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

[10gr8kids]

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. Thouhgh it is a spiritual reality

I’m hoping to live forever with my physical body after the last judgement. If Jesus says I need to eat His flesh and drink His blood so that I may have this everlasting life, that is what I’ll do. Just like believing in Jesus gives us eternal life, doesn’t mean we still won’t die once, but I still have to literally believe in Jesus,…:and be baptized, and eat His flesh and drink His blood. I can’t say that since I’m going to die anyway, Jesus must not have been serious when He said I need to do these things to live forever.

 

[Peebo]

:
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.

Sad to say but these words of Jesus Christ spoken 2000 years ago resonate oh so true among many of our Protestant brethren today…those followers of Jesus didn’t have a bible to discuss or interpret what he meant…they heard it from his own mouth and turned away in disgust…2000 years later those words of Jesus still cause people to stumble…and they still turn away in disgust…it really is pointless to try to convince them otherwise…Jesus himself couldn’t convince many of his followers…nothing has changed for those who don’t…and won’t believe.

 

[Marcos100]

Jesus is contrasting the literal mana with Himself. Contrasting food (the mana) with real food( Himself), so real in this context means literal?, then mana is real food as well. Or he was not talking about physical food; he was talking about nonphysical spiritual food

 

[zz912]

Second in the scriptures we see many times that When controversy arised all jesuU did was to quote scripture.

So the Bible and Jesus tell us that when we have a disagreement among Christians, we are to read the Scriptures? Please give chapter and verse for this.

And no, Jesus did not just quote Scripture. In the Beatitudes, Jesus quotes Scripture, and then uses His authority to change it. In John 6 he doesn’t quote Scripture. He refers to events in Scripture, but He gives a new teaching. He SOMETIMES supported His message with Scripture references, but not always.

Now could you answer my question that has been asked many times. When two or more Christians disagree over a matter, who/what should they turn to for resolution? Chapter and verse please.

 

[Marcos100]

So the Bible and Jesus tell us that when we have a disagreement among Christians, we are to read the Scriptures? Please give chapter and verse for this.

And no, Jesus did not just quote Scripture. In the Beatitudes, Jesus quotes Scripture, and then uses His authority to change it. In John 6 he doesn’t quote Scripture. He refers to events in Scripture, but He gives a new teaching. He SOMETIMES supported His message with Scripture references, but not always.

Now could you answer my question that has been asked many times. When two or more Christians disagree over a matter, who/what should they turn to for resolution? Chapter and verse please.

What kind of problem?
I do beleive there are authorities , but I dont beleive in infalibility, authorities are necesary

 

[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.

C"mon, you make it more complicted that it really is .

 

[YADA]

What kind of problem?
I do beleive there are authorities , but I dont beleive in infalibility, authorities are necesary

Please Marcos …Stop … please take a step back from your non-Catholic novel interpretation and contemplate on this passage without your bias …

If Jesus merely meant a metaphorical meaning He would have stopped reiterating it … He would not have said it over and over again …

And when He re-empathized it so strongly with ever more increasingly literal/physical language which the hearers and those who came immediately after did as well [you cannot eat of a symbolic/metaphor and cause yourself death] it message stops being one of metaphor and becomes something the believer in Christ needs to seriously consider …

This is a hard teaching … this is something that makes the mind balk …

We are physical people, who live and worship Christ - not just with our minds but with our bodies, our actions and our souls …

We will live forever and never thirst and hunger … our understanding is not limited by what we can fully understand or makes sense in our human understanding … Jesus tells us something profound and we believe -even though it defies the logic and science of our day … Born of a Virgin, Resurrection from the Dead, God-Man, Two Natures - Human and Divine, Trinity and Eucharist … all of these defy human understanding and logic … all fail to follow the rules of nature … but we believe

You want to confine God, you want to make Jesus small and limited … We accept that Jesus wants to give us the Everlasting Manna from Heaven - Himself … to sustain us and strengthen us…to share with us His Sacrifice on Calvary - to be present at the foot of the Cross with his Mother Mary and John whim He loved …

 

[slh3016]

What kind of problem?
I do beleive there are authorities , but I dont beleive in infalibility, authorities are necesary

No infallibility?

