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

[YADA]

I CAN SHOW YOU A DEEPER STUDY (1984) of the last supper form a evangelical scholar , long before Hann (1986) did his. I F YOU WANT TO see it just tell me. IT SEEMS to me Hann went to the wrong place.

well - Dr, Hahn earned his Doctorate - its not an honorary one … and if he sounds non-Catholic … well he was a Protestant [anti-Catholic] when he earned his Doctorate …

So Marcos - Now you are the arbiter of what is REAL and IN DEPTH for Biblical Studies …Perhaps you should change your name to Pope Marcos because only you and you alone know the proper “Sola” method [Inductive] to study the Scriptures - no other is allowed and once employed only those interpretations that agree with yours is correct … so per Marcos - Inductive and agree with Marcos’ interpretation and you have In Depth and Clear Biblical Scholarship …

You say you can show deeper studies …

And you are not impressed … or not ‘struck’ …

Many here feel the same way about your teachings … and your scholars …

Which leaves us with Opinions and Differences …

You fail to answer many questions … and even a purely “inductive” method of study requires you to look at the context of other related passages … one method you employ is to deny a connection between passages when taking them into consideration goes against your interpretation [Bread of Life Discourses and the Last Supper] … we say they are related and you say they are not

Clearly St Paul tells the early Christians to eat the Eucharist [Bread & Wine] without discerning the reality that they are the Body and Blood of Christ they risk illness and death … that is to physically eat … the physical Bread and Wine - offered in Sacrifice - which becomes Christ offered for the life of the world … and cause their death … informs the inductive searcher of scriptures that the Bread of Life Discourse is not speaking merely in symbolic or metaphorical language … but then Jesus tells us that when the passage is studied in depth …

So - how can physically eating bread and wine that is symbolic only and not real cause one to ‘discern’ the Body and Blood of Christ - let alone make you sick or cause you to die? In fact … one would think that discerning Christ in something that was merely symbolic would be idolatry - which would be deathly … Discerning Christ in the Bread and Wine offered in Sacrifice can only happen if it is in fact Jesus’ Body and Blood … Eating something that is not Jesus and believing it is could be idolatry - But if in fact the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus - then eating and drinking unworthily would be a Sacrilege …

Dr. Hahn has many books and lectures … he presents his material - which is always full of information and deep in meaning - in two ways … He speaks very clearly, in every day language for the "common audience’ and much more scholarly for those who have studied the scriptures in greater detail and depth … s perhaps you should investigate his works in greater depth … you say he went to the wrong place … Dr. Hahn discovered the Church Jesus founded when he left his bias behind and studied in great depth and at great personal cost to his livelihood. …

 

[Marcos100]

I am deepening my knowledge in the Passover of Old and New testament references and I now have no idea why you stick to your literal/spiritual intepretation taking into account the whole Bible, I am amazed.

 

[Marcos100]

well - Dr, Hahn earned his Doctorate - its not an honorary one … and if he sounds non-Catholic … well he was a Protestant [anti-Catholic] when he earned his Doctorate …

So Marcos - Now you are the arbiter of what is REAL and IN DEPTH for Biblical Studies …Perhaps you should change your name to Pope Marcos because only you and you alone know the proper “Sola” method [Inductive] to study the Scriptures - no other is allowed and once employed only those interpretations that agree with yours is correct … so per Marcos - Inductive and agree with Marcos’ interpretation and you have In Depth and Clear Biblical Scholarship …

You say you can show deeper studies …

And you are not impressed … or not ‘struck’ …

Many here feel the same way about your teachings … and your scholars …

Which leaves us with Opinions and Differences …

You fail to answer many questions … and even a purely “inductive” method of study requires you to look at the context of other related passages … one method you employ is to deny a connection between passages when taking them into consideration goes against your interpretation [Bread of Life Discourses and the Last Supper] … we say they are related and you say they are not

Clearly St Paul tells the early Christians to eat the Eucharist [Bread & Wine] without discerning the reality that they are the Body and Blood of Christ they risk illness and death … that is to physically eat … the physical Bread and Wine - offered in Sacrifice - which becomes Christ offered for the life of the world … and cause their death … informs the inductive searcher of scriptures that the Bread of Life Discourse is not speaking merely in symbolic or metaphorical language … but then Jesus tells us that when the passage is studied in depth …

