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 am a Catholic convert (2011) and truly believe that Jesus is substantially present–Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. When we receive the Eucharist we receive the glorified Jesus of the resurrection.

I do wonder about this question–I don’t know if it can be specifically answered because the Eucharist is indeed a mystery–how does substantial presence differ from physical presence and from spiritual presence?

I know that our soul is spirit and that man is body and spirit. In the Eucharist we receive Jesus’ soul in a SUBSTANTIAL way. How is that different from a spiritual way?

The way I like to think about it–and I know this may not be right or precise is that everything has a accidental presence which is what we can see and measure–that is the physical–and a substantial presence–which is what something truly is–in other words its very essence.

When we receive Jesus in a SUBSTANTIAL way we are receiving the very ESSENCE of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. I tend to think of that in more of a REAL sense than a physical or spiritual sense.

We can see a path for example when we walk somewhere. We can walk by faith which is not by sight but at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. If we walked in a SUBSTANTIAL way we would be seeing the path as the Holy Spirit sees it–I’m not saying we would be equal with the Holy Spirit for He is God but that God would allow us in a small way to SEE without sight and yet not blindly see as if by faith.

In other words it is almost like SUBSTANTIAL reality is a different mode of reality to what we see in everyday life–it is REALITY as REAL as REALITY can ever be!

The reason I think that Jesus gave us the Eucharist is so that we could be as personally close to Him as possible because He loves us–wants to perfect us and wants us to be with Him like that in Heaven.

All I really know is that Jesus said “This IS my Body and this IS my Blood”. If Jesus said it it must be true. If the Catholic Church which he gave authority to says that the elements of bread and wine are transubstantialy changed to His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity then I certainly BELIEVE what Jesus’ Church says!

And I know you can’t depend upon feelings when it comes to the Eucharist–all I know from a personal viewpoint is that when I in a state of grace receive the Eucharist I feel closer to Jesus and more in love and peace than at in other point in my life.

Some Protestants speak of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. What they really mean is SPIRITUAL relationship with Jesus Christ. We as Catholics certainly have that but we have more than that–we have a SUBSTANTIAL Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity presence with Jesus Christ. That is as CLOSE as you can be to Jesus–that is like Heaven on Earth!

Jesus loved us so much that He died for us on the Cross and “in his Body” as the scriptures say bore the sins of the whole world. He never sinned but in His humanity I believe that He felt like what we feel like when we have sinned–not in a sense of Him sinning because He never sinned and was always in communion with his Father but in a sense of empathy and solidarity with us. He shared in our sorrows and our afflictions, diseases, and pain.

And after that He loved us enough to let himself all over the world be contained SUBSTANTIALLY in the hosts of consecrated bread and wine so that we could EAT Him! Nothing can be more intimate, nourishing, and loving that that.

And belief in the Eucharist is the ULTIMATE test of faith. To believe in the Eucharist you have to go beyond what you sense physically. You also have to surrender to what Jesus said and to what His Church teaches.

I’m so thankful for Jesus dying for us on the Cross and for him giving us Himself in the Eucharist and for giving His Catholic Church the authority to teach about what the Eucharist truly means!

If I have been wrong about some of these points here please correct me–one thing
I love about the Catholic faith is that you never stop learning more about the Truth which is Jesus Christ Himself!
 
All that is required is the Holy Book, the Holy Spirit and a humble, teachable heart.
Click to expand...
According to this^^^ I really don’t need the website you linked to, so thanks anyway.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
I am a Catholic convert (2011) and truly believe that Jesus is substantially present–Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. When we receive the Eucharist we receive the glorified Jesus of the resurrection.

I do wonder about this question–I don’t know if it can be specifically answered because the Eucharist is indeed a mystery–how does substantial presence differ from physical presence and from spiritual presence?

I know that our soul is spirit and that man is body and spirit. In the Eucharist we receive Jesus’ soul in a SUBSTANTIAL way. How is that different from a spiritual way?

The way I like to think about it–and I know this may not be right or precise is that everything has a accidental presence which is what we can see and measure–that is the physical–and a substantial presence–which is what something truly is–in other words its very essence.

When we receive Jesus in a SUBSTANTIAL way we are receiving the very ESSENCE of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. I tend to think of that in more of a REAL sense than a physical or spiritual sense.

