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

[10gr8kids]

Several things,

first, I never agreed with you that Jesus was talking about His literal body in Luke 22, not once. We did agree Jesus was talking about His literal flesh in John 6.
Now you keep saying the word IDENTICAL. Do you know what identical mean?
In John 6 Jesus used the word sarx( flesh) and in Luke 22 he uses the word body (soma).That is not identical. Three writers recorded the last supper not one of them used the word sarx. Not one? That is not identical. If they had in mind the same even why not at least one used the identical word? Jesus never refers his blood as wine in John 6. It was a pretty long sermons but he didnt.
You catholics keep confusing the issue, please, again: The sacrifice of the cross is for everybody, the partaking of the bread is exclusively of believers, the passover was exclusively for the people of Israel or circuncided people.

the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you:

So, are you saying in John 6 the flesh Jesus was talking about was not His body broken on the cross, or that at the Last Supper the body Jesus referred to was not His body broken on the cross? I honestly don’t see how they aren’t both referring to Jesus’ body broken on the cross for us.

 

[YADA]

It is not “my interpetation” it is a fact in the Word of God.

You need to read the book of John through, read it in context form bengining to end. There are things in the book of John that are not in other gospels that will help you understand corretlyJohn 6, thnigs that dont apear in other gospels, nor they are there by chance.
The purpose of the book of JOHN was to make people beleive that Jesus was the Messiah , the sof God. Bevleive what? you have to read JOHN six in the whole context of the book, you have to keep that in mind while interpreting this book.

We disagree with you on John Chapter 6 …

Marcos - you have never adequately addressed how one partakes of a merely symbolic bread and wine [Not the Eucharist - Jesus’ Body and Blood] and eats and drinks to their potential death … nor how one discerns the Body and Blood of Christ by eating and drinking bread and wine that is nothing more then a quaint a merely symbolic presentation memorial of some metaphorical expression spoken by Jesus …

If the Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of Jesus How does one discern that reality?

If the Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of Jesus how can eating and drinking them unworthily cause illness or death?

Jesus specifically stated that His Flesh [Body] and His Blood were “TRUE FOOD and TRUE DRINK INDEED!” … not metaphorically, not symbolically … but truly food and drink … Your problem with understanding John 6 as merely being our belief in Jesus, or that it was a parable or a metaphor or symbolic or anything other then reality is in direct opposition to what Jesus said and the Disciples understood … and St Paul taught … IF Jesus had said that only once … maybe even twice … but no … that is not the case … Jesus ever more emphatically make the declaration and then tells the people out right that he means that His Flesh and Hos Blood are in fact True Food and True Drink …

Coupled with The Last Supper where He Body and Blood are in fact given to the Disciples in the context of the Passover Meal and then what St Paul tells us about the how the first Christians understood and partook of the Eucharistic Meal is 100% in opposition to your unique and late interpretation of the Scriptures …

Argue until the cows come home, tell us we are wrong and you are right all you want … We have experienced the Eucharist …We have studied the scriptures, we have used Biblical scholarship to do so … We can read and are just as cognizant of the context the history, the linguistics, the various opinions as you are … Nothing makes you [or those who share your view] more correct then I am - or the many other scholars and the Church …in fact - your understanding - your church and those who share your view are late comers - you have no appeal to the early Christians for your point of view

 

[Robyn_p]

Several things,

first, I never agreed with you that Jesus was talking about His literal body in Luke 22, not once. We did agree Jesus was talking about His literal flesh in John 6.

Sorry, I misunderstood. You said in the post I was replying to that both Luke 22 and John 6 were pointing to the cross. Which has been my point all along. They are connected and talking about the same thing.

Now you keep saying the word IDENTICAL. Do you know what identical mean?

Yes, of course I do. This is a little condescending Marcos. If you think I am wrong you can show me how I am but there’s really no need to imply I am stupid. I’ve never done that to you. I’ve always tried to address your argument.

In John 6 Jesus used the word sarx( flesh) and in Luke 22 he uses the word body (soma).That is not identical. Three writers recorded the last supper not one of them used the word sarx. Not one? That is not identical. If they had in mind the same even why not at least one used the identical word?