So - how can physically eating bread and wine that is symbolic only and not real cause one to ‘discern’ the Body and Blood of Christ - let alone make you sick or cause you to die? In fact … one would think that discerning Christ in something that was merely symbolic would be idolatry - which would be deathly … Discerning Christ in the Bread and Wine offered in Sacrifice can only happen if it is in fact Jesus’ Body and Blood … Eating something that is not Jesus and believing it is could be idolatry - But if in fact the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus - then eating and drinking unworthily would be a Sacrilege …

Dr. Hahn has many books and lectures … he presents his material - which is always full of information and deep in meaning - in two ways … He speaks very clearly, in every day language for the "common audience’ and much more scholarly for those who have studied the scriptures in greater detail and depth … s perhaps you should investigate his works in greater depth … you say he went to the wrong place … Dr. Hahn discovered the Church Jesus founded when he left his bias behind and studied in great depth and at great personal cost to his livelihood. …

I think it is necesary to shre with you a personal mail with a friend.

I was thinking about what you told me , that is, what if the person dont have the tools of inductive study , well you dont have to have them, we all know that we have to check the context in order to undesrtand any wirting, this is just comom sense. check all the scriptre related to the topic.
Now regarding to the literal symbolic langiage i like what a firend told me:

If the plain (literal) sense of the passage makes good sense (in the context), then make no other sense (e.g., don’t “guess” and don’t “spiritualize” and don’t “allegoricalize”) or it will end up being nonsense!

and again
when a man or woman reads the Scriptures that **in their context **make good sense, and begin to interpret allegorically, then they are are on thin ice and almost surely will arrive at an incorrect intepretation of what God said and what He intended it to mean.

regarding literal figurtive language:

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said “it is raining cats and dogs outside,” you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.).

God bless

 

[Marcos100]

Ok , I know the word “inductive” sound a litle bit technical, it was suuposed the catholcis bring the bizzarre stuff.
But inductive is no a difficult word as I explained in my last post 313

God bless

 

[Marcos100]

well - Dr, Hahn earned his Doctorate - its not an honorary one … and if he sounds non-Catholic … well he was a Protestant [anti-Catholic] when he earned his Doctorate …

So Marcos - Now you are the arbiter of what is REAL and IN DEPTH for Biblical Studies …Perhaps you should change your name to Pope Marcos because only you and you alone know the proper “Sola” method [Inductive] to study the Scriptures - no other is allowed and once employed only those interpretations that agree with yours is correct … so per Marcos - Inductive and agree with Marcos’ interpretation and you have In Depth and Clear Biblical Scholarship …

You say you can show deeper studies …

And you are not impressed … or not ‘struck’ …

Many here feel the same way about your teachings … and your scholars …

Which leaves us with Opinions and Differences …

You fail to answer many questions … and even a purely “inductive” method of study requires you to look at the context of other related passages … one method you employ is to deny a connection between passages when taking them into consideration goes against your interpretation [Bread of Life Discourses and the Last Supper] … we say they are related and you say they are not

Clearly St Paul tells the early Christians to eat the Eucharist [Bread & Wine] without discerning the reality that they are the Body and Blood of Christ they risk illness and death … that is to physically eat … the physical Bread and Wine - offered in Sacrifice - which becomes Christ offered for the life of the world … and cause their death … informs the inductive searcher of scriptures that the Bread of Life Discourse is not speaking merely in symbolic or metaphorical language … but then Jesus tells us that when the passage is studied in depth …

So - how can physically eating bread and wine that is symbolic only and not real cause one to ‘discern’ the Body and Blood of Christ - let alone make you sick or cause you to die? In fact … one would think that discerning Christ in something that was merely symbolic would be idolatry - which would be deathly … Discerning Christ in the Bread and Wine offered in Sacrifice can only happen if it is in fact Jesus’ Body and Blood … Eating something that is not Jesus and believing it is could be idolatry - But if in fact the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus - then eating and drinking unworthily would be a Sacrilege …

Dr. Hahn has many books and lectures … he presents his material - which is always full of information and deep in meaning - in two ways … He speaks very clearly, in every day language for the "common audience’ and much more scholarly for those who have studied the scriptures in greater detail and depth … s perhaps you should investigate his works in greater depth … you say he went to the wrong place … Dr. Hahn discovered the Church Jesus founded when he left his bias behind and studied in great depth and at great personal cost to his livelihood. …

Dr Hann has written more than 43 books??? No , he didnt so we arent talking the same knowdlege level , I am not talking about precet austin (Bruce Hurt) by the way , but another Christian teacher.

