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

[Fr_of_Jazz]

First. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: “Truly I tell you, you seek Me …because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His Own Person, and indeed in a Spirit-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.

Second. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us **this bread** evermore!'- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them I am the bread of life’ [and **not

I will **become** the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and not he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue." Yet the latter indeed does happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass.

Third. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: “I am that bread of life.” He did **not **say: Earthly bread will **become** Me.' Of **Himself **He then said: "**This** is the bread that comes down from heaven **not** that earthly bread will become Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges’]. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. And the bread that I will give [not `the bread which an earthly priest may give’], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world."

Fourth. In John 6:52-58, "the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"' This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, and localized presence’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.
OR

Context
The discourse of Jesus in Jn 6 has two parts. Both are important:
(A) vv 35-50 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us in His TEACHING and in our personal RELATIONSHIP with Him.
–a transition in v 51 - “and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
(B) vv 52-58 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us as the true Passover Lamb, who gives His slain body and spilled blood for the life of the world.

In both (A) and (B) as elsewhere in his gospel John uses the protests of “the Jews” as foils to stress Jesus affirmative, literal meaning.

In the case of (A), in 6:41 he narrates that “the Jews” challenge how Jesus can have come down from heaven; and John also recounts Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:43-50, esp. v 46) which comports with His same teaching elsewhere (e.g., Jn 1:18; 3:13,31).

We than transition in 6:51 from the first part to the second part.

Again in (B) the pointed protestations of “the Jews” (6:52) serve as a foil for Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:52-58) that is nothing short of in your face as to its meaning. He says it 6 times in 7 verses–that we must eat his body and drink his blood.

It should be noted that “the Jews” also protest Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw His day and was glad (8:56). The author again narrates Jesus’ affirmative, literal response (8:58-59). Later these are “the Jews” who also want to stone Jesus in protest for saying He and the Father are one (10:30-31). He again goes on to give a literal, affirmative response (10:32-39). In all these cases (including 6:41,52) “the Jews” understood exactly what Jesus meant.

Back to Jn 6, next the evangelist notes that even some of Jesus’ “disciples” were perplexed (6:60) and He responds by asking if this teaching “shocks” them, and then says something else that He will literally do: ascend into heaven. And then the gospel writer comments that because of this teaching many of Jesus’ disciples left (v 66). Even this did not cause Jesus or the evangelist to allegorize or apologize.

Figures and “flesh”
(a) “Temple” is a metaphor for His “body” (2:21): it “refers (figuratively) to His body.” “Bread” is a metaphor for Jesus and His teaching (Jn 6:24-50), “Water” for the Holy Spirit (4:14; 7:38-39), as “Leaven” is for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 16:12).
(b) In John “flesh” sometimes refers to His body as in v 51 and vv 53-58, but literally not figuratively. “Flesh” in Jn largely denotes literally “humanity of itself” i.e., the human in man and women as distinct from the work of God (1:13; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2), OR the humanity or “body” of Jesus (1:14; 6:51, 53-58).

The use of “flesh” and “spirit” in Jn
(a) The theme runs through Jn of the powerlessness of humanity of itself (“flesh”) to produce new birth and salvation which can only be the work of the Spirit. We see this in Jn 1:13–“flesh” versus “God” who is spirit; 3:6–“flesh” versus “spirit.”
(b) The word “spirit” is not used in Jn to characterize a statement as figurative.
(c) Both Jesus and Jn can characterize a statement as figurative quite clearly in other ways (6:32-35; 11:11-14) even explicitly (re the temple in 2:21, the gate in 10:6, and a woman in labor in 16:25, 29). Yet there is no mention of metaphor, symbol, parable, or figure in 6:63.

 

[Marcos100]

I was trying to answer your question , but you dont answer my, that is not fair .

" For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

Ok , in what sense must we take indeed?
In this context "indeed means literal?

Jesus is contrasting the manna which was get rotten and the bread form heaven that never rottens, now everybody knows the host rottens then Was Jesus lying? Jesus body never rottens, only ordinary bread rottens. Now, if you take this bread in John 6 literally we die just eating eat, even if that all we eat everyday. it wont be enough , it is not literal.