I guess I was just assuming that if you have a body that includes the flesh, so Jesus was still telling his disciples to eat his flesh like he did in John 6. Which is why I said he used identical language. He was telling them to do the same action in both. And he still tells them to drink his blood, which is the same word in both.

But you are right, it’s not technically identical language, since one word is different. Still doesn’t affect my argument though. How about instead of ‘‘identical’’ I say ‘‘very closely related and connected to each other.’’ Do you disagree?

Jesus never refers his blood as wine in John 6. It was a pretty long sermons but he didnt.

Why should he? He tells them they need to drink it, but he doesn’t tell them how yet. That’s what he does at the Last Supper.

You catholics keep confusing the issue, please, again: The sacrifice of the cross is for everybody, the partaking of the bread is exclusively of believers, the passover was exclusively for the people of Israel or circuncided people.

That’s the thing though Marcos, you believe the two are completely separate, but that’s not the case when we look at Scripture. Jesus explicitly identifies the Eucharist at the Last Supper with his body that he is going to offer on the cross. Just like he does in John 6. He calls it a remembrance, anamnesis, which as I have already pointed out, is a technical word which means ‘‘make present by participating in a sacrifice’’. The Eucharist IS the making present of the one sacrifice of Christ.

And yes, Christ’s sacrifice is for everyone, but not everybody gets to share in the fruit of his sacrifice right? Only those who believe are actually saved by it. It’s the same thing with the Eucharist. The Eucharist IS meant for everyone. But only those who believe are able to share in it.

 

[zz912]

It is not “my interpetation” it is a fact in the Word of God.

You need to read the book of John through, read it in context form bengining to end. There are things in the book of John that are not in other gospels that will help you understand corretlyJohn 6, thnigs that dont apear in other gospels, nor they are there by chance.
The purpose of the book of JOHN was to make people beleive that Jesus was the Messiah , the sof God. Bevleive what? you have to read JOHN six in the whole context of the book, you have to keep that in mind while interpreting this book.

I’ve read, and re-read the Gospel of John many times. I have studied and prayed over it. I have ready many commentaries on it. I have read many early Christian writings about it. I come to a very different conclusion that you do.

So since we are at a standstill, and we need to determine who’s view is correct, let’s look to the Bible. The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that Christians shall know how to behave by remaining in the Church. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and that if we had a problem that needed to be resolved, we were to go the Church to decide the matter.

So are you willing at this point to join with me, and we take our disagreement over our opinions on the meaning of John 6, and go to the Church for final resolution of this matter? If you are unwilling to do so, could you explain why you would not follow explicit instructions laid out in the Bible?

 

[Marcos100]

The Eucharist IS meant for everyone. But only those who believe are able to share in it.

hi.
Believe what?
that it is not natural-physical, but spiritual-physical?

 

[Robyn_p]

hi.
Believe what?
that it is not natural-physical, but spiritual-physical?

Believe that the Eucharist truly is his body and blood.

 

[Marcos100]

Believe that the Eucharist truly is his body and blood.

Wait a minute, something is dawning in me… you mean that Jesus body in John 6 was already spiritual- physical but a change was needed so the beleivers could not break Gods law?

Hey, I think I finally using correctly these terms.

 

[Marcos100]

Believe that the Eucharist truly is his body and blood.

oh I think that I am getting what you were say , when you say , the Jews thought eat “naturally” , you mean , physical eating of physical stuff , but this stuff was void of all spiritual essence. right?

 

[Marcos100]

Believe that the Eucharist truly is his body and blood.

So you are telling me that there are two 1) spiritual-physical and 2) spiritual non-physical and that protestant are saying, quote: "God uses many strong figures of speech to describe what the Holy Spirit does for us throughout the Bible. And these are clear illustrations to describe, in physical terms, great spiritual truths" And they are repeating that as parrots?

 

[Robyn_p]

oh I think that I am getting what you were say , when you say , the Jews thought eat “naturally” , you mean , physical eating of physical stuff , but this stuff was void of all spiritual essence. right?

Yes, correct. They were thinking of food that could only feed their bodies and had no spiritual value or power. In other words, natural, earthly food. Food for this life only. But that’s not what the Eucharist is.