 

[slh3016]

well - Dr, Hahn earned his Doctorate - its not an honorary one … and if he sounds non-Catholic … well he was a Protestant [anti-Catholic] when he earned his Doctorate …

So Marcos - Now you are the arbiter of what is REAL and IN DEPTH for Biblical Studies …Perhaps you should change your name to Pope Marcos because only you and you alone know the proper “Sola” method [Inductive] to study the Scriptures - no other is allowed and once employed only those interpretations that agree with yours is correct … so per Marcos - Inductive and agree with Marcos’ interpretation and you have In Depth and Clear Biblical Scholarship …

You say you can show deeper studies …

And you are not impressed … or not ‘struck’ …

Many here feel the same way about your teachings … and your scholars …

Which leaves us with Opinions and Differences …

You fail to answer many questions … and even a purely “inductive” method of study requires you to look at the context of other related passages … one method you employ is to deny a connection between passages when taking them into consideration goes against your interpretation [Bread of Life Discourses and the Last Supper] … we say they are related and you say they are not

Clearly St Paul tells the early Christians to eat the Eucharist [Bread & Wine] without discerning the reality that they are the Body and Blood of Christ they risk illness and death … that is to physically eat … the physical Bread and Wine - offered in Sacrifice - which becomes Christ offered for the life of the world … and cause their death … informs the inductive searcher of scriptures that the Bread of Life Discourse is not speaking merely in symbolic or metaphorical language … but then Jesus tells us that when the passage is studied in depth …

So - how can physically eating bread and wine that is symbolic only and not real cause one to ‘discern’ the Body and Blood of Christ - let alone make you sick or cause you to die? In fact … one would think that discerning Christ in something that was merely symbolic would be idolatry - which would be deathly … Discerning Christ in the Bread and Wine offered in Sacrifice can only happen if it is in fact Jesus’ Body and Blood … Eating something that is not Jesus and believing it is could be idolatry - But if in fact the Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus - then eating and drinking unworthily would be a Sacrilege …

Dr. Hahn has many books and lectures … he presents his material - which is always full of information and deep in meaning - in two ways … He speaks very clearly, in every day language for the "common audience’ and much more scholarly for those who have studied the scriptures in greater detail and depth … s perhaps you should investigate his works in greater depth … you say he went to the wrong place … Dr. Hahn discovered the Church Jesus founded when he left his bias behind and studied in great depth and at great personal cost to his livelihood. …

:tiphat: Thanks, YADA, for that follow-up. Brilliantly stated.

 

[Marcos100]

:tiphat: Thanks, YADA, for that follow-up. Brilliantly stated.

YUP, Luke 22 is pointing to the cross , JOHN 6 is pointing to the cross, but JOHN 6 IS NOT POINTING TO luke 22 (the last supper). Get it once for all.

 

[slh3016]

Dr Hann has written more than 43 books??? No , he didnt so we arent talking the same knowdlege level , I am not talking about precet austin (Bruce Hurt) by the way , but another Christian teacher.

Ok, which Christian teacher? What are his credentials? What is his background?

And, for the record, just because someone has written books about a topic doesn’t necessarily make him or her an authority on the subject. It’s all scholarship and the integrity of the information presented. I would never advise anyone to go on the authority of just one person. Frankly, you have to look at the broader picture of Christian history. We have to consider the practice and teaching of THE Church throughout history, which includes both the written word and the oral word, just like Moses had when he came down from Mt. Sinai. It’s all about authority, Marcos, and so I have to ask, what is your authority? Is is the Church that Jesus established or is it the opinion of just one man or yourself?

And, if your claim is that communion is only symbolic and that the Catholic Church is teaching error and that it’s “as plain as day” for anyone with any interpretation skills, what would you say to a second century? A 5th century Christian? A 12th century Christian? All of these Christians lived in a world where a) literacy was rare and b) Bibles were not readily available because the printing press hadn’t been invented. Did the Church that Jesus established cease to exist during that time? No, of course not!

What you are asserting is that the Holy Spirit failed to lead the Church into all truth as Jesus said it would in John 16:13. So, at what point did the Holy Spirit leave the Church?

I know this doesn’t explicitly pertain to John 6, but, it does. You say one thing, we say another. Someone is wrong….which one and by what conclusive evidence? This question has been asked in a variety of ways, but I’ve yet to see a clear answer from you. (And, please, the answer cannot include anything about interpretational skills )

Please carefully consider your answer….God bless!

 

[slh3016]

YUP, Luke 22 is pointing to the cross , JOHN 6 is pointing to the cross, but JOHN 6 IS NOT POINTING TO luke 22 (the last supper).

According to whose interpretation/authority, Marcos?

John 6 ---------->Luke 22—>Cross/Sacrifice of God’s perfect Lamb

Yep, they both are pointing to the cross

You seem to think it has to be like this:

John 6----------->Cross<—Luke 22

Why?

Get it once for all.

Oh, I’ve gotten it, Marcos

 

[YADA]

I think it is necesary to shre with you a personal mail with a friend.

I was thinking about what you told me , that is, what if the person dont have the tools of inductive study , well you dont have to have them, we all know that we have to check the context in order to undesrtand any wirting, this is just comom sense. check all the scriptre related to the topic.
Now regarding to the literal symbolic langiage i like what a firend told me:

If the plain (literal) sense of the passage makes good sense (in the context), then make no other sense (e.g., don’t “guess” and don’t “spiritualize” and don’t “allegoricalize”) or it will end up being nonsense!

and again
when a man or woman reads the Scriptures that **in their context **make good sense, and begin to interpret allegorically, then they are are on thin ice and almost surely will arrive at an incorrect intepretation of what God said and what He intended it to mean.

regarding literal figurtive language:

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said “it is raining cats and dogs outside,” you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.).

God bless

Lots of words written here that basically declare that only Marcos [and those who subscribe to his interpretation] is brilliant and only Marcos knows how to read and comprehend … all others [those who disagree] are wrong, unintelligent brainwashed and or ignorant …

But in reality your opinions are not presented in logical manner nor are they backed up with data … they are replete with your high opinion of self and those who agree with your anti-Catholic biased opinion.

So here’s the deal … in basic plain common lingo …

I believe my credentials in biblical scholarship are equally on par with yours [probably higher but definitely equal] I know what the level of my education is and the major field of study for every degree I possess. I believe that my education and experience leads me to examine works by authors and others - in my fields of study - and make an educated opinion about the quality of products [Books, Presentations, etc.]. I have studied and have deep respect for many biblical scholars - both Catholic and Non-Catholic. I do not limit myself to the study of only those in my faith tradition or those who agree with me.

Thus … Marcos, while you have some interesting points - your knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith, Judeo-Christian history and Biblical Scholarship is very superficial …

Your argument becomes “you don’t understand and I am right”

“this is the only way to understand / interpret there is no other way because I said so”

“You don’t understand the context I do”

“Those passages are unrelated because I said so”

Here is my take Marcos - You do not fully understand Scriptures. You are lost in the symbolic, metaphor, parable and reality of Jesus - the Incarnate God-Man … trying too hard to argue for your private point of view that you have lost Jesus and the fullness of the Church He established and guards to this every day - in fact - guards and sustains with daily Bread through all eternity - protecting it from the very gates of Hell …

I feel for you … I really do … I wish you could experience what I have … I will pray that - like St Paul - your eyes [and more importantly your heart] will be opened someday …

 

[Marcos100]

Lots of words written here that basically declare that only Marcos [and those who subscribe to his interpretation] is brilliant and only Marcos knows how to read and comprehend … all others [those who disagree] are wrong, unintelligent brainwashed and or ignorant …

But in reality your opinions are not presented in logical manner nor are they backed up with data … they are replete with your high opinion of self and those who agree with your anti-Catholic biased opinion.

So here’s the deal … in basic plain common lingo …

I believe my credentials in biblical scholarship are equally on par with yours [probably higher but definitely equal] I know what the level of my education is and the major field of study for every degree I possess. I believe that my education and experience leads me to examine works by authors and others - in my fields of study - and make an educated opinion about the quality of products [Books, Presentations, etc.]. I have studied and have deep respect for many biblical scholars - both Catholic and Non-Catholic. I do not limit myself to the study of only those in my faith tradition or those who agree with me.

Thus … Marcos, while you have some interesting points - your knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith, Judeo-Christian history and Biblical Scholarship is very superficial …

Your argument becomes “you don’t understand and I am right”

“this is the only way to understand / interpret there is no other way because I said so”

“You don’t understand the context I do”

“Those passages are unrelated because I said so”

Here is my take Marcos - You do not fully understand Scriptures. You are lost in the symbolic, metaphor, parable and reality of Jesus - the Incarnate God-Man … trying too hard to argue for your private point of view that you have lost Jesus and the fullness of the Church He established and guards to this every day - in fact - guards and sustains with daily Bread through all eternity - protecting it from the very gates of Hell …

I feel for you … I really do … I wish you could experience what I have … I will pray that - like St Paul - your eyes [and more importantly your heart] will be opened someday …

I HAVE a question, If you were a Jew at that time and you were knoweldgable in the Scripture (you know that is was abomnation to drink blood for example) and you were ask to drink blood and eat flesh , would you have been offended?

