread, just as a note. And the word used for bread in Greek in the Lord's Prayer is not the normal word for bread. I think it's worth looking up.

Whatever the occasion, the point is THEY WERE EATING!
LITERALLY HAVING A MEAL!

And as far as I know, they were eating real bread! There is nothing in the Scriptures that described the bread as circular paper thin wafers.

We use real bread in our service. I don't think it's unleavened, though.

I don't mean to be exacting, but since you asked about the numbers of times we have to do this, I have to ask.....

If we're going to try to be as authentic as we can.....is there any reason why we cannot use real bread?

Click to expand...

Not just any meal, but the Passover, during which unleavened bread was used. This is far more than a simple meal.

Do you find the fact that the Last Supper occurred immediately prior to Good Friday to be completely insignificant?

The breaking of bread was not a new idea.

The Gnostics and Their Remains: Part II. The Worship of Mithras and Serapis: II. The Mithraic Sacraments

phattonez said:

He would have needed more explanation, you say? Look no further than John 6:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Click to expand...

That is an incomplete fragment of a teaching. This comes from a teaching Jesus gave his disciples right after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. With the miracle still fresh on their minds from the day before, Jesus approaches the disciples and opens with this line:
John 6:26-27 “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

He then goes on to talk about how God provided food for the people of Israel while they wandered the wilderness and, continuing this teaching about God providing for his people, clinches it with the following:

For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

It's fairly clear that Jesus is speaking metaphorically here. If he were not, then that would mean that believers don't need to eat or drink anything (other than communion wafers and wine) because they can never go hungry or thirsty.

That's the context within which the passage you chose occurs.

phattonez said:

And 1 Corinthians 11:

"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Click to expand...

Jesus isn't even in that verse. It's from a letter written after his death and resurrection.

CrabCake said:

That is an incomplete fragment of a teaching. This comes from a teaching Jesus gave his disciples right after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. With the miracle still fresh on their minds from the day before, Jesus approaches the disciples and opens with this line:
John 6:26-27 “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

He then goes on to talk about how God provided food for the people of Israel while they wandered the wilderness and, continuing this teaching about God providing for his people, clinches it with the following:

For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

It's fairly clear that Jesus is speaking metaphorically here. If he were not, then that would mean that believers don't need to eat or drink anything (other than communion wafers and wine) because they can never go hungry or thirsty.

That's the context within which the passage you chose occurs.

Click to expand...

If Jesus meant it metaphorically, then the verb choice in the passage is odd. The word used is in Greek in that passage, translated as eat, literally means gnaw, or munch. If you're speaking metaphorically, that's not the kind of verb that you use. The word is trogo.

As an example, the phrase we use when speaking metaphorically is "eat my dust". Of course, we don't literally mean eat. No one would say, "gnaw on my dust" or "munch on my dust". The fact that Jesus originally used the classic word "eat" phago, and then only after the Jews murmured He used the word "gnaw" trogo shows that He was trying to emphasize the literal eating of His flesh, or more appropriately as Catholics would state, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Jesus isn't even in that verse. It's from a letter written after his death and resurrection.

Click to expand...

The words of St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians are inerrant to Christians, so it's just as valid. After all, it's not as if Jesus wrote the Gospels and thus the Gospels hold more authority. Far from it; they hold the same authority as all the rest of the books in the Bible.

zyzygy said:

The breaking of bread was not a new idea.

The Gnostics and Their Remains: Part II. The Worship of Mithras and Serapis: II. The Mithraic Sacraments

Click to expand...

What is "show me a link to a long essay that no one will read"?

phattonez said:

If Jesus meant it metaphorically, then the verb choice in the passage is odd.

Click to expand...

How would you know?