So you are telling me that there are two 1) spiritual-physical and 2) spiritual non-physical and that protestant are saying “God uses many strong figures of speech to describe what the Holy Spirit does for us throughout the Bible. And these are clear illustrations to describe,in physical terms, great spiritual truths” And they are repeating that as parrots?

Sort of. I am saying that protestants assume that the spiritual and the physical are mutually exclusive, so that if something has spiritual value, that must mean it is non-physical. But that is not the case. God uses matter to communicate spiritual life to us all the time.

 

[Marcos100]

Sort of. I am saying that protestants assume that the spiritual and the physical are mutually exclusive, so that if something has spiritual value, that must mean it is non-physical. But that is not the case. God uses matter to communicate spiritual life to us all the time.

Ok, but you dont deny the existance of spiritual non-physical that does have spiritual value?

 

[Robyn_p]

Ok, but you dont deny the existance of spiritual non-physical that does have spiritual value?

Definitely not! God’s grace is not limited to work through physical means. But He’s not limited to non-physical means either. It’s the old both/and principle again.

 

[dronald]

I still need something cleared up that I don’t quite understand.

Catholics don’t “re-sacrifice” Jesus, rather they take part in the same sacrifice each time they take the Eucharist. Now, does this sacrifice have to do with the death of our Lord? Or was the Sacrifice before that, ie: the last supper; because the Disciples ate His body prior to His death?

 

[zz912]

I still need something cleared up that I don’t quite understand.

Catholics don’t “re-sacrifice” Jesus, rather they take part in the same sacrifice each time they take the Eucharist. ?

Correct.

Now, does this sacrifice have to do with the death of our Lord? Or was the Sacrifice before that, ie: the last supper; because the Disciples ate His body prior to His death

Both. The fullness of the Christian faith has understood that the Last Supper and the Cross are the same sacrifice. That is why Jesus says that He won’t drink wine until He is in His Kingdom again at the Last Supper, and why He stops the Passover meal before the last cup of wine is drunk (the 4th cup). That is why He drinks the wine on the Cross at the end, and then declares that “it is finished”. The “it” is the Last Supper, the new Passover, His Paschal sacrifice.

And God is outside of and the Creator of time. He can transcend time and change the bread and wine at the Last Supper into His glorified Body and Blood even before the Cross because He applies His salvation in all time. The sacrifice of the Cross is universal, and outside of time.

 

[zz912]

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcos100 View Post
It is not “my interpetation” it is a fact in the Word of God.

You need to read the book of John through, read it in context form bengining to end. There are things in the book of John that are not in other gospels that will help you understand corretlyJohn 6, thnigs that dont apear in other gospels, nor they are there by chance.
The purpose of the book of JOHN was to make people beleive that Jesus was the Messiah , the sof God. Bevleive what? you have to read JOHN six in the whole context of the book, you have to keep that in mind while interpreting this book. *

I’ve read, and re-read the Gospel of John many times. I have studied and prayed over it. I have ready many commentaries on it. I have read many early Christian writings about it. I come to a very different conclusion that you do.

So since we are at a standstill, and we need to determine who’s view is correct, let’s look to the Bible. The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that Christians shall know how to behave by remaining in the Church. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and that if we had a problem that needed to be resolved, we were to go the Church to decide the matter.

So are you willing at this point to join with me, and we take our disagreement over our opinions on the meaning of John 6, and go to the Church for final resolution of this matter? If you are unwilling to do so, could you explain why you would not follow explicit instructions laid out in the Bible?

Any response to this Marcos? Are you willing to do as the Bible and Jesus command, and both of us go to the Church for a decision on this matter?

 

[Marcos100]

We disagree with you on John Chapter 6 …

Marcos - you have never adequately addressed how one partakes of a merely symbolic bread and wine [Not the Eucharist - Jesus’ Body and Blood] and eats and drinks to their potential death … nor how one discerns the Body and Blood of Christ by eating and drinking bread and wine that is nothing more then a quaint a merely symbolic presentation memorial of some metaphorical expression spoken by Jesus …

If the Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of Jesus How does one discern that reality?

If the Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood of Jesus how can eating and drinking them unworthily cause illness or death?

