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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marcos100
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robyn_p said:
You still haven’t adequately addressed the fact that there is a noticeable shift in Jesus’ language after verse 51.

The question I’d like you to answer is this: If all he was trying to get across was that people needed to believe in him, why didn’t Jesus just stop with what he said in verse 35? There’s nothing that confusing or controversial about saying, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’’ That is an obvious metaphor. In fact, the Jews listening initially DID understand his metaphor. Notice, they don’t ask ''Why does he call himself bread?" Instead, they are offended by the fact that he said he came down from heaven. That’s what is confusing them. Not that he said anyone who believes in him will not hunger. It’s only after he says the bread they must eat IS his flesh that things start going downhill.

So why did he start muddying the waters by talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood like that? His point was pretty clearly made in verse 35, what purpose did it serve to use that graphic language?

The Catholic answer would be that Jesus was outlining the steps of discipleship. Faith comes before the Eucharist. If we don’t believe in Christ, then our reception of the Eucharist is in vain. In fact, it will condemn us. (see 1 Cor 11:27-29) We must believe before we can receive. It’s not either faith or the Eucharist. It’s both.

As far as why the apostles didn’t start cannibalizing Jesus on the spot, this is a red herring. Not even Catholics believe that Jesus was speaking in a crass literalist way like that. The apostles might not have known HOW Jesus was going to give us his flesh to eat (that would be revealed later) but they would have known enough not to cannibalize him. It doesn’t follow though that Jesus was obviously only saying that they just needed to believe. That doesn’t fit with the text.

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.

But instead all we have is a matter of fact statement. It’s as if John wants us to take Jesus at his word.
Click to expand...
Jesus used lots of metaphors all the time. In fact the Bible says he only spoke metaphors, and expected the people and his disciples to understand. He even rebuked his disciples for not understandfing the metaphors “Are you still lacking in understanding also?” I am fully convinced many people exasperate him today as well. Now you say, Jesus cant use a parable unless he or somebody else explain it. He simply cant. Really?, where does it say that? Do we have authority over Jesus? The Holy Spirit used many parables in the Old and New Testament, in Revelation for example and with the prophets and Jesus said "I speak these things as the Father taught Me"John 8:28

You ask “You still haven’t adequately addressed the fact that there is a noticeable shift in Jesus’ language after verse 51.” He is using phago and trogo as partial synonims, both convey the idea of eat , it is useless you just to keep chewing something in your mouth, you have to eat (in its full sense) to benefit from it.

The Jews thought Jesus was speaking as you say the “crass literalism” It never came to their minds a piece of bread that looked like bread and tasted like bread.

Now it is weird for me that you say Jesus clearly refers** to himself**, as a physcial bread and a literal bread in the same context… and you keep ignoring the paralelisems.

Apparently your best arguement is an argument form silence: An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.
Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?
Bob: (says nothing)
Jay: I KNEW you took them!
Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument.
I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Marcos100 said:
Jesus used lots of metaphors all the time. In fact the Bible says he only spoke metaphors, and expected the people and his disciples to understand. He even rebuked his disciples for not understandfing the metaphors “Are you still lacking in understanding also?” I am fully convinced many people exasperate him today as well. Now you say, Jesus cant use a parable unless he or somebody else explain it. He simply cant. Really?, where does it say that? Do we have authority over Jesus? The Holy Spirit used many parables in the Old and New Testament, in Revelation for example and with the prophets and Jesus said "I speak these things as the Father taught Me"John 8:28

You ask “You still haven’t adequately addressed the fact that there is a noticeable shift in Jesus’ language after verse 51.” He is using phago and trogo as partial synonims, both convey the idea of eat , it is useless you just to keep chewing something in your mouth, you have to eat (in its full sense) to benefit from it.

The Jews thought Jesus was speaking as you say the “crass literalism” It never came to their minds a piece of bread that looked like bread and tasted like bread.

Now it is weird for me that you say Jesus clearly refers** to himself**, as a metaphoricall bread and a literal bread in the same context… and you keep ignoring the paralelisems.