The JEWS, they poor Jews they were shortsighted, they were getting Jesus worng most of the Time, even Jesus was speaking figuratelvely most of the time, they weremt getting it .

In order to understand the Jews you have to put on their sandals you have ** to try see thrgouh their eyes**, now having that in mind:In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us this bread evermore!'- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to them I am the bread of life’ [and not I will become the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and not he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be hue."

 

[Marcos100]

When I read the Bible in context in the fisrt time I knew Jesus was speaking figuratelvy, and there are million upon millions just like me . it is just like me neighbor tells me " I am a lion , inmediatly I konw he is speking figuratelvly telling me he was very brave, I dont understand you.

 

[Marcos100]

Jesus said He was the light of the world . Does that mean He was composed of fire?

 

[10gr8kids]

When in 6:34, the believers said to Him `Lord, give us this bread evermore!’- Jesus did not pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself.

You’re right, he didn’t. It was not the right time yet, He did that at the Last Supper

Matthew 26:26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

 

[Marcos100]

-]/-]

You’re right, he didn’t. It was not the right time yet, He did that at the Last Supper

Matthew 26:26

so you agree that when he uttered john 6 he was speaking figuratevily

 

[10gr8kids]

Marcos, I would sure be interested in your answer to these questions.

Originally Posted by zz912
Marcos, I have read, re-read, and re-read again the particular passage. I have prayed fervently to God for enlightenment about this issue. And I come to a completely different conclusion that you do on your interpretation of this passage. Who does Scripture say we should turn to for resolution of our disagreement over your interpretation of this passage?

Marcos, were you able to find the Bible passages that deal with the situation we have here? Who does the Bible tell us to turn to for resolution of this question?

 

[10gr8kids]

-]/-] so you agree that when he uttered john 6 he was speaking figuratevily

No

Ok, so I’m teaching Health to my children, and I tell them to stay healthy they have to eat their vegetables. Do they think they have to stop what they are doing and go grab a carrot stick. No. Can they say to me at dinner time that they don’t have to eat veggies to stay healthy because I was just speaking figuratively earlier in the day. No.

I’m sorry, I don’t see the logic in your argument.

 

[Marcos100]

No

Ok, so I’m teaching Health to my children, and I tell them to stay healthy they have to eat their vegetables. Do they think they have to stop what they are doing and go grab a carrot stick. No. Can they say to me at dinner time that they don’t have to eat veggies to stay healthy because I was just speaking figuratively earlier in the day. No.

I’m sorry, I don’t see the logic in your argument.

sorry man but Jesus is saying beleive in him is eating him somthing people were doing already

 

[YADA]

sorry man but Jesus is saying beleive in him is eating him somthing people were doing already

Sorry man - but that is not what Jesus is saying - nor is that how the people who heard him understood him … whether they were those who turned away or those who stayed …

And if Jesus was only speaking figuratively - why then later use physical bread and wine for a figurative reality?

Marcos - you are steadfast and earnest in your innovative interpretation … your gymnastics are impressive … but sadly you error in this interpretation

 

[Marcos100]

Sorry man - but that is not what Jesus is saying - nor is that how the people who heard him understood him … whether they were those who turned away or those who stayed …

And if Jesus was only speaking figuratively - why then later use physical bread and wine for a figurative reality?

Marcos - you are steadfast and earnest in your innovative interpretation … your gymnastics are impressive … but sadly you error in this interpretation

I am not sure coming to this catholic forum, I feel like a piece of fresh meat thrown in a bowl full of pirañas

 

[Marcos100]

Sorry man - but that is not what Jesus is saying - nor is that how the people who heard him understood him … whether they were those who turned away or those who stayed …

And if Jesus was only speaking figuratively - why then later use physical bread and wine for a figurative reality?

Marcos - you are steadfast and earnest in your innovative interpretati on … your gymnastics are impressive … but sadly you error in this interpretation

the lords supper has notbing to do with John 6. No river of living water nor “eat every word that comes out of the mouth of God.” Thouse they are very similar. In Jhon 6 Jesus even mentions wine, and he was talking about gi ing his body (flesh) on the cross for the whole world.