Jesus specifically stated that His Flesh [Body] and His Blood were “TRUE FOOD and TRUE DRINK INDEED!” … not metaphorically, not symbolically … but truly food and drink … Your problem with understanding John 6 as merely being our belief in Jesus, or that it was a parable or a metaphor or symbolic or anything other then reality is in direct opposition to what Jesus said and the Disciples understood … and St Paul taught … IF Jesus had said that only once … maybe even twice … but no … that is not the case … Jesus ever more emphatically make the declaration and then tells the people out right that he means that His Flesh and Hos Blood are in fact True Food and True Drink …

Coupled with The Last Supper where He Body and Blood are in fact given to the Disciples in the context of the Passover Meal and then what St Paul tells us about the how the first Christians understood and partook of the Eucharistic Meal is 100% in opposition to your unique and late interpretation of the Scriptures …

Argue until the cows come home, tell us we are wrong and you are right all you want … We have experienced the Eucharist …We have studied the scriptures, we have used Biblical scholarship to do so … We can read and are just as cognizant of the context the history, the linguistics, the various opinions as you are … Nothing makes you [or those who share your view] more correct then I am - or the many other scholars and the Church …in fact - your understanding - your church and those who share your view are late comers - you have no appeal to the early Christians for your point of view

Your argument has been refuted a long time ago. Here

The word describing Jesus as “true food” in John 6:55) does not mean it must be physical. Rather, it points to the fact that it was “real” (Gk: alathas), that is, a spiritual reality, not normal physical flesh. Your argument has been refuted a long time ago. Here

.I
.In the same book of John is called “true Light” John 6:9 using the same Greek word, and it doesnt mean He is an incandecent light bulb. Just like Jesus calls himself “bread” and he is not made of flour

But Marcos, why then does he take physical bread and call it his physical body and tell us to physically eat it, if he’s not talking about a physical reality? Again, you are confusing the NATURAL with the PHYSICAL, but the two are not synonymous.

See, you are absolutely correct that Jesus here is not talking about natural bread and natural hunger. But because you see the physical and spiritual as opposed to each other, you reason incorrectly that Jesus could not possibly have been talking about anything physical. But the physical is no longer purely natural, it has been transformed. God doesn’t want to just redeem our souls, he wants to redeem our bodies as well. As St. Paul himself said:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
(Romans 8:22-23)

The idea that the physical and spiritual are utterly exclusive of each other is an unbiblical idea Marcos. Jesus can and does come to us physically. Just because something is not natural doesn’t mean it’s not physical. Catholics don’t try and separate the spiritual from the physical.

What’s awesome about the Eucharist is that it perfectly unites the spiritual with the physical. There’s no divide. It’s literally our participation in the Mystery of the Incarnation. Our bodies and souls are completely united to God.

Don’t limit God to just a mental concept. Let him come completely into you. That’s what Jesus is telling his listeners in John 6 and that’s exactly what he does in the Eucharist.

I think there has been a confusion in the use of the terms, you are using these words , real, literal, natural, physical , You dont use them in their comoon ordinary use. It would have been good, you gives us your definitions right form the start, because i dont win and you dont win becvause I simply dont understand what you are saying, now I am getting it recently, you shouldnt just say “physical” you should say “physical-spiritual” other wise it may confuse other people, I am sure.

Now it is not that I say “natural and physical are exclusive”,that does exist. It is just that i have read the book of John too much, where Jesus uses many strong figures of speech to describe in physical terms, great spiritual truths. (How do you call that?) And you know that abounds in the book of John, and Jesus doesnt talk much about “physical spiritual” in that book I mean the great mayority of refenrece are on the other side.

Yes, correct. They were thinking of food that could only feed their bodies and had no spiritual value or power. In other words, natural, earthly food. Food for this life only. But that’s not what the Eucharist is.

OK and what part of the verse he is saying he is speaking physically-naturally?