Apparently your best arguement is an argument form silence: An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.
Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?
Bob: (says nothing)
Jay: I KNEW you took them!
Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument.
I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...
 
So you’re going to assume that eating and drinking Jesus’ body and blood was just an idiomatic way of saying “believe in Me.” You haven’t presented any linguistic evidence for that, as we don’t see the rabbis saying that “Eat and drink God” is an expression for “be a monotheist Jew,” or shown any other connections that any early Christians took it that way.

You presented one argument that the whole chapter is just a metaphor. However, it follows a chapter where “living water” that will make you “never thirst” is presented as not being belief only, and another chapter where we learn that Jesus says “living water” will come out from His body, and a third chapter where John tells us that actual blood and actual water did come out of Jesus’ body when the centurion speared him.

Not so metaphorical, is it?

But okay, let’s say that you’re right.

In that case, how can you prove to me that “eternal life” isn’t Jesus’ metaphor for, say, “having a life so boring and peaceful that it seems to last forever, and you don’t mind when you die”? Or that “serve God and follow His teachings” isn’t a metaphor for “give Mintaka all your money and adoring fandom, because I see that in the future she will be super-awesome”?

Otherwise, you get me declaring that since the “red dragon” in Revelation is in some translations a “rose-colored” or “pink” dragon, obviously Pinkie Pie from My Little Pony is the devil and Optimus Prime is Jesus Himself. It’s a silly argument, because I have some evidence for pink, but no evidence for Optimus Prime. If I were arguing for the horse of war (also “rose-colored” or “pink” in some versions of Revelation), I would have more room to stand on, but there’d still be no point dragging in Transformers.
 
I always find it weird when I offer concrete evidence, both scriptural and historical and the OP simply tries to ignore it and only responds to other posts…

The New Testament clearly teaches the Eucharist as Catholicism has for 2,000 years.

You may wish to disagree and contend against it, but ignoring the facts won’t make it not be true or reconcile your unscriptural position. 🤷
 
Church_Militant said:
I always find it weird when I offer concrete evidence, both scriptural and historical and the OP simply tries to ignore it and only responds to other posts…

The New Testament clearly teaches the Eucharist as Catholicism has for 2,000 years.

You may wish to disagree and contend against it, but ignoring the facts won’t make it not be true or reconcile your unscriptural position. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well you could start by chaging the picture you show. The problem is what would you do if the Bible teaches something and the RCC teaches another, who would you follow. The problem with Robyn is that he is trying to undertand Jesus teaching primarily by the reaction of the people and not the teaching itself. But let me share with you the parallelisms v.35,54- v.47,58 - v.40,54.hope it helps. Blessings.
 
Marcos100 said:
Jesus used lots of metaphors all the time. In fact the Bible says he only spoke metaphors, and expected the people and his disciples to understand. He even rebuked his disciples for not understandfing the metaphors “Are you still lacking in understanding also?” I am fully convinced many people exasperate him today as well. Now you say, Jesus cant use a parable unless he or somebody else explain it. He simply cant. Really?, where does it say that? Do we have authority over Jesus? The Holy Spirit used many parables in the Old and New Testament, in Revelation for example and with the prophets and Jesus said "I speak these things as the Father taught Me"John 8:28

You ask “You still haven’t adequately addressed the fact that there is a noticeable shift in Jesus’ language after verse 51.” He is using phago and trogo as partial synonims, both convey the idea of eat , it is useless you just to keep chewing something in your mouth, you have to eat (in its full sense) to benefit from it.

The Jews thought Jesus was speaking as you say the “crass literalism” It never came to their minds a piece of bread that looked like bread and tasted like bread.

Now it is weird for me that you say Jesus clearly refers** to himself**, as a physcial bread and a literal bread in the same context… and you keep ignoring the paralelisems.

