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

[Marcos100]

E W Bullinger in his classic work on figures of speech explains that

while the simile gently states that one thing is like or resembles another, the metaphor boldly and warmly declares that one thing** IS** the other. While the Similesays “All flesh is AS grass” (1Pe 1:24), the Metaphor carries the figure across at once, and says “All flesh IS grass” (Isa 40:6). This is the distinction between the two…The Simile says “All we like sheep,” while the Metaphor declares that “we are the sheep of His pasture.”…Ps 23:1 The Lord is my Shepherd”… It is He who tends his People, and does more for them than any earthly shepherd does for his sheep…Metaphors are so numerous in the Old Testament, that it is impossible to give more than these few to serve as specimens and examples. (Read pages 735-743 for Bullinger’s full discussion of “Metaphor” - in his classic book “Figures of speech used in the Bible, explained” - online)

“You are the salt of the earth…” (Mt 5:13 - see note)

Bullinger comments "Ye are the salt of the earth”: i.e., you are (or represent) with regard to the earth what salt is to other things, preserving it from total corruption and destruction; just as the few righteous in Sodom would have preserved that city

 

[slh3016]

E W Bullinger in his classic work on figures of speech explains that

while the simile gently states that one thing is like or resembles another, the metaphor boldly and warmly declares that one thing** IS** the other. While the Similesays “All flesh is AS grass” (1Pe 1:24), the Metaphor carries the figure across at once, and says “All flesh IS grass” (Isa 40:6). This is the distinction between the two…The Simile says “All we like sheep,” while the Metaphor declares that “we are the sheep of His pasture.”…Ps 23:1 The Lord is my Shepherd”… It is He who tends his People, and does more for them than any earthly shepherd does for his sheep…Metaphors are so numerous in the Old Testament, that it is impossible to give more than these few to serve as specimens and examples. (Read pages 735-743 for Bullinger’s full discussion of “Metaphor” - in his classic book “Figures of speech used in the Bible, explained” - online)

“You are the salt of the earth…” (Mt 5:13 - see note)

Bullinger comments "Ye are the salt of the earth”: i.e., you are (or represent) with regard to the earth what salt is to other things, preserving it from total corruption and destruction; just as the few righteous in Sodom would have preserved that city

Seriously?!?! What does this prove above?

Yes, metaphorical language does use the word “is” and proclaims something “is” something else. Hopefully, we all know that by now…my 4th grade son even knows that

The key difference here, Marcos, is that the word “is” can ACTUALLY mean something “IS” something else. For examples, I could say, “He is my son” or “She is my daughter” or “He is my husband” or “That is my dog”. Obviously, those are ALL literal statements just as “I am the bread of life” can be and is a literal statement made by Jesus.

I think before you keep going on and on incessantly on this point, it may serve you well to study up on OT typology and how the OT prefigures and is fulfilled (literally) by the NT. Manna was literal food to the Israelites that nourished their bodies, but it was also supernatural food (i.e., contained a spiritual element to it) in that it miraculously came down from heaven every single day. This prefigures that Jesus is literal bread from heaven in the Eucharist, and is also supernatural in that the Eucharist is the body of the glorified Jesus.

Dr. Scott Hahn has a wonderful lecture called, “The Fourth Cup” and one called “The Lamb’s Supper”. Dr. Brant Pitre also has one called, “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.” I strongly suggest that you listen to these on youtube.

 

[juliamajor]

I visualize every time I’m at Mass, Jesus saying, “Take and eat, this is my body”

I might not understand, but I see with eyes of faith. God’s words have power to create everything from nothing, change water to wine, and bread to His Body. I believe.