We can see a path for example when we walk somewhere. We can walk by faith which is not by sight but at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. If we walked in a SUBSTANTIAL way we would be seeing the path as the Holy Spirit sees it–I’m not saying we would be equal with the Holy Spirit for He is God but that God would allow us in a small way to SEE without sight and yet not blindly see as if by faith.

In other words it is almost like SUBSTANTIAL reality is a different mode of reality to what we see in everyday life–it is REALITY as REAL as REALITY can ever be!

The reason I think that Jesus gave us the Eucharist is so that we could be as personally close to Him as possible because He loves us–wants to perfect us and wants us to be with Him like that in Heaven.

All I really know is that Jesus said “This IS my Body and this IS my Blood”. If Jesus said it it must be true. If the Catholic Church which he gave authority to says that the elements of bread and wine are transubstantialy changed to His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity then I certainly BELIEVE what Jesus’ Church says!

And I know you can’t depend upon feelings when it comes to the Eucharist–all I know from a personal viewpoint is that when I in a state of grace receive the Eucharist I feel closer to Jesus and more in love and peace than at in other point in my life.

Some Protestants speak of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. What they really mean is SPIRITUAL relationship with Jesus Christ. We as Catholics certainly have that but we have more than that–we have a SUBSTANTIAL Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity presence with Jesus Christ. That is as CLOSE as you can be to Jesus–that is like Heaven on Earth!

Jesus loved us so much that He died for us on the Cross and “in his Body” as the scriptures say bore the sins of the whole world. He never sinned but in His humanity I believe that He felt like what we feel like when we have sinned–not in a sense of Him sinning because He never sinned and was always in communion with his Father but in a sense of empathy and solidarity with us. He shared in our sorrows and our afflictions, diseases, and pain.

And after that He loved us enough to let himself all over the world be contained SUBSTANTIALLY in the hosts of consecrated bread and wine so that we could EAT Him! Nothing can be more intimate, nourishing, and loving that that.

And belief in the Eucharist is the ULTIMATE test of faith. To believe in the Eucharist you have to go beyond what you sense physically. You also have to surrender to what Jesus said and to what His Church teaches.

I’m so thankful for Jesus dying for us on the Cross and for him giving us Himself in the Eucharist and for giving His Catholic Church the authority to teach about what the Eucharist truly means!

If I have been wrong about some of these points here please correct me–one thing
I love about the Catholic faith is that you never stop learning more about the Truth which is Jesus Christ Himself!
Click to expand...
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 Simile says “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.

From a small interpretational error one can build a huge building of false doctrine
 
THE LAST SUPPER CATHOLIC VIEW.

When Jesus instituted the Church ordinance of the Lord’s Supper or Communion at His “Last Supper,” He made some statements that the Roman Catholic Church has taken to be a literal saying.

And when He had taken some bread and 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.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.** (Luke 22:19-20)**

This saying, or something similar to it, is given in three of the four gospels and in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.2 In all accounts, Jesus is quoted as saying, “this is My body” referring to the unleavened bread and “this is My blood of the covenant” referring to the cup. However, it is obvious that from the situation that these words were not meant to be taken literally. How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood? Jesus told them to commemorate His sacrifice and New Covenant by using the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood.

John Chapter 6: Unrelated to the Last Supper

In 6 of John’s Gospel, we must realize that this chapter does
not deal directly with the Last Supper, or with the doctrine of the Eucharist. That’s
worth repeating. John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Last Supper! Remember,
Jesus had neither bread nor wine in this narrative. He never even mentions wine and
there is no altar either. And while proponents of transubstantiation often refer to
these verses to support their doctrine, nowhere in this chapter does Jesus give the
disciples instruction on how to celebrate Communion, nor is the Last Supper
described here. Therefore we must acknowledge that this is a separate event.
John deals with the Last Supper starting in chapter 13, but chapter 6 is a separate
subject. In chapter 6, Jesus never even alludes to a procedure to follow concerning
the Communion meal, nor does He tell His disciples to institute a priesthood that
will consecrate bread and turn it into His literal flesh. Nor does He teach here or
anywhere in the Bible, to worship His body and blood under the appearance of
bread.

