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.
Marcos,

Since you cannot receive the book outside of the United States, do you have access to YouTube?

If so, the presentation of the information contained in Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Dr. Brant Pitre is available on there.

Also, I’d suggest listening to Dr. Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup” and “The Lord’s Supper”.

All of these will give you tremendous insight into the incredible teaching of the Church regarding the Eucharist. While John 6 may not be enough to convince a staunch Sola Scriptura Protestant out of his opinion, when put into context with the following, it is the icing on the cake 🙂
  • John 6 (John 6:4 says “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.” So, in John 6, you have the mention of the Jewish Passover, Jesus feeding the 5,000, and the Bread of Life discourse. I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that all these happened in the same chapter 😉 )
  • Jewish Passover - Notice that the lamb MUST be eaten per the instructions of God to Moses in Exodus
  • The ECF’s are pretty clear what the belief of the early church was. This common belief was held by 99% of all Christians for the first 1,500 years. This point cannot be emphasized enough.
Chew on those things for a moment. While you may not be convinced based on the Bread of Life discourse, surely, you have to admit that some weight must be given to it based on the other things that I mentioned and others have mentioned on this thread. Only extreme arrogance and posturing would not make one stop to think on that, if even only for a minute.
 
slh3016 said:
Marcos,

Since you cannot receive the book outside of the United States, do you have access to YouTube?

If so, the presentation of the information contained in Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Dr. Brant Pitre is available on there.

Also, I’d suggest listening to Dr. Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup” and “The Lord’s Supper”.

All of these will give you tremendous insight into the incredible teaching of the Church regarding the Eucharist. While John 6 may not be enough to convince a staunch Sola Scriptura Protestant out of his opinion, when put into context with the following, it is the icing on the cake 🙂
  • John 6 (John 6:4 says “The Jewish Passover Feast was near.” So, in John 6, you have the mention of the Jewish Passover, Jesus feeding the 5,000, and the Bread of Life discourse. I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that all these happened in the same chapter 😉 )
  • Jewish Passover - Notice that the lamb MUST be eaten per the instructions of God to Moses in Exodus
  • The ECF’s are pretty clear what the belief of the early church was. This common belief was held by 99% of all Christians for the first 1,500 years. This point cannot be emphasized enough.
Chew on those things for a moment. While you may not be convinced based on the Bread of Life discourse, surely, you have to admit that some weight must be given to it based on the other things that I mentioned and others have mentioned on this thread. Only extreme arrogance and posturing would not make one stop to think on that, if even only for a minute.
Click to expand...
IT is good to check the remote context ,but first you have to look throughly the inmediate context. in that order not the reverse.
 
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...
That’s speculative. Is only your assumption that all the people who left Jesus werent willing to believe no matter what. How do you know this? On the contrary of your assumption John 6 is pretty clear and specific. Among those people who left Jesus there were many disciples:

“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” Jesus know this fact and that’s why He asks the apostles in the next verse:
“Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you* also** wish to go away?*” When Jesus make this question He is aware that many of his usual disciples and not sporadic listeners have just abandoned Him. This is the reason of the bitter words of Jesus: Do you also wish to go away?

And the reason those disciples react negatively is because the hard nature of the words not because they werent willing to believe not matter what:
“Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

In fact those disciples** until this preaching ** had believed on Jesus words and that’s why they had been Jesus’ disciples, so it’s a fallacy to say “these people werent willing to believe no matter what”. Let’s remember: "* After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him*.** After this** is the exact expression used by John. So is the Jesus’ eucharistic preaching that marks a turning point for these disciples that decide to go. So your assumption is not only speculative but also not biblical.

And of course Jesus’ words (to eat my flesh and to drink my blood) are literal. If you read carefully John 6: 60-62:

"Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

Why if Jesus is just speaking metaphorically He raises the biddings and mentions a miraculous fact that will happen after His resurrection? Is “ascending where he was before” also a metaphorical expression. No, of course. Both are miraculous facts that cause scandal. And Jesus knows that His words (to eat my flesh and to drink my blood) are causing scandal in his disciples. And that’s the trascendent fact: **Jesus knows His words are not metaphorical. **

But the nail in the coffin is verse 55 “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” That verse is definitive. People who don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist are absolutely incapable to refute this sentence, their explanations are always unconvincing. It’s only a matter of faith that you believe or not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed and Jesus’ blood is drink indeed. Period. Everything else is just a pretext.
 
Marcos100 said:
IT is good to check the remote context ,but first you have to look throughly the inmediate context. in that order not the reverse.
Click to expand...
Yes, check the immediate context and then check the remote context to see if the remote context supports the conclusion you reached regarding the immediate context. If not, you may need to re-evaluate the immediate context to see if you missed something and/or it could be interpreted differently.

So, all that to say, is that YOU are reaching a conclusion about the immediate context that contradicts Jewish OT history as well as the history of the Church for the first 1,500 years!!

I don’t understand why Protestants are so adamant in their own conclusion regarding John 6, when it is obvious from other sources that the conclusion of all other Christendom is more in harmony with John 6, Revelation, ECF’s and Church practice for 2,000 years 🤷
 
Marcos100 said:
What are you trying to tell me? Listen:

ANY ORDINARY PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE UNAIDED
Click to expand...
Then why doesn’t every person who sincerely seeks the truth by studying the Bible agree with everyone else who sincerely seeks the truth? Can you honestly tell me that you know no one who you believe is sincere in their faith that disagrees with you on some matters of faith?
Otherwise you create total depedency.
Click to expand...
Dependency on a higher authority, yes. Does it hurt our pride to submit to those who are over us? Maybe somewhat, but it is also very freeing. My husband struggles so, with always worrying if this is right or that is right. It is very sad to see someone who loves God so much and wants to do what is right, to take so much burden on himself.
 
