I’m not going to argue about one word in the Bible. The word trogo isn’t the only biblical basis for Catholic belief in the Eucharist.Hi, I live outside the US, so far I havent read any refutation . If you have intersting material show it here. Thanks
Yes, you may have another evidences for the eucharist.But I when I post this I thought it was time thats RCC apologist stop using the “trogos argument”I’m not going to argue about one word in the Bible. The word trogo isn’t the only biblical basis for Catholic belief in the Eucharist.
There is much more - the bread of the presence in the temple, the fact that the Passover lamb was eaten - and I hope you have the opportunity to read the book.
-Tim-
I agree that ‘gnaw’ or ‘chew’ COULD be being used metaphorically. I also agree that to determine whether it is or not we need to look at the context. And the context just doesn’t lend itself to a metaphorical reading IMO.Rome 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.
, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor. Christ in the EucharistFundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Blood, flesh (literal) = Jesus x Resurrection and Ascension = Divine JesusBlood, flesh (literal) = Jesus
Eat, drink (figurative) = Believe
Believe in Jesus.
Ignoring the context? I don’t think so. It is a hard saying to except, and it takes faith to see it, but I’m not ignoring the context. It’s throughout the whole Bible… Jesus is the Lamb of God.You are ignoring the context, the situation in which that teachings was given, if you ignore you wont get it
I will answer you later to answer you more throughly.For the moment I want toI agree that ‘gnaw’ or ‘chew’ COULD be being used metaphorically. I also agree that to determine whether it is or not we need to look at the context. And the context just doesn’t lend itself to a metaphorical reading IMO.
The Jews are already confused about Jesus’ words in verse 53, before he even uses the word trogo, and are understanding him literally. Up until now, as you know, he’s only been using the word esthio. (another form of phago) The point is, they obviously aren’t getting the metaphor. And it’s not just the crowd who only wanted to see more miracles who are misunderstanding him, it’s his disciples too. Believers. People who had been following him for months.
So given that context, it makes no sense for Jesus to intensify his language. If his listeners were already confused with the less graphic esthio, why on earth would he go with such a visual? Chewing flesh just doesn’t exactly convey the message of ‘‘have faith in me’’ The metaphor was clearly going over their heads, why make it even more confusing?
Also, consider that pretty much every other example we have of people misunderstanding Jesus’ words as literal, either he or John in his commentary clears up the real meaning for us. But in this one place, neither Jesus nor John explained what was really meant? Even if Jesus did purposefully leave all those people misunderstanding him, why wouldn’t John put in a simple clarification like he did in John 2:20?
Personally, it makes more sense to say that the reason there is no clarification was because one wasn’t needed, and not that Jesus expected us to figure out a metaphor that has no obvious connection to what he was trying to teach. They had understood him correctly. He was speaking literally. We really do have to eat his flesh.
It is a hard saying, but where else can we go?
Catholics are Christians, in fact, the very first Christians, following after the very first Apostles of Christ.Catholics like you say, “we have to look at the reaction of the people to know what the teaching means” , while Christians say “we have to analize the teaching itself to know what the teaching means”. Well bud I dont agree with you hermenutical approach, nevetheless I will talk with you in your terms. By the way I am really glad you broguht up John 2.
Talk to you later.
I am talking abotu the reaction of the people in Jhon 6.Catholics are Christians, in fact, the very first Christians, following after the very first Apostles of Christ.
This just shows how reading the Bible, separated from the Church, leads to division and not unity.
God Bless you.
:sad_yes:Catholics are Christians, in fact, the very first Christians, following after the very first Apostles of Christ.
This just shows how reading the Bible, separated from the Church, leads to division and not unity.
God Bless you.
How many times did Jesus need to tell it to be true?I agree that ‘gnaw’ or ‘chew’ COULD be being used metaphorically. I also agree that to determine whether it is or not we need to look at the context. And the context just doesn’t lend itself to a metaphorical reading IMO.
The Jews are already confused about Jesus’ words in verse 53, before he even uses the word trogo, and are understanding him literally. Up until now, as you know, he’s only been using the word esthio. (another form of phago) The point is, they obviously aren’t getting the metaphor. And it’s not just the crowd who only wanted to see more miracles who are misunderstanding him, it’s his disciples too. Believers. People who had been following him for months.
So given that context, it makes no sense for Jesus to intensify his language. If his listeners were already confused with the less graphic esthio, why on earth would he go with such a visual? Chewing flesh just doesn’t exactly convey the message of ‘‘have faith in me’’ The metaphor was clearly going over their heads, why make it even more confusing?
Also, consider that pretty much every other example we have of people misunderstanding Jesus’ words as literal, either he or John in his commentary clears up the real meaning for us. But in this one place, neither Jesus nor John explained what was really meant? Even if Jesus did purposefully leave all those people misunderstanding him, why wouldn’t John put in a simple clarification like he did in John 2:20?
Personally, it makes more sense to say that the reason there is no clarification was because one wasn’t needed, and not that Jesus expected us to figure out a metaphor that has no obvious connection to what he was trying to teach. They had understood him correctly. He was speaking literally. We really do have to eat his flesh.
It is a hard saying, but where else can we go?
In no way do I intend for this to be a debate. What do think of Miracles of the Eucharist?I am talking abotu the reaction of the people in Jhon 6.
How many times did Jesus need to tell it to be true?
Jesus began the discourse by saying whoever comes to him and believes in Him will not hunger or thirst. Thus the eating and drinking are symbolic of coming to Him in faith.