You have no clue what would have sounded odd to a first century Jew and what would not. The fact remains that the context within which Jesus said this is the context of metaphor. He has been using metaphor throughout the entire teaching. He is drawing parallels between that which gives us physical life (food) and that which gives us life everlasting life (Jesus himself) and he's comparing it to when God gave manna to the Israelites while in the desert. If he weren't speaking metaphorically then we should expect for Christians to no longer require food or drink in order to stay alive, that is, after all, also part of this teaching.

phattonez said:

As an example, the phrase we use when speaking metaphorically is "eat my dust". Of course, we don't literally mean eat. No one would say, "gnaw on my dust" or "munch on my dust".

Click to expand...

That's an established saying, not a dynamically chosen metaphor, there's a big difference. But rather than use different sentences, let's just plug in those words into the sentences we are actually discussing:
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you chew the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Does that change the meaning? Not at all. The word could have been chew, chow down on, munch, gobble, consume...whatever. It makes no difference, it's still clear that he is speaking metaphorically. Again, if he isn't speaking metaphorically how come believers can go hungry and thirsty and even die? How come anyone who doesn't take communion isn't literally already dead since the passage clearly says if you don't "you have on life in you"? It's because he is using metaphors. He isn't saying anyone actually has to eat his flesh, he isn't saying that once you do you will never be hungry again, he isn't saying those who don't are literally already dead, he's using metaphor.

phattonez said:

The words of St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians are inerrant to Christians, so it's just as valid. After all, it's not as if Jesus wrote the Gospels and thus the Gospels hold more authority. Far from it; they hold the same authority as all the rest of the books in the Bible.

Click to expand...

It's just as valid if you intend to try to make a case for transubstantiation. But your claim in this case was that Jesus did indeed give the disciples a more detailed explanation so that they would understand he wasn't speaking metaphorically when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" (which is what anyone would have assumed he was doing unless they saw the elements actually transform).

CrabCake said:

How would you know?

You have no clue what would have sounded odd to a first century Jew and what would not. The fact remains that the context within which Jesus said this is the context of metaphor. He has been using metaphor throughout the entire teaching. He is drawing parallels between that which gives us physical life (food) and that which gives us life everlasting life (Jesus himself) and he's comparing it to when God gave manna to the Israelites while in the desert. If he weren't speaking metaphorically then we should expect for Christians to no longer require food or drink in order to stay alive, that is, after all, also part of this teaching.

Click to expand...

In a way He is saying nearly that. "Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."

an established saying, not a dynamically chosen metaphor, there's a big difference. But rather than use different sentences, let's just plug in those words into the sentences we are actually discussing:
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you chew the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Does that change the meaning? Not at all. The word could have been chew, chow down on, munch, gobble, consume...whatever. It makes no difference, it's still clear that he is speaking metaphorically. Again, if he isn't speaking metaphorically how come believers can go hungry and thirsty and even die? How come anyone who doesn't take communion isn't literally already dead since the passage clearly says if you don't "you have on life in you"? It's because he is using metaphors. He isn't saying anyone actually has to eat his flesh, he isn't saying that once you do you will never be hungry again, he isn't saying those who don't are literally already dead, he's using metaphor.

Click to expand...

The issue seems to be that you think that Jesus is talking about physical life. Actually, when Jesus talks about what we call death, He often calls it sleep, as do the early Christians. Death is typically referring to eternal death, which is the real issue for Jesus as He is trying to save us from that.

The fact that Jesus originally used the classic word "eat" phago, and then only after the Jews murmured He used the word "gnaw" trogo shows that He was trying to emphasize the literal eating of His flesh, or more appropriately as Catholics would state, His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Click to expand...

And this is the point. If Jesus is just using a metaphor, then why would you need to change the verb? Why not try to explain to the Jews the metaphor? After all, He did that before in other passages when He was misunderstood. Here, though, He did not. More evidence that He is speaking literally.

It's just as valid if you intend to try to make a case for transubstantiation. But your claim in this case was that Jesus did indeed give the disciples a more detailed explanation so that they would understand he wasn't speaking metaphorically.

Click to expand...

And John 6 is quite clear that Jesus is speaking about physically consuming Him.

phattonez said:

What is "show me a link to a long essay that no one will read"?

Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that the breaking of bread came from an older religion. Read it or ignore it, I don't care.

zyzygy said:

I was just pointing out that the breaking of bread came from an older religion. Read it or ignore it, I don't care.

Click to expand...

Whether Gnosticism itself predates Christianity is already an issue. On top of that, we know that Gnostics took much terminology and many ideas from Christians, so it would be difficult to state whether one took it from the other.

phattonez said:

In a way He is saying nearly that. "Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God."

Click to expand...

Right. That's certainly a passage that should come to mind when reading this.

phattonez said:

The issue seems to be that you think that Jesus is talking about physical life. Actually, when Jesus talks about what we call death, He often calls it sleep, as do the early Christians. Death is typically referring to eternal death, which is the real issue for Jesus as He is trying to save us from that.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think we agree on that. But he uses physical death as a metaphor for that. In fact, he uses starvation/dehydration as the metaphor. The whole teaching is filled with metaphors, mostly revolving around food. It's a perfectly orchestrated lesson; Jesus performed this miracle where he fed thousands and then he abandoned his followers to think it over through the night. The next day he appears to them and gives them this master class on God as the true source of life through the metaphor of food. It's typical Jesus, brilliant.

phattonez said:

And this is the point. If Jesus is just using a metaphor, then why would you need to change the verb? Why not try to explain to the Jews the metaphor? After all, He did that before in other passages when He was misunderstood. Here, though, He did not. More evidence that He is speaking literally.

Click to expand...

In other passages he doesn't explain it and actually says he intentionally didn't want them to understand (see Luke 8:10). There could be any number of reasons why a different word is used. For one, it could be that he didn't actually speak a different word. We know that the apostles did not write the things Jesus said word for word, for example here is the same quote from Jesus in different gospels:
Luke 18:22 “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Matthew 19:21 “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Mark 10:21 “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

So, it could be that Jesus didn't use two different words when he spoke, John did when he wrote about it. This is one of the reasons we don't want to put too much significance on individual words, but rather we want to look at what the passage says as a whole.

Assuming that's not the case and Jesus did choose two different words, there are many possible reasons. Perhaps the second word would have sounded more (or less) harsh to them and that's the reaction he wanted. Perhaps he was foreshadowing the last supper and he used more provocative language to ensure his disciples would remember that after he passed. Maybe if he wouldn't have used that word, John wouldn't have even remembered to write this down. Maybe there's no real reason at all, he was just being eloquent and not wanting to use too much repetition in his speech.

phattonez said:

And John 6 is quite clear that Jesus is speaking about physically consuming Him.

Click to expand...

I just don't see it. In the middle of a metaphor about the "bread of life" where he's been discussing food that never expires and that satisfies hunger indefinitely and makes people immortal, the part about eating flesh and blood is literal? I just don't see it. It seems more reasonable to conclude that it was all metaphorical. The food he's talking about isn't really food that never goes bad, it isn't bread that makes you immortal, it isn't bread that sates your appetite permanently, and it doesn't actually involve eating flesh and blood.

phattonez said:

This phrase is incredibly important, as it is used throughout the Bible. I am going to show verses related to this phrase (or a variant of it) to emphasize the importance of it, and why it ought to be done every week, and what exactly is meant by the phrase.

Acts 2: 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. . . . And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 20: 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,[a] Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

1 Corinthians 10: 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Luke 24: 28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 29 but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,34 who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

John 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Hebrews 13: 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent[c] have no right to eat.

So I will leave you these questions: does your community acknowledge the importance of the celebration of the Eucharist? Do you celebrate it as often as possible, cognizant of the fact that you are proclaiming the Lord's death every time you do so? Do you celebrate every Sunday, at the very least, as the early Christians did? And if not, why not?

Click to expand...