John Chapter 13

In the thirteenth chapter of John’s Gospel, the events of the Last Supper are
given. In verses 2 and 4 we read— “And supper being ended…[Jesus] rose from
supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself.” So we see
that by this time in John’s account Jesus had already blessed the bread, broke it and
said, “This is My body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19).
What is interesting in John’s account of the Last Supper, is that after Jesus
blessed the bread and said, “This is My body,” He referred to the blessed and
consecrated bread as mere bread. Verse 26 states: “Jesus answered, ‘It is he whom I
shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.’ And having dipped the bread, He
gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.” Did Jesus lose track of what He was
doing? Did He misspeak? No. According to Jesus’ own words, the bread remained
bread even after being blessed.
In fact, John chapter 13 mentions bread five times. In each case, the blessed bread
is referred to as plain bread. 18 For instance, in verse 27 we read—“Now after the
piece of bread, Satan entered him [Judas].” The Word of God tells us that Satan
entered Judas right after receiving the bread. There in no indication that John
believed in or taught transubstantiation.
In the thirteenth chapter of John’s Gospel, the events of the Last Supper are
given. In verses 2 and 4 we read— “And supper being ended…[Jesus] rose from
supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself.” So we see
that by this time in John’s account Jesus had already blessed the bread, broke it and
said, “This is My body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19).
What is interesting in John’s account of the Last Supper, is that after Jesus
blessed the bread and said, “This is My body,” He referred to the blessed and
consecrated bread as mere bread. Verse 26 states: “Jesus answered, ‘It is he whom I
shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.’ And having dipped the bread, He
gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.” Did Jesus lose track of what He was
doing? Did He misspeak? No. According to Jesus’ own words, the bread remained
bread even after being blessed.
In fact, John chapter 13 mentions bread five times. In each case, the blessed bread
is referred to as plain bread. 18 For instance, in verse 27 we read—“Now after the
piece of bread, Satan entered him [Judas].” The Word of God tells us that Satan
entered Judas right after receiving the bread. There in no indication that John
believed in or taught transubstantiation.

If Roman Catholic intepretation is true , that means Jesus sacrificed himself BEFORE going to the cross. That the bread is His literal body and at the same time His literal body be there is not possible. Jesus was limited to one place in space while in his human condition .
 
Marcos100 said:
I have been asked several times the rules for interpreting the Bible, well it is about time to share with you. I read the rules forum and they allow to put webpage adreeses so I am going to exercise that right at the end of the post

…

preceptaustin.org/inductive_bible_study.htm
."
Click to expand...
Good Friday Blessings Marcos - Thanks for the link - very interesting reading there -And it explains a lot about how you arrived at your interpretation …

What you fail to recognize in this systematic - inductive only method you utilize to the exclusion of all other tools is that you take leaps in the narrative you build … many of which posters have tried to point out to you … and your interpretation refuses to allow your mind to grasp the alternative … and leaves you with only your limited process and the narrow picture it provides of the Eternal Truth … a poverty of understanding something that is simultaneously the World’s most important Truth and Greatest Mystery … Jesus’ salvific action …

Jesus gave us His Body and Blood - that we might have life and that life abundantly … He was not merely speaking of our Faith - or our Belief … He was speaking to us on every level - Spiritually and Physically and probably in ways we cannot understand … Jesus’ gave us “Real Food and Real Drink” In fact he emphasized that physical reality …

It is a great mystery - and yet for 2000 years Christians have believed and partaken of that Heavenly Food and Drink in the Eucharist … St Paul cautions Christians [then and now] against consuming [physically eating] the Eucharist - the Bread and Wine without discerning the very Body and Blood of Christ lest they do so to their peril - a peril that includes becoming physically sick and even to their death … Eating something that is merely symbolic cannot make a person ill nor kill a person …

Your systematic method is useful, helpful and can offer enlightenment - but used solely and in isolation leaves one a impoverished understanding of Jesus and a relationship that is incomplete …

Pax Christi
 
Marcos100 said:
John Chapter 6: Unrelated to the Last Supper

In 6 of John’s Gospel, we must realize that this chapter does
not deal directly with the Last Supper, or with the doctrine of the Eucharist. That’s
worth repeating. John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Last Supper! Remember,
Jesus had neither bread nor wine in this narrative. He never even mentions wine and
there is no altar either. And while proponents of transubstantiation often refer to
these verses to support their doctrine, nowhere in this chapter does Jesus give the
disciples instruction on how to celebrate Communion, nor is the Last Supper
described here. Therefore we must acknowledge that this is a separate event.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry Marcos, but this is a non-sequitur. The fact that Jesus doesn’t have bread and wine in John 6, nor gives directions on how to celebrate communion does NOT lead to the conclusion that John 6 and the Last Supper have nothing to do with each other. In one, Jesus is emphasizing the importance of eating his flesh, in the other he shows us the way we are actually to do it. He had to give the teaching first before he could actually do it.

Making an assertion that they have nothing to do with each other doesn’t make it true. You still haven’t dealt with the obvious parallels I’ve mentioned that make the connection unavoidable. The biblical evidence is so overwhelming, that the only way I can see someone saying John 6 and the Last Supper are not connected is if their theology requires that. That’s not good exegesis. :nope:
John deals with the Last Supper starting in chapter 13, but chapter 6 is a separate
subject. In chapter 6, Jesus never even alludes to a procedure to follow concerning
the Communion meal, nor does He tell His disciples to institute a priesthood that
will consecrate bread and turn it into His literal flesh. Nor does He teach here or
anywhere in the Bible, to worship His body and blood under the appearance of
bread.
Click to expand...
So because he doesn’t say everything there is to say about the topic in John 6, that means there is no connection at all? Again that does not follow. I’d really like it if you would address the parallels I gave directly instead of giving these non-sequiturs. None of them disprove the Catholic position.
John Chapter 13
Click to expand...
In the thirteenth chapter of John’s Gospel, the events of the Last Supper are
given. In verses 2 and 4 we read— “And supper being ended…[Jesus] rose from
supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself.” So we see
that by this time in John’s account Jesus had already blessed the bread, broke it and
said, “This is My body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19).
What is interesting in John’s account of the Last Supper, is that after Jesus
blessed the bread and said, “This is My body,” He referred to the blessed and
consecrated bread as mere bread. Verse 26 states: “Jesus answered, ‘It is he whom I
shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.’ And having dipped the bread, He
gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.” Did Jesus lose track of what He was
doing? Did He misspeak? No. According to Jesus’ own words, the bread remained
bread even after being blessed.
In fact, John chapter 13 mentions bread five times. In each case, the blessed bread
is referred to as plain bread. 18 For instance, in verse 27 we read—“Now after the
piece of bread, Satan entered him [Judas].” The Word of God tells us that Satan
entered Judas right after receiving the bread. There in no indication that John
believed in or taught transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is incorrect. Read the other Last Supper accounts. They make clear that Jesus said what he said to Judas BEFORE he consecrated the bread and wine. So what John is recounting is pretty clearly what took place before the Institution of the Eucharist.
If Roman Catholic intepretation is true , that means Jesus sacrificed himself BEFORE going to the cross. That the bread is His literal body and at the same time His literal body be there is not possible. Jesus was limited to one place in space while in his human condition .
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is, Jesus in his human condition can’t perform a miracle that defies our limited understanding of time and space? So then, I guess he can’t have walked on water, since that’s not something we can do in our human condition either.

Marcos, what you are doing is trying to fit God into your understanding. You don’t see how he could do this, but that doesn’t mean he can’t:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The Eucharist IS a mystery Marcos. It takes faith to see. But like that website you gave us said ‘‘no (spoken) word from God (is) void of power.’’ What God says IS reality. His is the only word that can accomplish that. In fact, there’s no example in Scripture that I can find where God says something is and it really isn’t. When He says ‘‘your sins are forgiven’’ they really are forgiven. A change happens. When he tells the leper ‘‘you are clean’’ he becomes clean. ‘‘Lazarus come out!’’ and he comes out. Over and over we see God’s word causing something to be that wasn’t. And yet, when the very Word of God incarnate says something IS his body, He can’t possibly have accomplished that? Personally, I’m just going to take Jesus at his word.

It’s hard to understand. But so is the Trinity, so is the Incarnation. It doesn’t make sense to me to reject one teaching that’s hard but not the others.
 
Robyn_p said:
I’m sorry Marcos, but this is a non-sequitur. The fact that Jesus doesn’t have bread and wine in John 6, nor gives directions on how to celebrate communion does NOT lead to the conclusion that John 6 and the Last Supper have nothing to do with each other. In one, Jesus is emphasizing the importance of eating his flesh, in the other he shows us the way we are actually to do it. He had to give the teaching first before he could actually do it.

Making an assertion that they have nothing to do with each other doesn’t make it true. You still haven’t dealt with the obvious parallels I’ve mentioned that make the connection unavoidable. The biblical evidence is so overwhelming, that the only way I can see someone saying John 6 and the Last Supper are not connected is if their theology requires that. That’s not good exegesis. :nope:

So because he doesn’t say everything there is to say about the topic in John 6, that means there is no connection at all? Again that does not follow. I’d really like it if you would address the parallels I gave directly instead of giving these non-sequiturs. None of them disprove the Catholic position.

Actually, this is incorrect. Read the other Last Supper accounts. They make clear that Jesus said what he said to Judas BEFORE he consecrated the bread and wine. So what John is recounting is pretty clearly what took place before the Institution of the Eucharist.

So what you are saying is, Jesus in his human condition can’t perform a miracle that defies our limited understanding of time and space? So then, I guess he can’t have walked on water, since that’s not something we can do in our human condition either.

Marcos, what you are doing is trying to fit God into your understanding. You don’t see how he could do this, but that doesn’t mean he can’t:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The Eucharist IS a mystery Marcos. It takes faith to see. But like that website you gave us said ‘‘no (spoken) word from God (is) void of power.’’ What God says IS reality. His is the only word that can accomplish that. In fact, there’s no example in Scripture that I can find where God says something is and it really isn’t. When He says ‘‘your sins are forgiven’’ they really are forgiven. A change happens. When he tells the leper ‘‘you are clean’’ he becomes clean. ‘‘Lazarus come out!’’ and he comes out. Over and over we see God’s word causing something to be that wasn’t. And yet, when the very Word of God incarnate says something IS his body, He can’t possibly have accomplished that? Personally, I’m just going to take Jesus at his word.

It’s hard to understand. But so is the Trinity, so is the Incarnation. It doesn’t make sense to me to reject one teaching that’s hard but not the others.
Click to expand...
**
A. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood do not refer to partaking of the Lord’s Supper.**

A. W. Pink (Exposition of John, on monergism.com) gives four reasons that John 6 does not refer to communion.** First,** communion had not yet been instituted. Jesus instituted it on the night He was betrayed. Second, Jesus was speaking here to unbelievers and communion is for believers.** Third**, the eating here is unto salvation or eternal life, while eating the Lord’s Supper is for those already saved and points to fellowship and thanks giving. Fourth, the Lord’s Supper does not produce the results that are here attributed to eating and drinking Christ. If Jesus’ words here refer to communion, then you gain eternal life by partaking, which contradicts many other Scriptures that show that salvation is through faith in Christ.

Again, Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood refer to believing in Him and appropriating personally His death ON THE CROSS as your only hope for eternal life.

John 6 is pointing to the Cross, John 6 refers to His sacrifice on the Cross. v.51
 
Marcos100 said:
**
A. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood do not refer to partaking of the Lord’s Supper.**

A. W. Pink (Exposition of John, on monergism.com) gives four reasons that John 6 does not refer to communion.** First,** communion had not yet been instituted. Jesus instituted it on the night He was betrayed. Second, Jesus was speaking here to unbelievers and communion is for believers.** Third**, the eating here is unto salvation or eternal life, while eating the Lord’s Supper is for those already saved and points to fellowship and thanks giving.Fourth, the Lord’s Supper does not produce the results that are here attributed to eating and drinking Christ. If Jesus’ words here refer to communion, then you gain eternal life by partaking, which contradicts many other Scriptures that show that salvation is through faith in Christ.
Click to expand...
1. I have already shown why this objection is irrelevant. That he hadn’t yet instituted the Eucharist in no way means he’s not talking about it. That simply does not follow. That’s like saying a parent talking about how we have to eat vegetables before actually cooking the meal must not be talking about the meal. No. It just means he hasn’t cooked it yet.

2. No. He wasn’t. Some of the people listening were unbelievers, some were believers. It’s not as simple as Mr. Pink is making it. I also addressed this in my previous posts.