Apparently your best arguement is an argument form silence: An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.
Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?
Bob: (says nothing)
Jay: I KNEW you took them!
Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument.
I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...
Silence isn’t necessarily a bad argument you know. There’s a principle in our legal system known as “Silence equals consent.” (qui tacet consentire videtur) It’s where we get the phrase “tacit approval.” Silence can be evidence of agreement, especially if someone has a duty to speak and they don’t. I wouldn’t just dismiss it as casually as you are doing. The fact that neither Jesus nor John offer any clarification IS significant.

But regardless, my argument is not an argument from silence. I’m arguing from what Jesus himself actually says. We both agree and the context is clear that after verse 51, his language radically changes. The question is, why? Why is there such a shift in tone and focus. You argue that there really isn’t a change and that he is still speaking metaphorically. That’s fine, but so far the only evidence you have given us to prove this is that Jesus started out talking about faith. Therefore, he obviously must still be speaking metaphorically. That just doesn’t follow.

Jesus had already made his point in verse 35. The metaphor was clear. There was no reason to make such a radical shift in language. I just don’t see how what he said could get any clearer.
 
Marcos100 said:
Well you could start by chaging the picture you show. The problem is what would you do if the Bible teaches something and the RCC teaches another, who would you follow. The problem with Robyn is that he is trying to undertand Jesus teaching primarily by the reaction of the people and not the teaching itself. But let me share with you the parallelisms v.35,54- v.47,58 - v.40,54.hope it helps. Blessings.
Click to expand...
Marcos, did you know the Church is the one who gave us the New Testament? There never could be a situation where the Church teaches something the Bible doesn’t. It’s a false dilemma.

(And btw, I’m a woman ;))
 
Robyn_p said:
Silence isn’t necessarily a bad argument you know. There’s a principle in our legal system known as “Silence equals consent.” (qui tacet consentire videtur) It’s where we get the phrase “tacit approval.” Silence can be evidence of agreement, especially if someone has a duty to speak and they don’t. I wouldn’t just dismiss it as casually as you are doing. The fact that neither Jesus nor John offer any clarification IS significant.

But regardless, my argument is not an argument from silence. I’m arguing from what Jesus himself actually says. We both agree and the context is clear that after verse 51, his language radically changes. The question is, why? Why is there such a shift in tone and focus. You argue that there really isn’t a change and that he is still speaking metaphorically. That’s fine, but so far the only evidence you have given us to prove this is that Jesus started out talking about faith. Therefore, he obviously must still be speaking metaphorically. That just doesn’t follow.

Jesus had already made his point in verse 35. The metaphor was clear. There was no reason to make such a radical shift in language. I just don’t see how what he said could get any clearer.
Click to expand...
Robin, my friend. I am not saying that you must ignore the people reaction in John 6 , that would be wrong as well. I am telling you, that you must focus primarily in Jesus teaching, but what you have been doing is blatantly ignore the parallelES. Allow me to remind you what a parallel is. Parallelism In Writing: In writing, parallelism refers to balance and equality. In order for the reader to understand what the writer means, the words must make sense in time and space. If you start talking about one thing one way, you can’t switch to talking about something else a different way.

Now you tell me that the RCC interpret John 6 in light of the reaction of the people and not in light of the teaching itself. Well… that is an obviously faulty way of interpretation and subsecuently it will take you to a wrong interpretation.

More striking though, is that you believen that Jesus refers to himself in the same context as a metaphor and after a few moment as a literal bread.
 
Marcos100 said:
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”

It is a sad thing you canot send outised the US. Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...
You are the one bringing up the trogos argument. You started the thread, not us.

Shipping is too expensive outside of the US.

-Tim-
 
Marcos100 said:
The problem is what would you do if the Bible teaches something and the RCC teaches another, who would you follow.
Click to expand...
It won’t happen because the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Ref: 1 Timothy 3:15
And the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church. Ref: Matthew 16:18

Truth cannot contradict truth, so if the Bible is true and the Church is true, which they both are, they cannot contradict each other. If you think they do, it is a sure sign you are misunderstanding something.