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.v.35
Jesus uses eating in exchange to represent believing . Thus is consistnet all the way thourgh His ilustration.
V. 54 he says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “ Moments earlier he had said, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
Notice that the results are identical in both verses: eternal life and resurrection. But although in the one we must eat and drink, in the other we behold and must believe. The results are identically the same, as are the actions to obtain them are also: eating is a substitute for believing. His figurative statements are easily understood when read in the context of the other verses in this teaching.
Noice He says in the present time He is the bread. If Jesus really wanted us to eat his real, actual body, then why didn’t the disciples around Jesus just … start canibalizing him on the spot?
“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
The above verse proves that eating the Lord’s body means one already has everlasting life (present tense) and affirms that this is no mere reference to sitting down and breaking bread each week.The context has nothing to do with the last supper or physical bread. He is going to give his flesh for the life of the world. WHEN? At the cross HOW MANY TIMES? Once, not over and over on the altars
Sometime Jesus does correct his disciples, but in frustration because they cannot see the symbolism behind it. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke.
Sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not.
18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
They totaly failed to recognizse wat he was talking to them about he didnt one time correct His audience misunderstanding.Though it is true John one generation later explained it.
IF the Catholic interpretation of John 6:53 was correct, then transubstantiation (change of substance) would be needed to change the bread and wine into Jesus’ literal flesh and blood. Though the Catholic church claims this ability, they do NOT have the genuine transubstantiation. How can we be sure of this? We have an actual transubstantiation in John 2 where Jesus changed the water into wine! NOTE: When the water was transubstantiated into wine, it no longer tasted like water! It now tasted like wine. Hence, the Catholic Church does NOT have a true genuine transubstantiation because the consecrated communion elements do NOT taste like raw human flesh and human blood.In no way do I intend for this to be a debate. What do think of Miracles of the Eucharist?
You still haven’t adequately addressed the fact that there is a noticeable shift in Jesus’ language after verse 51.How many times did Jesus need to tell it to be true?
Jesus began the discourse by saying whoever comes to him and believes in Him will not hunger or thirst. Thus the eating and drinking are symbolic of coming to Him in faith.
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.v.35
Jesus uses eating in exchange to represent believing . Thus is consistnet all the way thourgh His ilustration.
V. 54 he says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “ Moments earlier he had said, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
Notice that the results are identical in both verses: eternal life and resurrection. But although in the one we must eat and drink, in the other we behold and must believe. The results are identically the same, as are the actions to obtain them are also: eating is a substitute for believing. His figurative statements are easily understood when read in the context of the other verses in this teaching.
Noice He says in the present time He is the bread. If Jesus really wanted us to eat his real, actual body, then why didn’t the disciples around Jesus just … start canibalizing him on the spot?
Sometimes Christ corrects the misunderstanding (especially with true followers) and sometimes he does not. In other words, they should know enough by now to interpret His words symbolically since this is the way He always spoke.
18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
But don’t you find it significant that John DOESN’T offer an explanation here? Why wouldn’t he? This is the biggest confusion over Jesus’ words recorded in the Gospels. Thousands of people stopped following Him. Many of his disciples lost faith. One of the TWELVE even lost faith. And John had nothing to say about it? Why not? He was there. He would have known first hand how confusing and scandalous Jesus’ words were. He had to have known his readers would have been just as easily confused. It would have been easy just to add a note ‘‘but they misunderstood him’’ or something to that effect.They totaly failed to recognizse wat he was talking to them about he didnt one time correct His audience misunderstanding.Though it is true John one generation later explained it.
You misunderstand what transubstantiation is. It’s not like the Miracle at Cana. (though it is similar.)IF the Catholic interpretation of John 6:53 was correct, then transubstantiation (change of substance) would be needed to change the bread and wine into Jesus’ literal flesh and blood. Though the Catholic church claims this ability, they do NOT have the genuine transubstantiation. How can we be sure of this? We have an actual transubstantiation in John 2 where Jesus changed the water into wine! NOTE: When the water was transubstantiated into wine, it no longer tasted like water! It now tasted like wine. Hence, the Catholic Church does NOT have a true genuine transubstantiation because the consecrated communion elements do NOT taste like raw human flesh and human blood.
In the Bible there is no such “Eucharist miracle”. The division of the Red Sea, in oder for the Israelites could pass through dry ground, was a miracle that both Jews and Egiptians watched, and both understood it happened by the power of God . Supposed this would be a “type of Catholic transubstantion miracle”: The Red sea “opened” “under the appeareance” that it remained closed and that the Israelites would have crossed it "walking " on dry ground “under the appearance” of crossing it by swiming.
What if there was a miracle where Jesus showed himself ‘‘under the appearance’’ of something he wasn’t? That would be like transubstantiation right? We believe that though it looks like bread, it really isn’t. It’s actually Jesus, just under a different form.Lets suppose that Christ healed a blind "under the apparence " that he cannot see, or raised a dead "under thet appareance " that they have not life. Such suppositions are absurd but that is the nature of the “Catholic transubstantion miracle”
I find it slightly ironic that you make such a distinction between the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the Christian understanding, when the historic Christian understanding WAS the Catholic understanding for 1500 years. The vast majority of Christians who have ever lived have believed in the Real Presence. All the apostolic churches believe in it. Even some protestants do.Catholics like you say, “we have to look at the reaction of the people to know what the teaching means” , while Christians say “we have to analize the teaching itself to know what the teaching means”. Well bud I dont agree with you hermenutical approach, nevetheless I will talk with you in your terms.