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.
I only need to see those Marcos’ “universal rules” but it looks that this thing actually doesn’t work in the protestant theology, because it’s pretty clear that the protestant churchs are incapable to agree in any aspect of the biblical interpretation. So perhaps those universal rules exist in the Reform universe, although the protestants are unable to show us. And the question is: if those rules exist I ask myself where in the Bible it says which are those universal rules, who has the autorithy to use them, how should use them, etc… :hmmm:.

It looks again Sola Scriptura is an erratic tool that only works by means of extrabiblical supplements. When protestant need to explain how the Bible canon should be discerned they know Sola Scriptura is insufficient and they have to resort to extrabiblical criterions to accept or reject many books as God-breathed. When they need to interpret Scriptura they need to resort to extrabiblical “universal rules” to discern the truth on God’s word. Sola Scriptura is a worthless 16th century innovation unable to stand as sole rule, it needs constant feeds and accretions (extrabiblical criterions, universal rules,etc…) to sustain as an useful rule. This only shows the protestant theology is an artificial constructo. And the worst of all is that Jesus and the apostles never mentioned those criterions and universal rules.

The only universal rule that I know is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It’s visible, it’s accesible to everyone and the best of all is infallible, because Christ promised it to his apostles.
 
to ALL people in this forum,
you have to read my wirtings and you have not to read my writings.,
you have the right to answer my post and you have the right not to answer my posts.

If you want me to be expelled from this debate forum just because I repeated some points before it is not up to you, if you want me to censor me (but I have been a gentleman) the debate forum has to decide. but allow m to tell you something LOVE TELL THE TRUTH.
God bless you all.

Marcos
 
I miss my friend Robin, where is she? I love to discuss with her so much :hug3:

we dont agree though.
 
There is a difference with the literal mana and host host, the host cant cease you physical hunger and the host cant sustain your physical life,even taken daily… but the literal food mana can do both things. Read please the part of the mana and the people of Israel.

Now, there are people who are pointing John 6.51 , allow me to give you some insight.

51 “the bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh” – Bread is a figure of speech but He defines it for us here – Jesus says it is “My flesh” – Does He mean literal flesh? In this context, I think He does – Jesus was fully God but became “God con carne” God in the Flesh – He had to become flesh in order to be a sacrifice (all the OT sacrifices were of animal flesh but they all pointed to the Lamb of God, the final, perfect, sinless sacrifice). So when He was hung on the Cross, He was hung in the flesh and by His flesh (nails in the flesh of His hands and feet held Him on the Cross) . There He was the sacrifice for the sins of the world. But what did sinners have to do? They had to receive His gift (of His sacrifice for sins), to believe in Him. Just as a hungry man needed to eat bread, sinners needed to take into their being (by grace through faith) His provision.
 
I realize that you believe you are the Pope of your belief - you feel you are the final arbiter of what is Truth … But others have studied and read and understand the Scriptures with far greater education then you … What are your credentials?

I think that you are denying the fullness of the Christian faith - You do not fully comprehend the scriptures … no matter how many times you stomp your foot and say you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Jesus said that His Flesh was … not merely food, not metaphorical food … But TRUE FOOD INDEED … and His Blood was not mere drink, not metaphorical drink , But TRUE DRINK INDEED …

I have read and studied the Scriptures … I understand parables and metaphors and symbolic language … I do not read this passage as you do … not because the Church told me what the passage means … I - of my own intellect have read the passage - in context and with other passages that address this same topic … I do not believe that you are correct - I believe that I am …

So here we are … AGAIN I ask you

Marcos says it is a metaphor …

Yada says it is the Eucharist - it is Jesus - who gives us His Body and Blood in the Eucharist … that John is connected to the Last Supper - that it has to be real because Paul tells us that if we eat this Bread and Wine without discerning the Body and Blood we eat and drink it to our death and place our very salvation in jeopardy and the words of a mere metaphor with a symbolic eating of mere bread and wine cannot make a person sick or die.

Now Marcos … PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION

Why should any reader here take your position over mine? Where does one go to get the definitive answer on who is right? … do they believe you? Or me? or any number of other posters that have offered and interpretation?.. Where do we settle this once and for all?

Where does the Scriptures direct the Christian to seek this “Truth” that is not so obvious if Marcos and Yada read the same passage but understand it differently and after discussing it cannot agree?
 
Marcos100 said:
I miss my friend Robin, where is she? I love to discuss with her so much :hug3:

we dont agree though.
Click to expand...
Hey Marcos, my friend. I missed you too. 🙂 Sorry for being absent for so long. Came down with a fever on Tuesday and have pretty much been in bed since. Finally feel good enough to type today.

Anyways, I haven’t had time to read every post so I’ll just respond to the one addressed to me for now.
Marcos100 said:
The Jews asked for (what they thoughot was ) physical bread, demonstrating that they did not understand that Jesus was giving them an earthly metaphor for a spiritual truth. Jesus’ response was to define the metaphor, his opening remarks were:

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).

We eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood (Jn. 6:53) when we come to him and
believe on him.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with this interpretation is the ‘‘drink my blood’’ part. If, as you say, all Jesus is doing is confirming his metaphor of being the bread of life, why does he mention this drink my blood thing? How does drinking blood fit in with that metaphor? What connection does blood have with bread? Sure, he says ‘‘he who believes in me will never be thirsty,’’ but there was absolutely no need to bring his blood into the discussion if he’s not even really talking about a physical reality. He could have done what he did with the Samaritan woman and compared believing in him with living water if his point was just to talk about a spiritual reality. That metaphor would have made much more sense.

Do you see my point here? It doesn’t make sense in context to say that in verse 53 Jesus is only repeating the metaphor that he made in verse 35. There’s just no connection between drinking blood and him being the (merely metaphorical and spiritual) bread of life.
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." There is no literal eating at all.
Click to expand...
For the record, we don’t believe Jesus becomes the bread of life either. Of course Jesus was the bread of life right at that moment. He’s also the Bread of Life right now. We don’t believe HE becomes the Bread of Life in the Eucharist, we believe the bread used in the Eucharist becomes the true bread of life from Heaven, Jesus Christ himself. That’s an important distinction to make I think.

Besides, the fact that Jesus didn’t institute the Eucharist right then and there doesn’t mean he wasn’t speaking literally. Jesus also said ‘‘I am the resurrection and the life’’ even though he hadn’t yet risen from the dead and conquered death. But you know as well as I that he wasn’t speaking merely metaphorically there.
Jesus responds telling them that only a person who beleives that Jesus is the Son of God will be saved, and that he is indeed the “bread of life”. He reapeated several times that eternal life comes through beleiving. As someone said it “How many times does Jesus need to say it?”
Click to expand...
We are not denying that we need to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. Faith is critical. But that’s not all that is required of us. We also have to be ‘‘born again’’ and keep the commandments. And eat his flesh and drink his blood. Your argument is that eating his flesh and drinking his blood IS just believing in him, but as I explained above, that just doesn’t work. Once again, if John 6:35 is really the whole point of Jesus’ discourse, then there was no need for him to go any further. And yet, not only does he go farther than he needs to, he makes such a radical shift in language that to say he’s still only talking about faith makes no sense of the context.
With just the host it wont satisfied your physical hunger not will sustain you with physical life, even taken daily. So what it means “food indeed” if it doesnt neet the characteristics of physical food?
Click to expand...
This doesn’t prove that Jesus can’t have been talking about real food. Why can’t something be physical AND sustain us with spiritual life? Can’t God use matter as conduits of grace? In fact, He can! That’s exactly what happened in the Incarnation right?

(And by the way, there actually have been cases where a person is sustained in their physical life solely by consuming the Eucharist. So there’s also that.😉 )

I don’t know Marcos. For me, when Jesus says something is real, I just don’t see how that actually means symbolic. What you’re saying he actually said is ‘‘my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink…but when I say ‘‘real’’ I actually mean metaphorical because what I’m really talking about is believing in me.’’ It makes more sense just to take Jesus at his words here. He’s telling us He’s talking about real food, which means we really have to eat. :yup:
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
***Several posts have been removed.

Please stay on topic and keep it civil.***
 
Ok, It doesn’t change anything because it is one person’s *fallible *interpretation of John 6 and the Eucharist.

The article is full of bias and is incomplete in its exegesis on 99% of all points asserted.

It’s based on the faulty logic of Sola Scriptura because the practice of the earliest Christians PROVE what the earliest church believed and practiced. Remember, they didn’t have a Bible to go by. They had the words of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles to go by.

Basically, you have asserted every claim made in that article, which again, is faulty and fallible. It also means that you are simply parroting the words of someone else, who again is a fallible human being. There is nothing new or enlightening in that article that has not already been asserted and debunked in the last 500 years and more specifically, on this very thread. Also, ironically, you are allowing the person who wrote this article to be your Pope! You are forsaking the God-given authority of Christ’s Church for the man-made authority of this person.

That’s really what it boils down to: authority.

You still have not answered the questions of where Christians should turn when they are in disagreement 🤷

Please state book, chapter, and verse.
 
I read your article the first time you posted it a few days ago. One thing it says in the article is that Catholics believe Christ is ever suffering and dying each time the priest consecrates the wafer. (paraphrasing). This is not what we believe. And remember in Revelation Jesus appears as a Lamb having been slain. Here is a good article about that
catholic.com/tracts/the-institution-of-the-mass
from the article
The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is “an unbloody manner”—one that does not involve a new crucifixion.*
Click to expand...
What I find most interesting though, is that you say you do not agree with every point they make. So who is wrong; you, them, or maybe both? Are we all suppose to just muddle through and hope we are the only person who TRULY understands what God is teaching us through His word? I don’t know two people who follow the Bible alone theory that agrees with exactly everything the Bible teaches. This is why we have so many different beliefs following the Bible alone. You can say all you want that you know the correct way to interpret the passages using commonsense, but that doesn’t change the fact that many others claim the same thing. Where do I turn to find the Truth? I believe it is the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, not you, not myself.