Marcos100 said:
ANY ORDINARY PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE UNAIDED
Click to expand...
Scripture disagrees with you…
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things,** in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction**.
Acts 8:26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) 27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “**Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” **And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
 
To the original poster, have you ever considered the question of WHY the Bible was compiled in the first place???

What is the “purpose” of the Bible? Why were the books of the Bible gathered together???

The answer is that there was some confusion and disagreement about which books could be read during the Mass. So the Catholic Church, through the bishops, created a list of 73 books approved for reading in the Mass. This list was approved by the Pope. Over time, these 73 books were gathered together for convenience and ease of safeguarding/reading/copying. When this happened, the 73 books became known as the “Bible” (which means “books”).
 
Marcos100 said:
ANY ORDINARY PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE UNAIDED
Click to expand...
Acts 8:30-31
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
 
Marcos100, why do you ask this question to Catholics? Why not ask those Protestants who believe the same as we do on this issue? And can you point to the moment in time in Christian history when the understanding of the interpretation went from being metaphorical to literal?

Peace!!!
 
Marcos100 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand what parallelism is. But the discourse in John 6 isn’t really an example of that. Parallelism involves repetition and symmetry. The Sermon on the Mount is a good example of parallelism. (you have heard it said…but I say to you etc…) Jesus is constructing an obvious parallel between the Old Law and the New. But that’s not what happens in the Bread of Life discourse. The discourse progresses, from belief in general to eating the Eucharist. it doesn’t parallel itself. Just because Jesus initially was speaking about belief doesn’t mean He can’t have progressed to speaking about the Eucharist.
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.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church interprets John 6 in light of the Tradition handed down to it from the apostles. That’s how all Scripture is interpreted. And if you’re honest with yourself, that’s how you are interpreting Scripture also. Your tradition says the Eucharist is a symbol, therefore you interpret John 6 metaphorically.

It has nothing to do with the reaction of the people. I only pointed out the context because I believe it makes a metaphorical reading of trogo unlikely, but that is not the basis of my belief.
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. I believe that Jesus progressed from speaking metaphorically to speaking literally, and the structure and context of John 6 backs that up. His language clearly changes. Why is that striking? Most good teachers don’t jump right into the most challenging part of their teaching. They slowly build up to it.

I would appreciate if you answered my previous question though. Why does Jesus not stop with what he says verse 35, if that really is his only point?

Thanks.
Marcos100 said:
ANY ORDINARY PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE UNAIDED
Click to expand...
I think the fact that we are even having this discussion proves this false. You are here because you believe that Catholics have misinterpreted John 6. If any person unaided can understand the Bible, we shouldn’t need your help in understanding what Jesus really meant, right?

And yet, here you are.
 
Marcos100 said:
What are you trying to tell me? Listen:

ANY ORDINARY PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE UNAIDED

Otherwise you create total depedency.
Click to expand...
And history proves you wrong or else all of Protestantism would be unified in its understanding of the Scriptures …It is an absolute fact that Sola Scriptura Christians are not united in their interpretations though all claim that they are inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, or that (as you say above) “any ordinary person can understand the Bible unaided”.

Jesus is not speaking metaphorically in John Capter 6 … if he had been there would be no need to state, restate, and in fact repeat the metaphore so many times and each time ever more emphaytically. Jesus never repeats a parable or a metaphore in this maaner.

Also - Jesus’ questioning of Peter and the rest about what they thought … clearly they understood him to mean what he said. Yet, as Peter said, where else could they go? And Jesus - still - did not explain himself to them, though he did in so many other passages.

Oh, and i did not need the Church to explain this passage to me, nor do I misunderstand the context. Even as a non Catholic Christian I understood this passage. So explain why this Christian is unable to understand the Bible and then of course all the early Christians and every contempory Christian whether they are Orthodox or Catholic and only those who agree with have the correct understanding??? It is humorous how you think Catholic Christians dont know how to read, study and understand the scriptures but only parrot what the Church tells us …sheesh:shrug:
 
Do Protestant Bibles even have 1 Corinthians in there, or did they rip out that book, too? If so, recall the epistles of the Apostle Paul…

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
 
ericc said:
The Ethiopian eunuch disagree with you.
Click to expand...
👍

The Ethiopian and historical reality of our lived human experience with the scriptures and the multitude of interpretations that not only disagree in minor ways but are polar opposites gives witness to this being a total fallacy… Its a pipe dream to think everyone gets to be the arbiter and final authority in biblical interpretation.
 
Terp said:
Do Protestant Bibles even have 1 Corinthians in there, or did they rip out that book, too? If so, recall the epistles of the Apostle Paul…

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
Click to expand...
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
 
The flesh profits nothing = Jesus speaking,eating my physical flesh will not benefit you AT ALL in the spiritual area.
 
YADA said:
👍

The Ethiopian and historical reality of our lived human experience with the scriptures and the multitude of interpretations that not only disagree in minor ways but are polar opposites gives witness to this being a total fallacy… Its a pipe dream to think everyone gets to be the arbiter and final authority in biblical interpretation.
Click to expand...
“Read and you will understand” Eph 3:3-5

“that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” Ephesians 3:3-5
“For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end” 2 Corinthians 1:13
“from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15
“He read from the book before the square which was in front of the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of men and women, those who could understand; and all the people were attentive to the book of the law. … They read from the book, from the law of God, translating [cf. Ezra 4:18] to give the sense so that they understood the reading.” Nehemiah 8:3,8
“For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they would see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.” Matthew 13:15
“And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundred-fold, some sixty, and some thirty.” Matthew 13:23
"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), Matthew 24:15
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top