Also, if you post something that needs to be addressed don’t suggest I’m off topic. You can’t just throw things out that are misconceptions or untruths and expect them to be ignored.
 
10gr8kids said:
It won’t happen because the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Ref: 1 Timothy 3:15
And the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church. Ref: Matthew 16:18

Truth cannot contradict truth, so if the Bible is true and the Church is true, which they both are, they cannot contradict each other. If you think they do, it is a sure sign you are misunderstanding something.

Also, if you post something that needs to be addressed don’t suggest I’m off topic. You can’t just throw things out that are misconceptions or untruths and expect them to be ignored.
Click to expand...
Jesus teaches the bread is a figure. What are you going to do now?
 
There is only two choices:

Infallibly declare that Jesus was speaking metaphorically…
absolutely trustworthy or sure:

Or

Fallibly declare that Jesus was speaking metaphorically…
:capable of making a mistake
 
Marcos100 said:
Because these people werent willing to believe no matter what. They werent willing to believe even before Jesus starts talking about the debatable “eating” and “drinking”(figurative) v.35,36. They were following for the wrong motives, eating and drinking physical food :“Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” v.26. To say that if Jesus would have explained it was literal, they would have believed, is false.
Click to expand...
It is equally false to assume that people weren’t willing to believe before Jesus started his discourse. Not all walk away, many, but not all. Jn 6:66.

Jesus did made it literal. After having told them that he is the bread from heaven which resulted in the Jews murmuring among themselves, Jesus in Jn 6:43 told them not to murmur among themselves. Instead of telling them the bread from heaven is only a metaphor, Jesus emphasized it even more. Now Jesus told them they must eat this bread of life v48-51. And when the Jews disputed it even more, Jesus reinforced in again in v53-56. My flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. And he repeats that again in v 58. In the context of these verses, not an instance of Jesus alluding eating his flesh is a metaphor. Show me where the metaphor arises. Show me where Jesus intended these verses to be metaphorical. As Augustine has explained in one of his writings, the Jews thought(wrongly) that Jesus was going to dismembered himself and give them his flesh dripping with blood to eat.

This becomes clear in the Last Supper. Jesus gave this Bread from Heaven for us to eat in the form of bread and wine. Some how it is his body and blood, he transubstantiated it. Obviously we don’t really know what the properties of Bread of Heaven is like. But it is not surprising that it taste and smell like bread, but where it triumphs over earthly bread is that it contains God himself and consuming it gives us supernatural benefits. But since Jesus said :This is my Body, this is my blood, you MUST believe it to be so. If you don’t , you are going against the Holy Scriptures which you hold so dearly. One may not not know the “how”, but one must not defiantly reject the very words of Jesus himself. Matthew, Mark and Luke all wrote about this special Supper. It is not an instance of a one-liner where one can choose to ignore.

Paul a late comer believes in the Real Presence. The Church Fathers all believed in the Real Presence. For 1500 years, Real Presence is basic knowledge. No real dispute until Reformation. Now why should anyone believe anyone who says so otherwise that late to the scene? Aren’t they no different from the Jews who murmured against Jesus in Jn 6:41,52. That’s why the Reformers have walked away and disbelieved. Jn 6:64. That’s why reformers don’t do what Jesus commanded, “do it in memory of me”. How often do you do that? Once a year? 10 years?
 
One other things we can look at is the writings of the students of John

Ignatius of Antioch was a companion of John, in much the same way that Barnabas was for Paul.

Ignatius spend years living with John and learning from him. Which is more than we can say of any other Biblical scholar today. He was named by Peter himself to succeed him as Bishop of Antioch.

Ignatius tells us what he learned from John, when Ignatius wrote to the Christians in Smyrna

in AD 107, on the way to his martyrdom, he wrote a warning to the true Christians to be wary of heretics, and one of the ways in which they could be identified
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior 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 in the midst of their disputes.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

So Marcos, what credentials do you offer on the lessons from John that are superior to that of Ignatius.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top