E W Bullinger in his classic work on figures of speech explains that

while the simile gently states that one thing is like or resembles another, the metaphor boldly and warmly declares that one thing** IS** the other. While the Similesays “All flesh is AS grass” (1Pe 1:24), the Metaphor carries the figure across at once, and says “All flesh IS grass” (Isa 40:6). This is the distinction between the two…The Simile says “All we like sheep,” while the Metaphor declares that “we are the sheep of His pasture.”…Ps 23:1 The Lord is my Shepherd”… It is He who tends his People, and does more for them than any earthly shepherd does for his sheep…Metaphors are so numerous in the Old Testament, that it is impossible to give more than these few to serve as specimens and examples. (Read pages 735-743 for Bullinger’s full discussion of “Metaphor” - in his classic book “Figures of speech used in the Bible, explained” - online)

“You are the salt of the earth…” (Mt 5:13 - see note)

Bullinger cololmments "Ye are the salt of the earth”: i.e., you are (or represent) with regard to the earth what salt is to other things, preserving it from total corruption and destruction; just as the few righteous in Sodom would have preserved that city

Ok we aren’t in and English class . Metaphor, simile so what. if you want to understand the concepts of flesh and blood and understand the Eucharist and how the theme dominates all of the new testament read A J.Jeremias about all the Eucharistic words, why it is a dominating theme and you’ll uncover the difference between the Agape and Eucharist in the early Christian church.Yes we did have the Eucharist since the very beginning of the church.

 

[fasolislithuan]

Marcos, please, can you answer my question:

In this cases when you believe the Bible says x and other people believe the Bible says y, who has the correct interpretation? How do you know you have the correct interpretation and the rest are wrong? Billions of people believe their interpretation is inspired by the Holy Spirit and they have exactly a different belief to yours. So what is the correct method to discern which is the truth? Can you explain us what is the correct formula?

 

[Marcos100]

Marcos, please, can you answer my questioon:

In this cases when you believe the Bible says x and other people believe the Bible says y, who has the correct interpretation? How do you know you have the correct interpretation and the rest are wrong? Billions of people believe their interpretation is inspired by the Holy Spirit and they have exactly a different belief to yours. So what is the correct method to discern which is the truth? Can you explain us what is the correct formula?

   i told you several times. You have to apply universal rules of interpretation. Now many scholars boast they apply them but when you take a closer look they are violating a rule or more i saw thattime after time . One favorite trick is to overlook the inmediatte context and jump., this is too common.

Itold you several times. You have to apply universal rules of interpretation. Now many scholars boast they apply them but when you take a closer look they are violating a rule or more i saw that time after time . One favorite trick is to overlook the inmediatte context and jump. And to the remote context., this is too common.

 

[juliamajor]

Okay, enlighten me, rules of interpretation of scripture.
and as you accuse others of not staying within context I’d say you hop scotch and cherry pick with great abandon.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

i told you several times. You have to apply universal rules of interpretation. Now many scholars boast they apply them but when you take a closer look they are violating a rule or more i saw thattime after time . One favorite trick is to overlook the inmediatte context and jump., this is too common.

And you break this “universal rule”. Here’s the context, in short form, in where you ignore the context of John 6

1. The listeners at Capernaum understood Jesus literally.
2. Jesus reinforced their literal understanding SIX TIMES.
3. Jesus made NO attempt to provide a alternate meaning to either the crowd or the 12–all he says to the later is “will you also leave me?”
4. If “eat my flesh, drink my blood” could mean"believe in me" then his listeners could have taken it–it would have been somewhat presumptuous, but they would not have left him over that. I’ve run that by several rabbis who are actually Jewish (as opposed to Messianic Jews who are essentially evangelical protestants) and they agree, the language, the context, and the results all show an overwhelming literal intent and understanding and Jews AS Jews quite rightly rejected it under those terms.

 

[Marcos100]

And you break this “universal rule”. Here’s the context, in short form, in where you ignore the context of John 6

1. The listeners at Capernaum understood Jesus literally.
2. Jesus reinforced their literal understanding SIX TIMES.
3. Jesus made NO attempt to provide a alternate meaning to either the crowd or the 12–all he says to the later is “will you also leave me?”
4. If “eat my flesh, drink my blood” could mean"believe in me" then his listeners could have taken it–it would have been somewhat presumptuous, but they would not have left him over that. I’ve run that by several rabbis who are actually Jewish (as opposed to Messianic Jews who are essentially evangelical protestants) and they agree, the language, the context, and the results all show an overwhelming literal intent and understanding and Jews AS Jews quite rightly rejected it under those terms.