This is a pretty simple question that has an answer. One,from my experience, that most Protestants don’t want to answer, I think, because they don’t like the answer. If I am wrong, please correct me and give us your answer that we having been asking for for the last ten pages. If your answer is the commonsense rules please let me know what these rules are, and where they are found in the Bible. Thank you
 
Marcos100 said:
hey apparently the article has been erased while all catholcis artciles remained, I demand explanation.
Click to expand...
Demand away Marcos … Not sure what you are complaining about …

Your link to the anti-Catholic 😦 Eternal Productions web page article on the Eucharist is still linked …

Perhaps if you really wanted to persuade Catholics - you would engage in real scholarship and real biblical exegesis … but that I is not you point is it … 🤷

Your point seems to be posting information from an anti-Catholic site and demand that we all understand how much brighter you are then we … :confused:

You still have not answered my question - nor any of the others that asked the same question of you …

Why should any reader here take your position over mine? Where does one go to get the definitive answer on who is right? … do they believe you? Or me? or any number of other posters that have offered and interpretation?.. Where do we settle this once and for all?

Where does the Scriptures direct the Christian to seek “Truth”?

You read and interpret the scriptures and I read and interpret the scriptures - if we have vastly different understandings of the passage … both being inspired by the Holy Spirit - who is guiding us in the in our relationship with Jesus … Where can we go to figure out what the Truth is?

Did Jesus leave the Church bereft of ever determining what the “Truth” is?
 
When Chistians say, spiritual, in most contexts they mean non-physical, but a spiritual reality; Very real.
But most catholics get it wrong, they think: spiritual= symbolic, lacking reality. So once for all get it right.🤷
 
Marcos100 said:
When Chistians say, spiritual, in most contexts they mean non-physical, but a spiritual reality; Very real.
But most catholics get it wrong, they think: spiritual= symbolic. So once for all get it right.🤷
Click to expand...
Please explain how you think this applies to this conversation. Don’t make blanket statements with no examples to support them. 🤷

Also, are you saying that Christians and Catholics are mutually exclusive?

Thank you!
 
Marcos100 said:
When Chistians say, spiritual, in most contexts they mean non-physical, but a spiritual reality; Very real.
But most catholics get it wrong, they think: spiritual= symbolic, lacking reality. So once for all get it right.🤷
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, this really confuses me. 🤷 Can you please give me an example of what you are claiming. What is spiritual that Catholics think lack reality?

ETA: sorry to be redundant, I see this question was already asked. Sometimes I’m glad to see I’m not the only one lost though. 😉

Don’t forget Marcos, you are the one that said this…
Marcos100 said:
in the Last supper it is obvious that the bread and wine were a symbol of himself
Click to expand...
 
Marcos100 said:
When Chistians say, spiritual, in most contexts they mean non-physical, but a spiritual reality; Very real.
But most catholics get it wrong, they think: spiritual= symbolic, lacking reality. So once for all get it right.🤷
Click to expand...
If you want to debate you must communicate . Define and explain what you mean.
In the East ( where all major religions started) alternate realities were just that - realities of spiritual nature not mixing with the mundane everyday think. Visions are just as real and just as important as anything in the physical world. The hardening of lines between what is real and not real is mostly western scientific and dogmatic.
Visions are part and parcel of Catholicism. Our saints have them, prophets had them, and to many people that what is experienced spiritually has just as much if not more reality-because it speaks the truth of the heart ,untouched by anything physical.
Moses speaking with God face to face is a vision, a spiritual reality .yet it was profound ,deep and a world changing. How real is that?
40.png
10gr8kids:
Don’t forget Marcos, you are the one that said this…
Click to expand...
One verse doesn’t just mean one thing. Jesus was speaking about the physical part of himself as well as the spiritual. One does not preclude the other. There is depth in scripture and just one simplistic view won’t cut it.
 
40.png
juliamajor:
One verse doesn’t just mean one thing. Jesus was speaking about the physical part of himself as well as the spiritual. One does not preclude the other. There is depth in scripture and just one simplistic view won’t cut it.
Click to expand...
Yeah you are right in part, but the text itself ins going to tell us if it is one way or 2 ways.
40.png
juliamajor:
One verse doesn’t just mean one thing. Jesus was speaking about the physical part of himself as well as the spiritual. One does not preclude the other. There is depth in scripture and just one simplistic view won’t cut it.
Click to expand...
ok we both agree in the spiritual sense, but we disagree in the literal sense , lets talk.
 
40.png
Marcos100:
ok we both agree in the spiritual sense, but we disagree in the literal sense , lets talk.
Click to expand...
I think we’ve all been trying to “talk” to you about this 🤷

You say one thing and we say another, so there’s no amount of “talking” that is going to resolve the difference of opinions……so, Marcos, again, for like the 100th time, where should we turn for the CORRECT interpretation of John 6?

Please quote book, chapter, and verse. It’s not that hard of a question to answer :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top