Since the only possible way to illustrate something other than the literal use of language is to provide prooftexts as examples of the contrary, are you not simply refusing to consider any use of language but literal and trying to shut down the whole discussion???
John 6:34-35 where Jesus says "I am the bread of life" is no different in structure than "I am the door" or "I am the vine" or "I am the Way" or "I am...the truth" or "I am the light" etc. You want to pick and choose when all are exactly the same structure. YOu want to pick and choose because you claim the context demands it must be literalized by transubstantiation (which is a philosphical explanation to reject it is metaphorical like all the others).
However, in regard to immeidate context and the words "I am the bread of life" (v. 35a) he goes on to immediately in the very same verse (v. 35b) to supply the intended meaning when he says:
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Here is immediate contextual evidence of what he means to partake of him as "the bread of life"! The one who partakes of him is the one who "cometh to me" or "believeth me" and the absolute proof is coming and believing removes "hunger" and "thirst."
If this is not clear contextual based evidence that He is demanding the analogous use of language then it is impossible for any language to be understood metaphorically. This is introductory to the disputed text in verses 52-58. How can anyone reasonably dispute this contextual based conclusion of John 6:34-36.
Last edited by a moderator: