Actually "living water" was first used in Jn. 4, in which the Lord used the physical in order to lead the women to the spiritual, and rather than being like a typical American, she pursued the issue and was provided with the spiritual answer of believing on Jesus to receive this water,
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. (John 4:14-15)
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:25-26)
And which answer was a result of her continuing with the Lord, despite Him pointing out her sin, and which continuing is a spiritual principal in John in order to receive more light.
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)
Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. (John 12:35-36)
Yet we need more revelation to better understand how we receive this living water, which your text of John 7 partially provides, and more is later given, showing that the Holy Spirit is given as a result of believing the gospel. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
In Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
And which means that had those carnally-minded Jews in John 6, who were looking for physical food, had continued on in seeking the spirtual meaning, then they would understood, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6:57) and "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63) For "just how did Christ live by the Father"? The answer is that the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Thus for the Lord Jesus who lived by every word of God, the doing of His will was "meat." For once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread,
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34) And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:62-63)
And which is the only meaning that comports with the rest of the NT. For Lord Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything, but that one "lives by" (upon) God's word as well, first by repentant faith in the gospel and then by feeding upon the word of God. For while the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.) the word of God what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
And even STILL, what he said was LITERALLY true, in addition to its symbolic meaning, because when he said, “Anyone who drinks of the water which I shall give shall live eternally,” water is a part of the eucharist/communion/lord’s supper and by turning that water into his blood (which is also water), so yes, he does give us water, which also becomes he himself, in the absolute physical, observable sense.
Now this is really off the rails. As in addition to what I just said, nowhere is anyone ever told to or shown having to take part in the Lord's supper in order to receive the Holy Spirit. In fact nowhere is the Lord's supper clearly mentioned in Acts unless such communal meals as "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" (Acts 2:46) refers to this. And other than the simple mention of "feast of charity" in Jude, then 1 Co. 10,11 is the only place the LS is mentioned and is the only place in which some sort of actual description is given. And with no mention of any priest officiating and offering it as a sacrifice to be consumed to obtain spiritual life, while contextually the "body" that was not discerned is that of the body of Christ, the church, as briefly explained in post 125 by the grace of God.
Moreover, if Catholics really took Jn 6:53,54 literally and as a imperative requirement just like other "verily, verily" statements, then they must exclude baptized Prots who deny Catholic Eucharistic theology (with its non-existent transubstantiated bread and wine) as being Christians in whom Christ dwells. Contrary to V2.
in the absolute physical, observable sense
But which really does not exist. But really can grow old. But do not make a deal about appearance as regards nature, except that molecular decay does not count as meaning Christ is no longer present under the appearance of bread, for you have to see it to believe it. Then.
>> Nor did the Lord or Scripture ever refer or example the true Christ in His incarnation as having an appearance that did not conform to what He materially was, but in fact He and Scripture emphasized the manifest physicality of Christ in contrast to the a christ whose appearance that did not conform to what He materially was. <<
Well, first, you’re wrong. He came to Saul, and no-one could see him. Even when he did appear on the road to Emmaus, the disciples couldn’t recognize him: he was there in the flesh and they could not discern his presence until they had received Supper with the Lord. And while he allowed Thomas to feel his human flesh, he told the women at the tomb, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the father.”
Wrong again, for the context is that of the incarnated Christ in His encounters on earth, not some sort of vision which somehow (or someplace if not in Acts 9) Saul had, and even then it was not with an inanimate object as your bread is. And as re. the disciples on the Emmaus road, "their eyes were holden that they should not know him," (Luke 24:16) yet even if due to disguise (cf. Mark 16:12), yet as said, the Lord did not have an appearance that did not conform to what He materially was, like a piece of bread, or that He suddenly became physical when He said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39) Nor is there anything said that this non-physicality was the case with Jesus and the women at the tomb who were not told to not touch Him. Which could mean "cling" as perhaps 1 Co. 7:1 (it is good not to touch a women) does. For your wafer-Jesus to work you must have a much different manifest Jesus than the one who told disciples to handle Him as proof that He was the Lord, and one that is akin to your inanimate object as your bread is.
“Actually “living water” was first used in Jn. 4,...”
All very true, but in no way in conflict with anything I wrote. There seems a very common thing on FR, where one person says, “A” and another says, “B” as if B is the negation of A, without demonstrating that A and B cannot be true.
“Yet we need more revelation to better understand how we receive this living water, which your text of John 7 partially provides, and more is later given, showing that the Holy Spirit is given as a result of believing the gospel. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)”
Again, you here insist without basis that because C follows A, C cannot follow B.
“For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
“In Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded.”
Was not the Temple actually destroyed? In fact, before Rome demolished the rocks that comprised it, the Temple was already functionally destroyed: “At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split”
Where you keep insisting that because something has material meaning, it cannot have a spiritual meaning and where it is spiritual meaning, and where it has a spiritual meaning, it cannot have a material meaning. But you keep citing examples where it is very plain that it has both meanings.
The Nicodemus example is great! Nicodemus doesn’t mistake the physical for the spiritual; he mistakes the very meanings of words! Jesus uses here an idiom that exists in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic... The idiom is sort of preserved in English, but English grammar forces one to choose one of two meanings, and Protestants have chosen to translate it according to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding. Jesus says a man must be “born over.” He means “born from above,” not “born a second time” as he makes very clear in John 3:5-7, where he speaks of being born from Heaven.
And yet still, once introduced, Catholic bibles didn’t purge this Protestant translation because it’s NOT heresy, it only leads to heresy from out-of-context proof-texting. Indeed, the act of baptism/chrismation is indeed being born “anew.”
Your use of “my meat is to do the will of He who sent me” simply cannot be associated with consuming the eucharist/lord’s supper/communion, even though that lousy translation makes a modern English ear want to associate it with “my flesh.” Meat, here, means sustenance, or even more closely, what someone craves. In modern Greek, the word now even means “stink,” “rot,” or even “fetish.”