So the apostles and writers of the NT had no infallibility? I believe even most mainline Protestants believe that:shrug: Otherwise, how can we trust the validity of their writings and/or what the Bible even says?

If no authorities are infallible, then how could they solve any doctrinal issues? What you are describing is anarchy, which is EXACTLY what you have in Protestantism

So, Marcos, as others have already asked you NUMEROUS times, and you keep dodging the questions, if two Christians read the same passage of Scripture but come to differing opinions and beliefs about what it means, where do they go for the final word on what it means? If Jesus didn’t institute a Church that is protected by the power of the Holy Spirit (the grace of infallibility) then how can anyone today know what the original teachings of Christ and/or the meaning of Scripture really are?

(Remember: You can’t say Scripture is left up to private interpretation because you just said that you don’t believe in infallibility, which means you could be wrong )

 

[Marcos100]

Please Marcos …Stop … please take a step back from your non-Catholic novel interpretation and contemplate on this passage without your bias …

If Jesus merely meant a metaphorical meaning He would have stopped reiterating it … He would not have said it over and over again …

And when He re-empathized it so strongly with ever more increasingly literal/physical language which the hearers and those who came immediately after did as well [you cannot eat of a symbolic/metaphor and cause yourself death] it message stops being one of metaphor and becomes something the believer in Christ needs to seriously consider …

This is a hard teaching … this is something that makes the mind balk …

We are physical people, who live and worship Christ - not just with our minds but with our bodies, our actions and our souls …

We will live forever and never thirst and hunger … our understanding is not limited by what we can fully understand or makes sense in our human understanding … Jesus tells us something profound and we believe -even though it defies the logic and science of our day … Born of a Virgin, Resurrection from the Dead, God-Man, Two Natures - Human and Divine, Trinity and Eucharist … all of these defy human understanding and logic … all fail to follow the rules of nature … but we believe

You want to confine God, you want to make Jesus small and limited … We accept that Jesus wants to give us the Everlasting Manna from Heaven - Himself … to sustain us and strengthen us…to share with us His Sacrifice on Calvary - to be present at the foot of the Cross with his Mother Mary and John whim He loved …

You are denying the teaching, he reitarated what he taught.…

All physical language can be used for symbolic language. they decievded you. The jews wrongly asked Jesus literal bread. And Jesus didnt give them Literal bread. but he told them to come to him and beleive in Him.

 

[slh3016]

C"mon, you make it more complicted that it really is .

Really?!?! I’m complicating it?

Take a look in the mirror, Marcos…I’m taking Jesus at HIS words, which say:

John 6:33 “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world”

John 6:35 “I am the bread of life.”

John 6:41 “I am the bread that came down from heaven”

John 6:48 “I am the bread of life.”

John 6:51 “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.”

John 6:53-55 “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever, eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Again, as I’ve said to you before, you are wagering and you are wagering against:

• Jesus’s actual words
• The practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians
• The writings of the early church fathers
• The unanimous teaching and practice of all Christians for the first 1,500 years
• The continued practice and belief of the MAJORITY of all Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, and even some Protestants) for the last 2,000 years

That’s not a risk I’m willing to take

 

[slh3016]

You are denying the teaching, he reitarated what he taught.…

All physical language can be used for symbolic language. they decievded you. The jews wrongly asked Jesus literal bread. And Jesus didnt give them Literal bread. but he told them to come to him and beleive in Him.

Marcos, I’m not sure why you have such a hard time accepting that Jesus can work through something “physical” and “material” to impart grace to His followers and believers. That’s what the sacraments of the Catholic Church are. We are created physical beings and God knows that our very nature connects with things that are physical, because that’s how we are made. We exist in a physical world. We believe that the Eucharist is how Christ connects and communes with us and us with Him.

Think about this…when Jesus healed the blind man in John 9, what did He do first? Did he just declare the man healed? No, but He could have. What then did He do? Well, He spat into the ground and made a salve to put on the man’s eyes and told him to go wash it off and voila! The man was healed.

So, what healed the man? Was it Christ or was it the mud or was it the grace of Christ working through the mud?

If you answer Christ, yes, you are partially right, but then why would Christ have made a salve?