 

[Marcos100]

Sorry man - but that is not what Jesus is saying - nor is that how the people who heard him understood him … whether they were those who turned away or those who stayed …

And if Jesus was only speaking figuratively - why then later use physical bread and wine for a figurative reality?

Marcos - you are steadfast and earnest in your innovative interpretation … your gymnastics are impressive … but sadly you error in this interpretation

in the Last supper it is obvious that the bread and wine were a symbol of himself

 

[Marcos100]

Marcos, you continue without answer a lot of questions we have made to you. What is the historical substratum of your interpretation on John 6? Perhaps merely your interpretation? Calvin? Another reformer?

I’d only like to know what is the historical support of your claim. In fact there is a lot of modern theories about a lot of historical doctrines of the Church maintained for a lot of people with a lot of errors, so for checking the real value of your propositions we have to know what is the historical support of your claims. Do you have any serious support (historical antecedents in the history of the Church) or is only another private interpretation of a Sola Scriptura’s modern follower? If is the last case you would to know that your interpretation hasn’t any true authority, it’s only a mere opinion without support in apostolic tradition. And of course is wrong, not because you are less inteligent than us but because is the Church of Christ established (and not any eventual and private interpreter of the Bible) the pillar and ground of the truth.

I only take into account a historic writing when it matches with what the bible says other wise i reject it INMEDIATLY

 

[Marcos100]

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)

God bless you.

 

[10gr8kids]

I only take into account a historic writing when it matches with what the bible says other wise i reject it INMEDIATLY

You mean if it matches your interpretation of what the Bible says. The Bible says

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Historic writing agrees with this, but not your interpretation of it. Whether you want to admit it or not, your interpretation is fallible. This is why it is important to be able to answer this question

Originally Posted by zz912
Marcos, were you able to find the Bible passages that deal with the situation we have here? Who does the Bible tell us to turn to for resolution of this question?

I would love to read your thoughts on this.

 

[juliamajor]

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.

.
So about 99 percent walk away were never real believers and this was some kind of weird test?
A History book might come in handy and reading inscriptions from catacombs as well as Roman writings.all extra biblical proofs that the belief in the Eucharist as flesh and blood of Christ was very early.within the time of writing of gospels .
a book called “How the Romans saw the Christians”.
Apparently how you view scripture and history coincides doesn’t include when both do agree with each other .notably extra biblical proofs as listed above and scripture.
Your and reformers views are the new kids on the block. Believe in the Real presence is attested to biblically and historically( until 1500’s) since the beginning.
As far as chapter 6 goes. Well in the time of the gospels there were no chapters, verses,punctuation and everything in a print not as of easy to get.Chapter and verses were not set in stone and were shifted or added later.so the verses stated could have been moved around been in a later part of the gospels or Jesus could have been simply Been using what is called a mixed metaphor. Try sarx

 

[Marcos100]

You mean if it matches your interpretation of what the Bible says. The Bible says

Historic writing agrees with this, but not your interpretation of it. Whether you want to admit it or not, your interpretation is fallible. This is why it is important to be able to answer this question

I would love to read your thoughts on this.

in situation you have to apply honestly the universal rules of interpretation, thats your problem, you need somebdy else to think for you

 

[10gr8kids]

in situation you have to apply honestly the universal rules of interpretation, thats your problem, you need somebdy else to think for you

No, I’m just smart enough to know your opinion is no more valid than mine, and mine no more valid than yours; so I’m willing to go to a higher authority that Jesus gave us. Why can you not submit to a higher authority?

Hebrews

17Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

 

[juliamajor]

in situation you have to apply honestly the universal rules of interpretation, thats your problem, you need somebdy else to think for you

Really. Have you expanded your mind? Do you use different commentaries? Do you up have proper diverse library? Do you listen to those with different views and deconstruct it? Whose universal rules of interpretation? Don’t they change age to age or at least how we view them?