1
10gr8kids
Guest
That is not where the word is used, at least I don’t think. It is replacing the word has, not is. To me it is being used in the future perfect tense here.
Catholic Apologists and the Greek Word Trogo (“Eat my flesh” John 6)
- Status
D
dronald
Guest
I know, but I highlighted it to show the context. If Jesus is saying “Is guilty” then He’s speaking presently.
1
10gr8kids
Guest
Yes, it will, literally, cure all physical needs. Jesus doesn’t tell us it will immediately. Just like if we believe in Him we will never die. Just because we die the first death, doesn’t mean we don’t have to literally believe in Jesus.
1
10gr8kids
Guest
But my point is that this word ‘ἔχει’ can possibly be used in the future tense. Because it is translated to ‘will be’.
But anyhow, I’m over my head here, because I don’t have any knowledge of Greek.
O
oldburkes
Guest
Here it is, MarcosOh really, where does it say we have to go to… in case of different interpetation???
c"mon show me
100 ) The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
113 ) 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church.
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
M
Marcos100
Guest
We eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood (Jn. 6:53) when we come to him and
believe on him.
==> Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will
never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. (John
6:35)
M
Marcos100
Guest
Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood refer to believing in Him and appropriating personally His death ON THE CROSS as your hope for eternal life.
When Jesus said, that he will give his flesh he is predicting his death on the cross.
1
10gr8kids
Guest
Yes, and that is when He gives us the bread that is His flesh.
John
and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Matthew
“Take this and eat it, for this is my body.”
1 Corinthians
"This is my body, which is given for you
M
Marcos100
Guest
That phrase, “Which is given for you,” is the most important concept in the entire Bible, the most important concept in the entire Bible, it is the concept of substitutionary death…You escape judgment only by death, the death can be the death of an innocent substitute. Here is the one who ends all sacrifices, for He offers the sacrifice which satisfies God. Passover lambs that week were chosen on Monday the tenth of Nissan, everybody had to pick their lamb on Monday to be sacrificed on the fourteenth. It was Monday that Jesus entered Jerusalem and God picked His lamb and His lamb was slain on Friday for us. The lambs that were slain in the millions throughout the centuries in the sacrificial system of Israel were all innocent, they didn’t sin, they didn’t commit sin. Animals can’t sin, they have no self-consciousness, they have no relationship with God, they have no personhood. They are a good illustration of the sacrifice of an innocent. But here comes one who is innocent and who is a person, who is God Himself.
Jesus inaugurates a New Passover by confirming that his body, symbolized by the bread, is the fulfillment and replacement for the Passover lamb (John 6:35; 1 Cor 5:7). His death will provide deliverance for God’s people. This is the time of eating the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs of sin.
1
10gr8kids
Guest
Yes, I agree with all of this, you just leave out one important part.
8*They shall eat the lamb that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
1
10gr8kids
Guest
I wonder why Jesus didn’t take the lamb at the last supper and say ‘This is my flesh’. If it was all symbolic, it seems like it would make more sense to me. Maybe it is because a year earlier He had told them He would give them bread to eat that was His flesh.
1
10gr8kids
Guest
Just wanted to note, I agree with all except this part
Originally by Marcos
He actually confirmed that the bread was His body
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Hey dronald. Glad you are joining us now. Marcos was a little outnumbered.
As to this question, why the apostles didn’t at any point try to eat him, the simple answer is that would have been sinful of them. It would have involved killing him and then eating his dead flesh. Obviously they weren’t about to do that. As I’ve already pointed out here, in John 6:62-63, Jesus was correcting against a purely natural understanding of his words. The apostles might not have completely understood what he meant, but they could tell he was talking about something more than cannibalism.
It’s quite possible that they took his words metaphorically initially. In fact, I’m almost certain they did. Until the Last Supper, they had no way of knowing HOW they were to eat his flesh and drink his blood. So how else could they have taken it? This doesn’t prove much though for the Protestant position. The fact that the apostles might not have grasped the full meaning of Jesus’ words initially doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t speaking literally. It just means he wasn’t done teaching them because they weren’t yet ready. (Jn 16:12)
That’s actually why I’ve argued here that John 6 by itself is not enough to prove the Eucharist true or false. It needs to be read in light of what Jesus does at the Last Supper. In isolation from the Last Supper accounts, a literal reading of John 6 doesn’t make much sense. A symbolic reading doesn’t really either, given Jesus’ extreme emphasis on actually eating his flesh, but unless Jesus left us a way to physically eat his body and drink his blood, a symbolic reading really is the only option.
But since he DID leave us a way to do that, at the Last Supper, this changes things considerably.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Yes. He was speaking literally. It’s a real hunger that he will satisfy. But it’s not a natural hunger. This is a distinction I’ve been trying to make throughout this thread, that I think is important to make in order to avoid confusion. The natural and literal are not identical, and that the spiritual and the physical are not mutually exclusive.
