Catholic Apologists and the Greek Word Trogo (“Eat my flesh” John 6)

[zz912]

Because you are comitting GROSS interpretational errors.

That is nothing but your opinion. And my opinion is that you are committing gross interpretational errors. So who does the Bible say we should turn to for resolution of our disagreement and who can determine which view is correct?

You keep avoiding answering this question. There must be a reason why you are avoiding answering the question…

 

[YADA]

Because you are comitting GROSS interpretational errors.

And what makes you the final expert and judge of Biblical interpretation ?..

There are many biblical scholars that do not follow you interpretational rules / laws / edicts … People who have made biblical scholarship their life’s sole work … and they do not read and interpret the scriptures as you do …

What makes you [and those whose opinion you subscribe to] the bearer of this “Truth” that was not found in the early Church?

Where do you get your infallibility from?

In my opinion - it is you - Marcos - who is committing GROSS interpretational errors …

 

[Marcos100]

That is nothing but your opinion. And my opinion is that you are committing gross interpretational errors. So who does the Bible say we should turn to for resolution of our disagreement and who can determine which view is correct?

You keep avoiding answering this question. There must be a reason why you are avoiding answering the question…

Oh really, where does it say we have to go to… in case of different interpetation???
c"mon show me

 

[CCC_107]

Catholic Apologists and the Greek Word Trogo (“Eat my flesh” John 6)“Catholic Answers” says the following about the Greek word trogo :”The Greek word used for “eats” trogon is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing. This is not language of metaphor. Bob Sungenis says “There is simply no logical reason to switch form the more generic phago (eat) to the more praphic trogo (chew). Apparently, Rome’s apologists believe the word “chew” cannot be the language of metaphor because it is simply too graphic or vivid to be anything other than the literal truth. Not so the more mundane “eat,” which as Sugnenis points out, can be used metaphorically. Keating himself simply asserts—without proof—that such is “not the language of metaphor.” But why not? Is there something intrinsically literal about the word “chew” in English or in Greek? If you think it through, virtually any word in any language can be used metaphorically no matter how graphic or vivid it may be. In fact, the more vivid and evocative the word, the more it lends itself to being used as a metaphor. Apparently they don’t know well what a metaphor is. Metaphor: “A picture is a thousand words”. In a metaphor real objects or physical events represent something else. A metaphor is a colorful expression used for literary effect which may be a word or phrase that departs from literal language. The purpose of metaphors is: add color and vividness, attract attention and make abstract or intellectual ideas more concrete. All things being equal, one could just as easily make the case that Jesus chose the more vivid “chew” precisely because it was more conducive to metaphor. “Chew” may simply be a more graphic metaphor than “eat.” Some say contextual rather than non-contextual usage is the primary criterion for determining whether or not trogo is metaphorical in John 6.

In Jer 15:16; Ezek 3:1; Rev 10:9 “eating” is also used as a figure of speech for gaining knowledge about the word of God.

 

[10gr8kids]

Because you are comitting GROSS interpretational errors.

Wait a minute, Marcos. If you’re so great at interpreting, why don’t you explain how you come to the conclusion that the verb ‘will give’ is present tense in John 6. Or, maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are at interpreting the Bible.

 

[zz912]

Oh really, where does it say we have to go to… in case of different interpetation???
c"mon show me

You hold yourself out as someone who knows with absolute assurance that his interpretation of the Bible is correct, and you don’t know the answer to my question about who we should turn to???

Matthew 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them:** tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican**.

Eph 3:21 To him be glory in the church, and in Christ Jesus unto all generations, world without end. Amen.

1 Tim 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

There are more as well. These are direct commands to listen to the Church. The Church is given authority to decide matters, and to declare truth. So are you ready for you and I to go to the Church to resolve our disagreement of the understanding of John 6?

 

[dronald]

Maybe this is a stupid question; but considering the Disciples did not at any point in Jesus’s ministry try to eat Him; can we say that either the Disciples disobeyed Him or didn’t take Him literally during that time?

 

[dronald]

Second question:

When Jesus speaks of hunger and thirst, was He speaking of literal hunger and thirst? If not, in what part of John 6 does He clear this up?

6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

 

[10gr8kids]

Maybe this is a stupid question; but considering the Disciples did not at any point in Jesus’s ministry try to eat Him; can we say that either the Disciples disobeyed Him or didn’t take Him literally during that time?

As we’ve been trying to explain to Marcos, Jesus was not speaking in the present tense, but the future tense. He did not say the bread I am giving you is my flesh, but the bread I will give you is my flesh. So, no, they wouldn’t have tried to eat Him right then, but wait for the time when Jesus would give this bread; which is what He did at the last supper.

 

[dronald]

As we’ve been trying to explain to Marcos, Jesus was not speaking in the present tense, but the future tense. He did not say the bread I am giving you is my flesh, but the bread I will give you is my flesh. So, no, they wouldn’t have tried to eat Him right then, but wait for the time when Jesus would give this bread; which is what He did at the last supper.