You are supposing too many things and at the end to ignore Jesus teaching itself

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

You are supposing too many things and at the en to ignore Jesus teaching itself

This IS Jesus’ teaching–you are the one bound to the strained-to-credulity bias that ignores the plain meaning only because it is the Catholic interpretation. That’s “genetic fallacy”–truth is truth no matter who speaks it.

 

[Marcos100]

Okay, enlighten me, rules of interpretation of scripture.
and as you accuse others of not staying within context I’d say you hop scotch and cherry pick with great abandon.

ok give me your email and ill send it to you right now. inbox please

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“‘Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’” (John 6:47-55).

religion.wikia.com/wiki/Catholic_Exegesis_of_John_6,_%22Bread_of_Life_Discourse%22 ]

There is no indication that Jesus again brought up the subject of “Eat my body and drink my blood” until one year later during the Last Supper, which was a Passover dinner–the annual observance would have an obvious 1-year anniversery reminder of the sermon that caused the majority of Jesus’ followers to leave Him for PURELY theological reasons. The Last Supper was Jesus “laying it on the line” with his disciples in private, like he did many times before (Mk 4:34). This solemn occasion was in many ways Jesus’ last will and testament; a last-chance (before the Resurection) attempt to sink some lessons into the sometimes too thick Apostle’s heads. He was in private with the apostles and was NOT speaking to them in parables, similes, or metaphors, but PLAINLY.

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).

biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%2022:19

The Lucan greek and the other synoptic Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) is: “Touto estin to soma mou”.

Paul differs slightly: “Touto mou estin to soma” (1 Cor. 11:24).

All four passages translate as “This is my body.” The verb “estin” is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean either “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the first (check any Greek lexicon), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally unless there is some clear indication it is not literal.

“Esti” is the Koine Greek third person sigular indicative of “to be”, in short, it’s meaning is simply “he/she/it IS”, nothing more, nothing less.

One (and RARE) example of “estin” being used in the fugurative sense is in Galatians 4:24-25…

“These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children.”

Hence, the representative, non-literal meaning is VERY clear

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

In the phrase “Touto estin to soma mou”, ‘touto’ can only refer to ‘soma’; touto is a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) refering to a neuter noun. ‘Soma’ is a neuter noun. "Bread’ on the other hand is a masculine noun so the phrase can’t really be translated as “this (bread/matzoh) is my body”.

For those deniers of the RP who take refuge in claiming these passages are in the “aorist tense”, the aorist tense usually represents the “perfective aspect”–They can be used in the present tense, but when you do, it’s with a (completed) future meaning, absent in all the NT cases refering to the Eucharist–but its moot, Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Koine to his disciples.

Many fundamentalists claim Jesus must have been speaking figuratively because there is no word in aramaic (the language Christ spoke) for “represents” so the greek “estin” must mean the non-literal sense. This is truly faulty linguistic scholarship because Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman demonstrated 100+ years ago that 1st century aramaic had over 30 words meaning “represents”, “stands for”, symbolizes", etc…

In Aramaic (and Hebrew, and Arabic) this would have been a nominal sentence without any verb at all, because the Semitic languages don’t use a copula (the “is/are” verbs. So what Jesus would have said, translated directly into English, would have been "This – body-of-me . . . " This leaves no room for any imaginary “represents” signification.

IF the belief of the early Church about the Eucharist WAS symbolic then it begs disbelief that the authors of the gospels did not use (let alone Jesus!) language that clearly indicates that intention!

Jesus, as he did in John 6:51, equates the body he will sacrifice at Calvary and the blood he will shed there with the Eucharistic sacrifice he is presenting to the apostles:

“This is my body,which is given for you” (Lk 22:19)
“This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28)

By Christ’s own declaration this equating of the Eucharist to His sacrfice on the cross makes BOTH conveyers of sin-forgiving salvific grace (the most direct reading and understanding) OR BOTH are equelly symbolic (of what???) and non literal (and this strained, tenuous and inconsistent interpretation is clearly brought in to avoid the clear and direct reading of the text).

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant of my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

The koine greek word “remembrance” is “anamnesis”; Every time (NO exceptions!) it occurs in greek of the New Testament or Septuagint (Old Testament), it occurs in ACTUAL (as in REAL) sacrificial context (the word in the Hebrew text is “zikuron” which has the same essential meaning and context as anamnesis).