If you say the salve of mud, again, you are partially right, but we all know that a salve of mud could not have healed the man entirely of its own merit.

Therefore, the obvious answer is that the grace of God/Christ worked through the salve to heal the man, just as the bread and wine are the medium (a/k/a host) that is used to literally impart Christ during the Eucharist.

The beautiful thing about Catholicism in contrast to Protestantism is that Protestantism is like a lake that is only an inch deep in regards to spiritual truths. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is like the entire ocean.

 

[Marcos100]

Really?!?! I’m complicating it?

Take a look in the mirror, Marcos…I’m taking Jesus at HIS words, which say:

John 6:33 “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world”

John 6:35 “I am the bread of life.”

John 6:41 “I am the bread that came down from heaven”

John 6:48 “I am the bread of life.”

John 6:51 “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.”

John 6:53-55 “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever, eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Again, as I’ve said to you before, you are wagering and you are wagering against:

• Jesus’s actual words
• The practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians
• The writings of the early church fathers
• The unanimous teaching and practice of all Christians for the first 1,500 years
• The continued practice and belief of the MAJORITY of all Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, and even some Protestants) for the last 2,000 years

That’s not a risk I’m willing to take

John 6:33 "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world"

why cant you see it??? He was already giving life !!! when??? when people came to Him and beleive in Him.

 

[Marcos100]

I dont want to give up on you guys, with Gods grace. I have been a catholic for 20 years I know how you feel. they teaching in context is clear, go again back to seminar and start studying alegories and metaphors , Jesus loved to use them ALL the time. By the way the last supper is not related,

 

[slh3016]

John 6:33 "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world"

why cant you see it??? He was already giving life !!! when??? when people came to Him and beleive in Him.

No, why can’t you see it? You interpretation would require the verse to read, “For the bread of God is he WHO HAS COME or WHO CAMEdown from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Since Jesus uses the present tense verbs “comes” and “gives”, your interpretation doesn’t work (apologists, correct me if I’m wrong).

Your interpretation would require a past tense of “comes” which would be either “came” or “has come” if Jesus was talking about the here and now because, obviously, He was already on the earth at that exact moment. This verb tense implies that Jesus is talking of some future event in which He comes down from heaven (as the bread) and gives life to the world (i.e., at every Eucharist). You can’t mix up your verb tenses.

 

[juliamajor]

I dont want to give up on you guys, with Gods grace. I have been a catholic for 20 years I know how you feel. they teaching in context is clear, go again back to seminar and start studying alegories and metaphors , Jesus loved to use them ALL the time. By the way the last supper is not relatelid,

Could you be more insulting?.what I despise about some Protestant groups is that teach you hate the past faith. To me that’s so wrong and because it gives you the righteous thing to hate Catholics and sow seeds of discrimination, self-righteousnes and smug pride.(You guys are stupid,you know nothing etc. That is a sin of pride. You flaunt you bona fides-- so let’s hear about them.? If you read scripture you have to have introspection. You can’t parrot , you have to look to yourself and not justify your own viewpoints without looking deep inside yourself.
Humility before the Lord.He loves you but you have to have a humble servants heart. Admit missteps, remember when you didn’t act as a servant and that you didn’t act with love.
Doing anything with complete love elevates any thing you do,to A prayer . Without love
All you do is meaningless , because you are not really doing it for God or his children, you are doing it for yourself.
Love does and always cover a multitude of sins.

 

[slh3016]

No, why can’t you see it? You interpretation would require the verse to read, “For the bread of God is he WHO HAS COME or WHO CAMEdown from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Since Jesus uses the present tense verbs “comes” and “gives”, your interpretation doesn’t work (apologists, correct me if I’m wrong).

Your interpretation would require a past tense of “comes” which would be either “came” or “has come” if Jesus was talking about the here and now because, obviously, He was already on the earth at that exact moment. This verb tense implies that Jesus is talking of some future event in which He comes down from heaven (as the bread) and gives life to the world (i.e., at every Eucharist). You can’t mix up your verb tenses.

