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

[10gr8kids]

The flesh profits nothing = Jesus speaking,eating my physical flesh will not benefit you AT ALL in the spiritual area.

Really?! I thought he had to become human, suffer in the flesh and die for us. Now I hear from you it profits us nothing. Are you positive you are understanding this correctly?

Maybe my flesh profits me nothing, but I believe Jesus’ gives me everlasting life.

 

[YADA]

“Read and you will understand” Eph 3:3-5…

I did read your post, I have read and studied the scriptures …both the Hebrew texts (OT) and the Christian (NT). I do understand them. I do not think you understand them fully.

I have also studied the Dead Sea Scrolls …and Early Christian writings.

I studied the history of Christianity, Protestant Christian history and have worshipped with se eral Protestant denominations. I have studied history and cultures in general, especially the influences of Judeo/Christian.

I did not come to my understanding or interpretation of scripture by blind faith in the Catholic traditional understanding whether capital T or small t … I also believe that the discerning Christian with prayer and guidance ta ns great insight into the Christian life by spending quality time with the Bible …that as Jerome said " ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"

So where does that leave us? I do not come to the same interpretation of these passages that you have. But I am not alone in that. There are many Christians that do not understand them the way you do …Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic. …

Where can you turn to test your interpretation? I know where I can seek that assistance.

 

[Robyn_p]

The flesh profits nothing = Jesus speaking,eating my physical flesh will not benefit you AT ALL in the spiritual area.

Notice he didn’t say MY flesh profits nothing, he said THE flesh profits nothing. Big difference. In the NT ‘‘the flesh’’ refers to human nature apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit. (see Romans 8:4-14)

The flesh by itself is powerless. But not HIS flesh. His flesh is what saves us.

 

[Marcos100]

Really?! I thought he had to become human, suffer in the flesh and die for us. Now I hear from you it profits us nothing. Are you positive you are understanding this correctly?

Maybe my flesh profits me nothing, but I believe Jesus’ gives me everlasting life.

He is telling them "Eating my flesh the way you think , doesnt help you at all in the spiritual realm.

 

[Marcos100]

Notice he didn’t say MY flesh profits nothing, he said THE flesh profits nothing. Big difference. In the NT ‘‘the flesh’’ refers to human nature apart from the grace of the Holy Spirit. (see Romans 8:4-14)

The flesh by itself is powerless. But not HIS flesh. His flesh is what saves us.

He doesnt have to say “my” in order to be his flesh even we can see that in everyday speech.
you have to have the context in mind, the natural flow

 

[10gr8kids]

He is telling them "Eating my flesh the way you think , doesnt help you at all in the spiritual realm.

So then many of his disciples left him after he explained it. Doesn’t make sense.

 

[Marcos100]

So then many of his disciples left him after he explained it. Doesn’t make sense.

It would be uselleess for him to explain after he left , dont you think

 

[10gr8kids]

It would be uselleess for him to explain after he left , dont you think

You said this

He is telling them "Eating my flesh the way you think , doesnt help you at all in the spiritual realm.

You supposedly understand this from this verse:

63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Here is the surrounding text

61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64"But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

So after, as you claim, Jesus explains to His disciples what He “really meant”, they leave Him.

 

[ericc]

He couldnt understand it becuase he ddint have the whole Bible as we do today.Today even a kid could undestadn that.

He was reading Isaiah. He didn’t understand it. So you are claiming that you know EVERYTHING in the Bible, that even a kid understand it and that those who don’t are even lower in mental development than kids?

If everyone understood it the same way, why is it that Protestants don’t agree with each other then? Or is it the case of you are right and they are wrong? Why can’t you be wrong too?

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

How do you profane symbols that can cause one to fall sick and die? Please explain.

The flesh profits nothing = Jesus speaking,eating my physical flesh will not benefit you AT ALL in the spiritual area.

You didn’t understand the verse at all. Read that in conjunction with John 3:6 . “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

It is the Holy Spirit that gives life (the Lord and Giver of Life as in the Creed), the flesh ALWAYS refer to carnal flesh which dies and therefore is of no avail. There is not one instance that the phrase “the flesh” refers to the Body of Christ.