It’s true, Jesus wasn’t talking about natural hunger and natural food like the Jews thought, but it doesn’t follow that he’s therefore speaking symbolically and all we really have to do is believe in Him. He can still be talking about literally eating his real flesh, not in a naturalistic way, but in a spirit-filled, miraculous way. Because the spiritual and the physical aren’t at odds anymore.
Again, the fact is, he later physically takes a physical piece of bread and a physical cup of wine and calls it his real body and blood. Whatever else you think about his words there, to me that signals there is a physical component to what he was talking about in John 6. When he said we had to eat and drink his body and blood, he actually meant we are to physically eat and drink. I just can’t see any other explanation for why he would use such identical language at the Last Supper as he did in John 6 if he wasn’t trying to hearken back to that sermon and show the apostles exactly what he meant. I’m sure the significance of him commanding them to eat his flesh and drink his blood wasn’t lost on the apostles, since he used that same language exactly a year earlier.
IOW, at the Last Supper, he showed them that THIS was how they were to eat his body and drink his blood. Not in a cannibalistic form, but under the form of bread and wine.
S
slh3016
Guest
Hey Marcos, I think it’s been mentioned to you before but Scott Hahn has a wonderful lecture called, “The Fourth Cup”, and another called, “The Lamb’s Supper.” Both of those are on youtube, and both dive deeply into the Scriptures (both OT and NT) in bringing together the OT Passover and Jesus’s sacrifice in a way I’d never even heard of in all my years in Protestantism. It truly was the :newidea: moment for me and for my husband and is what has been most influential in drawing us toward Catholicism. It just make so much sense and I’ve been awestruck by how intricate God has been in His story throughout history and how what He instituted in the OT culminated and was fulfilled in Christ. It truly makes me say, “My God, how great Thou are!”
The OT/NT typology is utterly breathtaking! Consequently, one of those typologies is that, as 10gr8kids mentioned, the Israelites were commanded to LITERALLY eat the sacrificial victim in the first Passover. If they’d broken that one order, their firstborn son would’ve been dead because that meant they had not FULLY trusted God to deliver them. It’s makes me scratch my head about those today that don’t fully accept Jesus as the eternal Passover Lamb and literally partake.
O
oldburkes
Guest
:yup::tiphat:Hey dronald. Glad you are joining us now. Marcos was a little outnumbered.
It’s quite possible that they took his words metaphorically initially. In fact, I’m almost certain they did. Until the Last Supper, they had no way of knowing HOW they were to eat his flesh and drink his blood. So how else could they have taken it? This doesn’t prove much though for the Protestant position. The fact that the apostles might not have grasped the full meaning of Jesus’ words initially doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t speaking literally. It just means he wasn’t done teaching them because they weren’t yet ready. (Jn 16:12)
That’s actually why I’ve argued here that John 6 by itself is not enough to prove the Eucharist true or false. It needs to be read in light of what Jesus does at the Last Supper. In isolation from the Last Supper accounts, a literal reading of John 6 doesn’t make much sense. A symbolic reading doesn’t really either, given Jesus’ extreme emphasis on actually eating his flesh, but unless Jesus left us a way to physically eat his body and drink his blood, a symbolic reading really is the only option.
But since he DID leave us a way to do that, at the Last Supper, this changes things considerably.
M
Marcos100
Guest
Ok I LISTEND TO THE TWO , I WAsNT STRUCK, AT ALL ,but many things he says are true , , i was shocked though by one thing, he kept saying , "by my own personal study of the bible I found this and that " he just sounded too evangelical, I remenbered the words of my inductive bible “Discovering the truth for yourself”.You say you never heard such an in depth study , well you were reading the wrong stuff , thankas for suggesting me Scot Hann, now let me recomedn you a real in depth study , i hope you enjoy it
preceptaustin.org/ruth_24-7.htm#2:6
God bless you
S
slh3016
Guest
I guess, to each his own. I looked at the site you linked and didn’t see anything “compelling” about it’s content because, basically, I could find the credentials of the site owner. I saw a page about his life but I didn’t see any educational or biographical credentials
Can you point me to those?Thanks and God bless!
M
Marcos100
Guest
Oh yeah i dont have that information at hand , but he is a profesor , and yeah he quotes other authors . I have never seea deepr study about Ruth than that , can you show me a carholic link , please?I guess, to each his own. I looked at the site you linked and didn’t see anything “compelling” about it’s content because, basically, I could find the credentials of the site owner. I saw a page about his life but I didn’t see any educational or biographical credentials
Thanks and God bless!
M
Marcos100
Guest
I CAN SHOW YOU A DEEPER STUDY (1984) of the last supper form a evangelical scholar , long before Hann (1986) did his. I F YOU WANT TO see it just tell me. IT SEEMS to me Hann went to the wrong place.
- Status