Okay, after rethinking my response, I realized that I may have misspoke or misrepresented John 6:33. In light of other verses in the passage, Jesus obviously “IS” the bread of life currently in that exact moment, but what I was trying to say is that they is likely a dual meaning in the verb tenses used in John 6 since, of course, one could not partake of Jesus’s body at that exact moment because it had not been offered yet as the sin offering for the world. The world was still under the old covenant, which included the Jewish Passover.

Therefore, John 6:33 also implicates that at some time in the future, Jesus will come down from heaven and will be (literally and figuratively) the bread of life, which I understand to mean the Eucharist, which is offered every day around the world thousands of times. Partaking in the Eucharist is participating in the reality of the eternal Passover, not merely symbolizing it.

I also would like to ask regarding your comment about being a Catholic for 20 years. Does that mean you converted to Catholicism and then later left again, or were you raised in the faith and left as a young adult? It would help to know what past influences have guided your thinking.

 

[fasolislithuan]

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.

Universal rules of interpretation? :ehh: During a half and a thousand of years the only universal rule was the infallibility of the Apostolic Church, that’s the only interpretation and the only rule.

What about the millions and millions of illiterates, peasants of the pre-printing ages without possibility to acces any printed Bible or scholars’ interpretations? The only God’s word they heard were the catholic priest’s preachings and their interpretation rule was the Catholic Church Magisterium. What about the christians during the first fourth centuries when there isn’t a Bible? Nobody has a Bible (the Bible was established and canonized in the 4th Century), but many christians were witnesses and martyrs of Christ because they perfectly knew God’s word by the Catholic Church and its bishops and priests. This was their universal rule of interpretation and it looks it worked pretty well for them.

Your universal rules of interpretation are only a protestant pipe dream fiction without any historical support. Your interpretation of John 6 is only a four centuries interpretation with sporadic antecedents in some heretical and gnostics sects condemned by the Early Church and by the Church Fathers.

Your “universal” rules of interpretation are a post-modern and post-printing tool when all people can acces easily to the Bible or the scholars’ interpretations. But I see you say: you don’t believe in infallibility because you only have in your hands a fallible interpretation of the Bible based in fallible rules. I prefer to trust in the infallibility of the Apostolic Church promised by Jesus.

 

[Marcos100]

Universal rules of interpretation? :ehh: During a half and a thousand of years the only universal rule was the infallibility of the Apostolic Church, that’s the only interpretation and the only rule.

What about the millions and millions of illiterates, peasants of the pre-printing ages without possibility to acces any printed Bible or scholars’ interpretations? The only God’s word they heard were the catholic priest’s preachings and their interpretation rule was the Catholic Church Magisterium. What about the christians during the first fourth centuries when there isn’t a Bible? Nobody has a Bible (the Bible was established and canonized in the 4th Century), but many christians were witnesses and martyrs of Christ because they perfectly knew God’s word by the Catholic Church and its bishops and priests. This was their universal rule of interpretation and it looks it worked pretty well for them.

Your universal rules of interpretation are only a protestant pipe dream fiction without any historical support. Your interpretation of John 6 is only a four centuries interpretation with sporadic antecedents in some heretical and gnostics sects condemned by the Early Church and by the Church Fathers.

Your “universal” rules of interpretation are a post-modern and post-printing tool when all people can acces easily to the Bible or the scholars’ interpretations. But I see you say: you don’t believe in infallibility because you only have in your hands a fallible interpretation of the Bible based in fallible rules. I prefer to trust in the infallibility of the Apostolic Church promised by Jesus.

once you know the rules of interpreation are common sense rules,

 

[slh3016]

once you know the rules of interpreation are common sense rules,

Why don’t you list them and their source, please. That way we’re all on the same page

 

[10gr8kids]

once you know the rules of interpreation are common sense rules,

Common sense should tell you that doesn’t work. If it did we wouldn’t have so many people who read the Bible alone and don’t agree on what it teaches.

Baptism is necessary/not
Communion every week/once a year
Musical instruments/no musiical instruments
Women preachers/no women preachers
OSAS/possible to lose salvation
Clapping hands in church is sinful/Spirit filled dancing in the aisle

This list could go on and on. I know many Protestants and even within their own churches they don’t agree about everything. One thing I do believe is that they all sincerely believe that they have the correct interpretation and are sincerely trying to do the right thing.