3. This is Mr. Pink’s interpretation, but there’s nothing in the text to indicate that. He’s forcing his own preconceived notions onto the Scriptures. He believes that communion is only for fellowship, but nowhere does the Bible say that that is it’s ONLY function. Which leads to my next point:

4. If what I’m saying is true, then the way we eat Christ’s body and blood IS through the Eucharist, so it absolutely would ‘‘produce the results that are here attributed to eating and drinking Christ.’’ This is my entire point. the Last Supper was Jesus showing us HOW to eat his flesh and drink His blood. He’s fulfilling the promise he made in John 6. (which was a promise. He told us the bread he WILL give - future tense - is his flesh for the life of the world. And that’s exactly what he calls the bread at the Last Supper.)

And no, that doesn’t contradict believing in Jesus, anymore than the fact that we must keep the commandments to have life contradicts believing in Jesus. It’s both.
John 6 is pointing to the Cross, John 6 refers to His sacrifice on the Cross. v.51
Click to expand...
So does the Eucharist. They are one and the same thing. See my post #248.
Again, Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood refer to believing in Him and appropriating personally His death ON THE CROSS as your only hope for eternal life.
Click to expand...
Marcos, again, you can keep asserting this, but my point is, this interpretation is valid only if the Last Supper didn’t happen. If he never gave us a way to eat his body and drink his blood, then yes, we would have to conclude that. He didn’t leave us anyway to actually eat him, so he must have been talking symbolically, there’s no other option.

But when you see that Jesus later physically takes bread, tells us it is his flesh, and commands us to eat it, that completely contradicts your assertion that Jesus is only referring to belief, because he literally is telling us exactly what he meant. THIS is how we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why else would he use the exact same language on the exact same day of the year? He had to have known the disciples would draw a connection. You have told us yourself over and over that we need to look at the context of a passage to understand it. That’s exactly what I’m doing. 👍

Marcos my friend, please do me a favor. Don’t quote evangelical scholars who say there is no connection. Don’t repeat what they say. Don’t put your faith in their interpretation. Just take a step back, and look at the evidence I have presented. The fact that both take place on Passover, the fact that in both Jesus tells people to eat his Body and Blood. The fact that in both Jesus connects the bread to what he will do on the Cross. Then ask yourself this, ‘‘Am I saying there is no connection between the two because that is where the biblical evidence actually leads, or because that’s where I need it to lead?’’ Please, honestly think on this. Give me some reason for why these aren’t significant enough to merit consideration. Please, address the parallels and tell me what you think about them. So far the reasons you have given from these authors for why they aren’t connected haven’t held up under scrutiny, and have failed to account for the parallels I’ve pointed out between the two.
 
So many of us who were Protestants always saw what happens once you reduce Our Lord’s words in John 6 to metaphor: every bit of Scripture eventually becomes metaphor, including the moral imperatives - ‘Surely God did not say to eat His flesh?’’ Our Lord’s command, 'Take and eat, for this is my body, ’ is inverted - ‘This is not my body’. They have no excuse for doing, so except the example of their father, who was a murderer from the beginning.
 
The Bible is to be interpreted like any other book, because it is a book originated with God, but utilizing fully the vocabulary, the culture, the background, the education of men, so you must look at it as you would do any other book in terms of language, culture and background. It has linguistics principles perfectly consistent with our own.

Biblical literature has prose, poetry, it has history, it has allegory, it has literal and symbolic language…

For example there is allegory in which you accept allegory in the Bible and you interpret it on the basis of allegories.
 
CarmelJerome said:
So many of us who were Protestants always saw what happens once you reduce Our Lord’s words in John 6 to metaphor: every bit of Scripture eventually becomes metaphor, including the moral imperatives - ‘Surely God did not say to eat His flesh?’’ Our Lord’s command, 'Take and eat, for this is my body, ’ is inverted - ‘This is not my body’. They have no excuse for doing, so except the example of their father, who was a murderer from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Jesus also saif I AM THE DOOR, and I am the LIGHT, you have to admit there is symbolic language in the Bible, like the rest of us do. Apparently you have no theological studies. I encourage you to start studying today.
 
Marcos100 said:
The Bible is to be interpreted like any other book, because it is a book originated with God, but utilizing fully the vocabulary, the culture, the background, the education of men, so you must look at it as you would do any other book in terms of language, culture and background. It has linguistics principles perfectly consistent with our own.