Two different concepts about "breaking bread". The first is simply the act of coming together for meal. The phrase was a common one at the time. The other indicates a Covenant action. Part of the covenanting ceremony included a point where the two parties tot eh covenant would feed each other bread and state something to the effect of "This is my body, eat of it and live." and then give each other wine and state something to the effect of "This is my body, drink of it and live." The idea behind was a promise to keep the covenant that had been made regardless of personal cost. This was the meaning of the "Last supper", not a literal consumption of the blood and body of Christ, but the establishment of a covenant with Him. It was the idea behind John 6:53 where Jesus states that if the People didn't eat of His flesh and drink of His blood (enter into a covenant with Him), they would have no place in Heaven.

phattonez said:

We do it exactly for that reason. St. Paul is explicit: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."



This IS my body. He did not say, this represents my body, or this is a symbol for my body. This IS my body.



It seems that the early Church did it every Sunday. Is there a reason to do it less often?



And that's well and good and He deserves every bit of it.



They were also celebrating the Passover, during which the Paschal Lamb was slaughtered, the lamb without blemish. This is not a coincidence: remember that St. John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God.



Was the Passover a mere commemoration of God bringing Israel out of Egypt?



This IS my body.

Click to expand...

But you're trying to take His words out of their cultural context. The phrase refers to the covenanting ceremony where those words are used as a promise to fulfill the covenant that had been made. When I first gave my life to God, the first book my Pastor wisely had me read (other than the Bible) was a secular book on 1st century culture. There is so much that we get wrong about what was is in the Bible because we don't take the time to get educated about the culture in which those were spoken.

zyzygy said:

I was just pointing out that the breaking of bread came from an older religion. Read it or ignore it, I don't care.

Click to expand...

Actually, the breaking of bread as part of a covenanting ceremony is a near global phenomenon. Across continents and oceans it's seen. It's not something that's limited to any one culture and in the 1st century was a well known and understood concept.

CrabCake said:

How would you know?

You have no clue what would have sounded odd to a first century Jew and what would not. The fact remains that the context within which Jesus said this is the context of metaphor. He has been using metaphor throughout the entire teaching. He is drawing parallels between that which gives us physical life (food) and that which gives us life everlasting life (Jesus himself) and he's comparing it to when God gave manna to the Israelites while in the desert. If he weren't speaking metaphorically then we should expect for Christians to no longer require food or drink in order to stay alive, that is, after all, also part of this teaching.



That's an established saying, not a dynamically chosen metaphor, there's a big difference. But rather than use different sentences, let's just plug in those words into the sentences we are actually discussing:
But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you chew the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Does that change the meaning? Not at all. The word could have been chew, chow down on, munch, gobble, consume...whatever. It makes no difference, it's still clear that he is speaking metaphorically. Again, if he isn't speaking metaphorically how come believers can go hungry and thirsty and even die? How come anyone who doesn't take communion isn't literally already dead since the passage clearly says if you don't "you have on life in you"? It's because he is using metaphors. He isn't saying anyone actually has to eat his flesh, he isn't saying that once you do you will never be hungry again, he isn't saying those who don't are literally already dead, he's using metaphor.



It's just as valid if you intend to try to make a case for transubstantiation. But your claim in this case was that Jesus did indeed give the disciples a more detailed explanation so that they would understand he wasn't speaking metaphorically when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" (which is what anyone would have assumed he was doing unless they saw the elements actually transform).

Click to expand...

What the Jews were arguing about was whether Jesus had the authority to be the party to a covenant that He was claiming to be, not whether people could actually eat His flesh, but whether He had the authority to make the statement that unless you enter into a covenant with Him, the Father would have no place for you.

faithful_servant said:

What the Jews were arguing about was whether Jesus had the authority to be the party to a covenant that He was claiming to be, not whether people could actually eat His flesh, but whether He had the authority to make the statement that unless you enter into a covenant with Him, the Father would have no place for you.

Click to expand...

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

CrabCake said:

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Click to expand...

Because what He was saying was so far outside of the norm that they really didn't understand how a Rabbi could place Himself in the position of God. For what Jesus was saying to be true (that you had to be in covenant with Him in order to be accepted by the Father), would mean that Jesus was God. It struck people to their core and put them into a position of HAVING to decide if they would accept Him for who He was claiming to be.

CrabCake said:

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Click to expand...

Fine metaphor for us, here, now.