Here’s how my ESV reads: 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Should it better read, “For my flesh will be true food and my blood will be true drink.”?

 

[10gr8kids]

Here’s how my ESV reads: 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Should it better read, “For my flesh will be true food and my blood will be true drink.”?

No, it would not be. His flesh is true food and His blood true drink. He just hadn’t given it to them for bread yet.

I have a present for my child, it is big and fluffy. Just because I haven’t given it to her yet doesn’t make it any less big and fluffy, does it?

 

[dronald]

As we’ve been trying to explain to Marcos, Jesus was not speaking in the present tense, but the future tense. He did not say the bread I am giving you is my flesh, but the bread I will give you is my flesh. So, no, they wouldn’t have tried to eat Him right then, but wait for the time when Jesus would give this bread; which is what He did at the last supper.

No, it would not be. His flesh is true food and His blood true drink. He just hadn’t given it to them for bread yet.

I have a present for my child, it is big and fluffy. Just because I haven’t given it to her yet doesn’t make it any less big and fluffy, does it?

But right before that it says,

54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Should it read, “Will have eternal life”?

It sounds like Jesus is teaching something that can be done right that moment. Like one can feed on His flesh and thereby receive eternal life.

What does “has” mean? Should it be future tense? I know Greek can be tricky.

 

[10gr8kids]

But right before that it says,

54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Should it read, “Will have eternal life”?

It sounds like Jesus is teaching something that can be done right that moment. Like one can feed on His flesh and thereby receive eternal life.

What does “has” mean? Should it be future tense? I know Greek can be tricky.

This is a good point, and I know nothing about Greek. All I can do is think if someone could use the same verb in the same way and still be speaking about the future. So what if a coach is talking to a group of kids getting ready to try out for the team. He says…

Whoever works hard has a spot on the team.

This is still something they have to do in the future, but the coach knows that he will let any kid join the team who works hard.

Maybe that could be how it is meant.

Hopefully someone will come up with a better explanation.

 

[dronald]

This is a good point, and I know nothing about Greek. All I can do is think if someone could use the same verb in the same way and still be speaking about the future. So what if a coach is talking to a group of kids getting ready to try out for the team. He says…

Whoever works hard has a spot on the team.

This is still something they have to do in the future, but the coach knows that he will let any kid join the team who works hard.

Maybe that could be how it is meant.

Hopefully someone will come up with a better explanation.

Well the word “Has” that is used is ἔχε. And all of the parallels I can find show a present tense:

Mat 5:23that your brother has something

8:20but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay

The KJV renders it “hath” most of the time. It seems really clear that Jesus wasn’t speaking of the future, but rather the present.

 

[10gr8kids]

Well the word “Has” that is used is ἔχε. And all of the parallels I can find show a present tense:

Mat 5:23that your brother has something

8:20but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay

The KJV renders it “hath” most of the time. It seems really clear that Jesus wasn’t speaking of the future, but rather the present.

So what is the explanation for will give instead of am giving? If the flesh is figurative for Jesus’ teachings, shouldn’t He have said the bread I am giving you?

 

[dronald]

So what is the explanation for will give instead of am giving? If the flesh is figurative for Jesus’ teachings, shouldn’t He have said the bread I am giving you?

His crucifixion. He gave His flesh for us, did He not?

 

[10gr8kids]

Well the word “Has” that is used is ἔχε. And all of the parallels I can find show a present tense:

Mat 5:23that your brother has something

8:20but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay

The KJV renders it “hath” most of the time. It seems really clear that Jesus wasn’t speaking of the future, but rather the present.

I found this…

Mark 3:29 V-PIA-3S
GRK: ἅγιον οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς
NAS: never has forgiveness,
KJV: the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,
INT: Holy never has forgiveness to

at this link…biblehub.com/greek/echei_2192.htm

Here’s the verse
29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

 

[10gr8kids]

His crucifixion. He gave His flesh for us, did He not?

But the KJV reads

51*I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

It is clear here that Jesus is saying the bread He will give. Yes, it is His flesh that is crucified, but He wasn’t giving it to His disciples until a later time.

 

[dronald]

29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin

Again, it seems like a current state in the present. Not, pointing to a future event, but “now currently does not.”

“Is guilty”

 

[dronald]

But the KJV reads

51*I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

It is clear here that Jesus is saying the bread He will give. Yes, it is His flesh that is crucified, but He wasn’t giving it to His disciples until a later time.

Again this goes back to my first question then:

34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always. "

35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

So coming to Jesus is eating, and believing is drinking; we learn that by this statement.

How can we be certain? Well, if the Eucharist is meant to be entirely literal then it should cure hunger and thirst for everyone who takes it, should it not?