Biblical literature has prose, poetry, it has history, it has allegory, it has literal and symbolic language…

For example there is allegory in which you accept allegory in the Bible and you interpret it on the basis of allegories.
Click to expand...
But not everything is allegory.

And to make that point Christ does not just say eat, he elaborates to say munch.

So some things, like the words of Christ are meant to be taken at face value.

Remember the New Testament Scriptures came FROM the Church which had been celebrating the Eucharist since its inception at the Last Supper.

This interpretation of trogon was believed by the whole Christian Church until the Reformation.👍
 
Marcos100 said:
Jesus also saif I AM THE DOOR, and I am the LIGHT, you have to admit there is symbolic language in the Bible, like the rest of us do. Apparently you have no theological studies. I encourage you to start studying today.
Click to expand...
Being arrogant isn’t going to win any arguments.
 
Marcos, I hope you had a good Easter.

Since you insist that good reading comprehension is all we need to know the Truths of the Bible, I would love for you to give us your explanation of John 6:51.
To me if Jesus was speaking in the present tense, He would have said the bread I am giving you, not the bread I will give you.

This is a very important distinction. For myself I know I can read something many times before the light clicks on and I have the ‘aha’ moment. I am by no means the most intelligent, so I need to have some way of knowing the truth. I don’t believe God is only revealing His Truth to those who are smart enough to read without making any misinterpretations. Also, I might not be the smartest, but there are some who have an even harder time than me in reading comprehension, and some who are illiterate. Where do these poor souls turn? Is there no hope for them?

I’m really looking forward to your thoughts on if you still think Jesus was speaking in the present tense in John 6:51.
 
10gr8kids said:
I am by no means the most intelligent, so I need to have some way of knowing the truth. I don’t believe God is only revealing His Truth to those who are smart enough to read without making any misinterpretations. Also, I might not be the smartest, but there are some who have an even harder time than me in reading comprehension, and some who are illiterate. Where do these poor souls turn? Is there no hope for them?
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point. If reading comprehension is the make it or break it for the understanding and application of Scripture, what DOES it say about the fact that the canon wasn’t closed for hundreds of years post-resurrection and the fact that books were so expensive to produce that only churches and extremely rich people were able to afford them? What about the illiterate? What about the mentally challenged? The beauty of the Church is that, in the absence of the written Word in front of them, they could trust boldly in the Tradition and teaching of the Church to help them lead Godly lives. I saw a* Journey Home *program one day about a former Protestant missionary to South America who came to the Catholic Church because of that very reason. She suddenly realized that if the pretense of why she was doing missions was correct, what was she saying about all the Christians who were alive before the printing press?

For one thing, they didn’t sit around bickering about the meaning of John 6 because they could trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding Jesus’s Church. That is pure faith.
 
Marcos100 said:
The Bible is to be interpreted like any other book, because it is a book originated with God, but utilizing fully the vocabulary, the culture, the background, the education of men, so you must look at it as you would do any other book in terms of language, culture and background. It has linguistics principles perfectly consistent with our own.

Biblical literature has prose, poetry, it has history, it has allegory, it has literal and symbolic language…

For example there is allegory in which you accept allegory in the Bible and you interpret it on the basis of allegories.
Click to expand...
So the Bible is completely different from any other book known to man, but you think it should be interpreted like every other non-inspired book in existence? That just makes no sense.

You are right that we have to study it in light of the tone, style, intent, etc, etc. But we have both done this. We are both prayerful, faithful, committed followers of Christ who have prayed for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. So why do we come to two wildly different interpretations?

And who does the Bible say that we should turn to for resolution of our disagreement and the correct interpretation of Scripture? (you’ve avoided answering this question many times in this thread)
 
The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.
The language of the Bible is rich with metaphor. The biblical writers used familiar, everyday objects to symbolize spiritual truth.
 
zz912 said:
So the Bible is completely different from any other book known to man, but you think it should be interpreted like every other non-inspired book in existence? That just makes no sense.

You are right that we have to study it in light of the tone, style, intent, etc, etc. But we have both done this. We are both prayerful, faithful, committed followers of Christ who have prayed for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. So why do we come to two wildly different interpretations?

And who does the Bible say that we should turn to for resolution of our disagreement and the correct interpretation of Scripture? (you’ve avoided answering this question many times in this thread)
Click to expand...
Because you are comitting GROSS interpretational errors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top