“Anamnesis” also has the concurrent meaning of “to make the past present”, as in Jews celebrating the Passover dinner (of Jesus’ day and ours as well), literaly eating a literal lamb, are participating in the SAME and ACTUAL sacrificial dinner their ancestors did prior to their escape from Egypt. Multiple times Jesus is identified as the “lamb of God” and as the Baptist proclaimed “who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). It was the blood of the lamb on the Hebrews’ lintels (and the lamb’s flesh the Hebrews HAD to eat!) that allowed the Angel of Death to pass over their houses sparing them from physical death (Ex 12); it is the blood of Jesus shed at Cavalry that spares us from eternal spiritual death. In John 6 as well as all 3 synoptic accounts, Jesus equates the sacrifice of his body, the blood shed at Calvary with “body” one must eat and the “blood” one must drink to have eternal life. Paul calls Jesus “our paschal lamb…who has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). Recall also that Jesus is explicitly identified with the “lamb slain” (sacrificed) “but still standing” (Rev 5:6).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The explicit understanding of the Eucharist being “sacrifice”, the SAME (one and ONLY one sacrifice for all people and for all time) sacrifice Christ offered at Cavalry occurs explicitly in the Church’s first years. When Jesus said ", “Do this in remembrance of me” (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) these first Christians were FAR better versed in the context and language of their time and place to know it meant “Offer this as my memorial (actual and real) offering” OR “Remember Me by RE-PRESENTING THIS (one and only) Sacrifice”

Protestant Church historian J. N. D. Kelly wrote "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have “a pure offering” made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .
“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).

Also per Paul,“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

You CAN’T do violence (“profane”) someone by attacking a picture of them–that may be massive disrespect but thats not actual violence to the person (regardless if Sinead O’Conner thinks otherwise). Paul explicitly says someone who who takes the Eucharist unworthily, i.e. being in a state of mortal sin, is commiting another grave sin (confirmed per the Didache & Cyprian of Carthage).

Real Presense deniers almost always bring up John 15:1 where Jesus calls himself a “vine” and John 10:9 where he calls himself a “door”–However, these are very clear figures of speech–Jesus is LIKE a vine in that we must be attached (bonded, in “communion”) to Him to have eternal life and LIKE a door in that all most pass through Him (“Jesus is the ONLY Way”) to have eternal life–and in neither of these cases is it recorded that people misunderstood Jesus and Jesus had to correct them like He did in John 3:3-5. 11:11-14, 8:21-23, 8:31-36, 6:32-36, Matt 16:5-12, Matt 19:24-26.

In contrast, HOW can Jesus’ body be like bread or his blood like wine? We can see by Jesus nature as God and Redeemer he is LIKE a vine or a door, but there is no obvious comparison between his body and bread or his blood and wine.

After the SIX repeated declarations in John 6 that Jesus body and blood are TRUE food and drink, the UTTER LACK of figuartive speech in the Last Supper accounts underscore the literal declarations, especially as He equates the body and blood given at the Last Supper to the SAME body and blood given on the Calvary.

Also, Jesus at the Last Supper does NOT say “I am the bread” or “My blood is wine” which is the usage for “vine” and door" back in John. To do would be abut an obvious nonsensical contradiction UNLESS they are allegories or metaphors. Instead, Jesus says “THIS is my body…THIS is my blood” the “this” remaining unspecified until Jesus identifies it (what He is raising in His hands) explicitly as His body and blood.

 

[juliamajor]

ok give me your email and ill send it to you right now. inbox please

Oh no you corrected several people publicly so the way to correctly interpret has to be posted publicly.That is a biblical principle

 

[Cathoholic]

Marcos100.

You said (again)

He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but . . .

You insisted that to take Jesus and His “flesh” literally in John 6 is “out of context”.

I asked if it was “figurative” that Jesus gives His flesh (on Calvary) for “the life of the world” too?

You have not answered.

“Context” to you seems to be . . . .

. . . . “If you agree with me, that’s context. If you disagree with me, you are out of context.”

And I am saying defending your position doesn’t work that way Marcos100.