Mat 26:41 “the flesh is weak”
Mark 14:38 " the flesh is weak"
John 3:6 “born of the flesh is flesh”
John 8:15 “You judge according to the flesh”
Rom 1:3,4:1, 8:4,8:5 “according to the flesh”
Rom 7:5 “living in the flesh”
Rom 8:3 “weakened by the flesh”
Rom 8:6,8:7 “set on the flesh”

and many many more. 'The flesh" is always used to denote those of carnal or earthly in nature, never Jesus Body. Jesus when referring to his Body, calls it HIS body, HIS flesh.

Jesus says eating his flesh, the Bread from Heaven, gives you everlasting life. Not “nothing”.

 

[Cathoholic]

Marcos100.

Regarding John 6:63 . . . .

JOHN 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Robyn p mentioned:

Notice he didn’t say MY flesh profits nothing, he said THE flesh profits nothing. Big difference.

You said in reply:

He doesnt have to say “my” in order to be his flesh even we can see that in everyday speech.
you have to have the context in mind, the natural flow

Robyn p IS keeping “the context in mind, the natural flow”.

Jesus is contextually contrasting “my flesh” with “the flesh”.

JOHN 6:51 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

You list yourself as a “Protestant”.

Hopefully as a “Protestant” you are not denying Jesus eventually gave His REAL ACTUAL FLESH for the “life of the world” . . . are you?

(I would expect such a denial from a Muslim, but not from a Protestant)

I will await your follow up and proceed as indicated.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Robyn_p]

He doesnt have to say “my” in order to be his flesh even we can see that in everyday speech.
you have to have the context in mind, the natural flow

I’m having trouble finding an example in everyday speech where saying ‘‘The ____’’ actually means ‘‘My _____’’ I’ve been sitting here several minutes trying to find one and I just can’t.

The definite article (’‘the’’) in both Greek and English is always used to denote something specific (the park, the dog, the sun etc…) It is never used as a possessive. So sorry. I’m not convinced that Jesus actually means ‘‘my flesh’’ here. Especially when ‘‘the flesh’’ is always used by Jesus to refer to our carnal, earthly nature. (as ericc expertly demonstrates) It just doesn’t fit the context.

The fact is Marcos, you are reading something into that verse that simply isn’t there. Jesus clearly is not talking about His own flesh. He’s talking about human nature apart from God’s grace.

 

[Mintaka]

To be fair, it does work that way in Spanish, with body parts. You say “the hand” for “my hand,” because the possessive is usually implied in terms of body parts. On certain unusual occasions, you emphasize by adding a possessive. There are a few other Indo-European languages that work that way. Russian is pretty sparing of putting qualifiers and possessives on stuff, for example. You can say “House there,” and just imply “My house is over there.”

OTOH, it doesn’t work that way in Greek.

It might be interesting to know what way Aramaic goes on this.

But it’s true that one should be able to tell the difference in meaning, just by reading the consistent way “the flesh” is used, versus “My flesh” or “His flesh.”

 

[Marcos100]

I’m having trouble finding an example in everyday speech where saying ‘‘The ____’’ actually means ‘‘My _____’’ I’ve been sitting here several minutes trying to find one and I just can’t.

The definite article (’‘the’’) in both Greek and English is always used to denote something specific (the park, the dog, the sun etc…) It is never used as a possessive. So sorry. I’m not convinced that Jesus actually means ‘‘my flesh’’ here. Especially when ‘‘the flesh’’ is always used by Jesus to refer to our carnal, earthly nature. (as ericc expertly demonstrates) It just doesn’t fit the context.

The fact is Marcos, you are reading something into that verse that simply isn’t there. Jesus clearly is not talking about His own flesh. He’s talking about human nature apart from God’s grace.

You know words may have completly different meanings depending of the context, take into account the whole context of chapter 6 please

You know,
words or even phrases may have completly different meanings depending of the context, take into account the whole context of chapter 6 please

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I’m not going to re-post my LONG essay on John 6 and why Jesus was NOT being metaphorical…but here’s the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=934371&page=5

 

[Marcos100]

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; ywhoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst v.35

There are 2 verbs implied in the verse above, EAT and DRINK.