 

[Marcos100]

Marcos100:

OK and what part of the verse he is saying he is speaking physically-naturally?

rather, spiritually physically

 

[YADA]

Mi

Your argument has been refuted a long time ago. Here

The word describing Jesus as “true food” in John 6:55) does not mean it must be physical. Rather, it points to the fact that it was “real” (Gk: alathas), that is, a spiritual reality, not normal physical flesh. Your argument has been refuted a long time

Sorry… wrong answer…your opinion does not equate to “refuted” … It does not mean that it cannot be real food either…

I say this without reservation …It is in fact real food. Does it have a spiritual component? Yes …but it has a physical component too …we must eat it to partake…and since we must discern the Body of Christ - there has to be the Body & Blood discern…

You have never answered the question …how does one eat something “fake” and discern the Body & Bolld of Christ?

How could eating and drinking Bread & Wine -that is not Jesus’ real Body and real Blood make you sick or kill you?

What did the Disciples eat (physically partake) at the Last Supper? What? The Body and Blood of Christ in the appearance of Bread & Wine… if that is not true …then the Scriptures lie and so did Christ

By the way - Discern means 1. To perceive with the eyes and or other senses; detect or distinguish:;
2. To recognize or understand as being distinct or different.

 

[Marcos100]

Mi

Sorry… wrong answer…your opinion does not equate to “refuted” … It does not mean that it cannot be real food either…

I say this without reservation …It is in fact real food. Does it have a spiritual component? Yes …but it has a physical component too …we must eat it to partake…and since we must discern the Body of Christ - there has to be the Body & Blood discern…

You have never answered the question …how does one eat something “fake” and discern the Body & Bolld of Christ?

How could eating and drinking Bread & Wine -that is not Jesus’ real Body and real Blood make you sick or kill you?

What did the Disciples eat (physically partake) at the Last Supper? What? The Body and Blood of Christ in the appearance of Bread & Wine… if that is not true …then the Scriptures lie and so did Christ

By the way - Discern means 1. To perceive with the eyes and or other senses; detect or distinguish:;
2. To recognize or understand as being distinct or different.

you remain in err…

First Corinthians 11
Some proponents of the Eucharist argue that First Corinthians 11 supports
transubstantiation. They refer to verse 29 that states: “For he who eats and drinks in
an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s
body.” A thorough read of First Corinthians 11, reveals that the Corinthians were
not making the proper distinction between Communion and common meals. Not
discerning the Lord’s body meant not discerning in the bread and wine the symbols
of Christ’s body and blood, but partaking of them irreverently, as if it were a
common feast.
It is evident that this was the leading offense of the Corinthians. Those who were
eating and drinking in an unworthy manner were getting drunk and selfishly eating
before others in the body of Christ. Paul states this as the problem in verses 20 and
21. There is no indication that the apostle Paul believed in or taught
transubstantiation.
In fact, Paul repeatedly refers to the blessed bread as normal bread after it had
been blessed. 19 Paul states in verse 26—“For as often as you eat this bread and drink
this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”
Notice also that Paul explains that we are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper “till He
comes”. The words “till He comes” pre-supposes that the Lord has ascended on
high. 20 Therefore the Lord’s Supper is in remembrance of His death and resurrection
until He returns. This agrees with what Jesus ordained when He said, “Do this in
remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19).
Finally, it is apparent that First Corinthians 11 uses figurative language to
describe Communion. The cup is referred to figuratively: “This cup is the new
covenant in My blood…” (1 Corinthians 11:25). Of course the cup was not the actual
covenant but symbolic of it. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup,
you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Surely we are
not to drink the cup. This is a figurative reference to the wine inside the cup

 

[Marcos100]

Mi

Sorry… wrong answer…your opinion does not equate to “refuted” … It does not mean that it cannot be real food either…

I say this without reservation …It is in fact real food. Does it have a spiritual component? Yes …but it has a physical component too …we must eat it to partake…and since we must discern the Body of Christ - there has to be the Body & Blood discern…

You have never answered the question …how does one eat something “fake” and discern the Body & Bolld of Christ?

How could eating and drinking Bread & Wine -that is not Jesus’ real Body and real Blood make you sick or kill you?

What did the Disciples eat (physically partake) at the Last Supper? What? The Body and Blood of Christ in the appearance of Bread & Wine… if that is not true …then the Scriptures lie and so did Christ

By the way - Discern means 1. To perceive with the eyes and or other senses; detect or distinguish:;
2. To recognize or understand as being distinct or different.

Paul’s reference to “sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 11:17 does not require the Real Presence(a literal interpretation) to explain it.