---

Also Marcos100. ZZ912 asked you (here) . . .

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?

Have you answered that yet?

 

[juliamajor]

This such a cop everything is literal until something doesn’t. Then ,all of a sudden ,it isn’t literal any more. They’ll claim everything in Genesis should be taken just as it is written. Then they develop a “no fly zone” When it comes to a powerful doctrine of great beauty because a mindset is not a great thing to have in biblical study.
Look at the whole chapter 6. John is teaching Real Presence in increments, starting with feeding of the thousands.

 

[juliamajor]

This is such a cop everything is literal until someone doesn’t want it to be. Then ,all of a sudden ,it isn’t literal any more. They’ll claim everything in Genesis should be taken just as it is written. Then they develop a “no fly zone” When it comes to a powerful doctrine of great beauty because a mindset is not a great thing to have in biblical study.
Look at the whole chapter 6. John is teaching Real Presence in increments, starting with feeding of the thousands.

 

[Marcos100]

Marcos100.

You said (again)

You insisted that to take Jesus and His “flesh” literally in John 6 is “out of context”.

I asked if it was “figurative” that Jesus gives His flesh (on Calvary) for “the life of the world” too?

You have not answered.

“Context” to you seems to be . . . .

. . . . “If you agree with me, that’s context. If you disagree with me, you are out of context.”

And I am saying defending your position doesn’t work that way Marcos100.

---

Also Marcos100. ZZ912 asked you (here) . . .

Have you answered that yet?

i made a mistake in one point and i corrected. First When Jesus mentions his flesh he is talking litrrally, his flesh is himself. He gave his flesh literally on the cross. Second in the scriptures we see many times that When controversy arised all jesuU did was to quote scripture.

 

[slh3016]

i made a mistake in one point and i corrected. First When Jesus mentions his flesh he is talking litrrally, his flesh is himself. He gave his flesh literally on the cross. Second in the scriptures we see many times that When controversy arised all jesuU did was to quote scripture.

So, I am confused. You now agree that Jesus was being literal when He says in verse 51, “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

But are you saying that the first part of that verse (underlined) where Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Are you asserting that Jesus was switching from metaphorical language in the first part to literal language in the second part?

As has been stated, Jesus, in verse 55, says, “For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink.” Seems pretty obvious that this verse clarifies and solidifies Jesus’s preceding statements that He is the bread of life and therefore, the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is in total agreement with Jesus’s own words.

Please, Marcos, take your blinders off and see this passage for what it truly is. Again, I’ve been in your shoes, but I approached the passage with an open mind and open heart and looked at not only the Bible, but all the extra-biblical evidence and it all overwhelmingly supports the ancient beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox Church). Your misguided notion is a relatively new “idea” invented by Protestants who, lacking the apostolic authority to even say the Eucharistic blessing, threw out the essential teaching and reality of Christ’s sacrifice. It is very, very sad.

 

[Marcos100]

So, I am confused. You now agree that Jesus was being literal when He says in verse 51, “This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

But are you saying that the first part of that verse (underlined) where Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Are you asserting that Jesus was switching from metaphorical language in the first part to literal language in the second part?

As has been stated, Jesus, in verse 55, says, “For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink.” Seems pretty obvious that this verse clarifies and solidifies Jesus’s preceding statements that He is the bread of life and therefore, the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation is in total agreement with Jesus’s own words.

Please, Marcos, take your blinders off and see this passage for what it truly is. Again, I’ve been in your shoes, but I approached the passage with an open mind and open heart and looked at not only the Bible, but all the extra-biblical evidence and it all overwhelmingly supports the ancient beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox Church). Your misguided notion is a relatively new “idea” invented by Protestants who, lacking the apostolic authority to even say the Eucharistic blessing, threw out the essential teaching and reality of Christ’s sacrifice. It is very, very sad.

yes Jesus is saying that the bread represent his flesh. His flesh
Is literal. His flesh and blood is Jesus , both literal there. Bread is simbolic , eating this literal bread (host) taken even daily wont sustain our physical life nor will cease our literal hunger, so it is not literal food, but only in a spritual, non physical way. But the literal mana did both things. It is a spiritual reality