Is this verse literal o figurative?

 

[oldburkes]

I’m not going to re-post my LONG essay on John 6 and why Jesus was NOT being metaphorical…but here’s the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=934371&page=5

I think a lot of the problem associated with not accepting the Real Presence is a reluctance to believe Jesus is who He said He is - The Bread of Life.

And perhaps even more unsettling for some, the restrictive elements that Catholicism places on priests who have the authority to consecrate the gifts.

IMHO, and with all due respect, aren’t non-Catholics actually saying, “Why must we kneel? Why can’t a woman perform the act of consecration? Why must this act take place more than once a month or so? What’s the big deal with all of this adoration of the Blessed Sacrament? If it’s just a symbol, then we can have an “open table” for all to take communion. It’s not fair, just because I don’t believe in “the Bread of Life” like you do…I mean…well…”.

 

[Marcos100]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Progression?

Maybe the most important element in a progression is the time/tenses. Check the tenses then we can talk about it.

 

[Cathoholic]

Marcos100.

Concerning: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst”

You said:

Is this verse literal o figurative?

It is both.

That’s always been the understanding.

It was and is the understanding of the Passover for the Old Covenant people (see MyJewishLearning here) . . .

Participation in the seder lets one symbolically and vicariously relive the Exodus, where past and present merge.

. . . . And it is the understanding of the Mass—the FULFILLED Passover—for the New Covenant people.

Jesus’ once for all sacrifice re-presented on Calvary that we really and actually participate in. We are not mere observers.

It is not an “either/or” motif but a “yes/and” teaching . . . just as it has always been.

 

[Robyn_p]

You know words may have completly different meanings depending of the context, take into account the whole context of chapter 6 please

But the fact is in Greek the definite article is never used that way. That’s just not how the language works.

Cathoholic and ericc both gave good solid reasons for why the context of John 6 doesn’t support what you are saying. You keep telling us to look at the context, yet when we show you from the context that Jesus could not possibly be referring to His own flesh, you just repeat your assertion. Do you have any other arguments to show us why your interpretation is correct?

Progression?

Maybe the most important element in a progression is the time/tenses. Check the tenses then we can talk about it.

I’m a little confused why the tenses matter. Are you saying Jesus had to change tenses in order to progress from talking about belief in general to talking about the Eucharist? Or am I completely misunderstanding you? Because progression in discourse doesn’t really work like that. Our own discussion in this thread has progressed from talking about the verb ‘‘trogo’’ to discussing whether Jesus was referring to His flesh in John 6:63. Yet we haven’t started talking in the future tense.

Progression can mean moving forward in time but it also can just refer to the advancement in or deepening of a certain subject. And that doesn’t require a change in tense. That’s how I was using the word. So the tense Jesus used doesn’t actually change anything.

I think saying that Jesus progressed from talking about faith in general to talking about the Eucharist fits the context of John 6 and makes better sense of the radical shift in Jesus’ language much more than saying Jesus just suddenly changed his language, even though he was really only saying the exact same thing. Do you see where I am coming from?

 

[fasolislithuan]

Marcos.

The discussion about if Jesus is speaking literally or symbolicly in John 6 is sterile. Because if we limit ourselves to interpret the text, the context, etc… are possible many interpretations (correct and erroneus interpretations). We can discuss all day, all night about this and we’ll continue in disagreement.

I believe in Jesus’ words : When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13) and I believe also: which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1Tim 3:15)

So, what has the Church claimed from the begining about Real Presence of Jesus in Eucharist? I ask you without controversial eargeness : show us how many Church Fathers and members of the Early Church support your position (symbolic sense). If you show me that Early Church, pillar and bulwark of the truth, guided by the Spirit of truth into all the truth, has teaching another different truth that Jesus’ presence in Eucharist is real fact and not a symbolic fact (as you claim) I’ll stop to believe in the Catholic Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. If you are not able to show me that Real Presence is fake in the Early Church then you’ll have to question yourself in what you believe.
*Keep on seeking, and you will find * (Matthew 7:7)