INBOX ill share something with you

 

[10gr8kids]

Jesus says He will give us bread that is His flesh, and then He takes bread and says this is my body (flesh). Not related?! I don’t see how someone could hold this position.

Again, wouldn’t the flesh of the lamb at the Last Supper have been a better symbolism of His flesh if it was only meant to be a symbol. It was/is so much more. It was/is the bread that comes down from Heaven. Unlike the bread (manna) that came down from Heaven for the Isrealites, this bread gives us eternal life.

 

[YADA]

I HAVE a question, If you were a Jew at that time and you were knoweldgable in the Scripture (you know that is was abomnation to drink blood for example) and you were ask to drink blood and eat flesh , would you have been offended?

INBOX ill share something with you

Scandalized is probably a better description then offended … and they were. The prohibition agains cannabolism and drinking blood of any animal is clear from a Jewish perspective. Many highly respected scriptural scholars hold that this was probably the stumbling block for Judas.

Jesus’ discourse though goes far beyond the speech that can be merely relagated to metaphor or symbolic. Nor is it a parable. To assert so is a mis interpretation. I have studied and read the positions on both sides. Your side requires too many mental gymnastics that deny good scholarship and that requires submission to novelties unheard of and unknown for centuries.

We like to think we are much more intelligent and sohisticated then the early Christians …in reality they were highly intellectual people. I do not discount their testimony.

 

[Marcos100]

Scandalized is probably a better description then offended … and they were. The prohibition agains cannabolism and drinking blood of any animal is clear from a Jewish perspective. Many highly respected scriptural scholars hold that this was probably the stumbling block for Judas.

Jesus’ discourse though goes far beyond the speech that can be merely relagated to metaphor or symbolic. Nor is it a parable. To assert so is a mis interpretation. I have studied and read the positions on both sides. Your side requires too many mental gymnastics that deny good scholarship and that requires submission to novelties unheard of and unknown for centuries.

We like to think we are much more intelligent and sohisticated then the early Christians …in reality they were highly intellectual people. I do not discount their testimony.

would you read , again , and answer my question??? please

after answering

WHY? OR WHY NOT?

 

[slh3016]

Marcos, I’m not YADA so I won’t suppose to answer for him/her, BUT, if the question you are asking is whether or not he/she (or anyone else living 2,000 years later) would have been offended at Jesus’s words is really not relevant to this conversation because we are living on this side of the Cross in which the Passover of God was ULTIMATELY and FOR ALL TIME fulfilled through the sacrifice of His Lamb, Jesus Christ. In John 6, there is no doubt that the Jews were offended/scandalized because they were still a year away from Jesus’s sacrifice and, not knowing all the details of what was to come, couldn’t put the puzzle pieces together. They weren’t able to reconcile the spirit part of what Jesus said with the physical/flesh part, which seems to also be the same problem you are having. Jesus WAS speaking of both, intertwined and inseparable, not one or the other.

The beauty of living on this side of the Cross is that now we can fully “get it”, if we have faith and trust the right authority, which, according to Jesus, is the CHURCH, the pillar and foundation of truth upon which the gates of hell would never prevail and who is guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

So, Marcos, who is your authority to back up the claims you’ve been making about John 6? And, again, don’t say it’s all in “knowing how to interpret” because that argument is like a cat chasing its tail.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[YADA]

would you read , again , and answer my question??? please

after answering

WHY? OR WHY NOT?

I believe I did …

I said Scandalized …and I gave you the why … I also hope I would be like Peter and the 10 [not as is believed of Judas - which I also mentioned to you] who - when Jesus asked if they would leave too … replied - what you say is hard and I cannot understand how You are to give us your True Flesh and Blood … but where else am I to go Lord - You have the Words of eternal life …

 

[Robyn_p]

I HAVE a question, If you were a Jew at that time and you were knoweldgable in the Scripture (you know that is was abomnation to drink blood for example) and you were ask to drink blood and eat flesh , would you have been offended?

INBOX ill share something with you

I know I would have been, certainly. I also would have been offended when I heard Jesus apply the divine name to himself. I would have been offended when he declared all foods clean (contrary to my bible). I would have been offended when he called himself Lord of the sabbath and broke the law.

All these things Jesus did would have contradicted what I read in the Scriptures. I would have concluded he was crazy and couldn’t possibly be the Messiah.

I would have been wrong.

 

[Robyn_p]

YUP, Luke 22 is pointing to the cross , JOHN 6 is pointing to the cross, but JOHN 6 IS NOT POINTING TO luke 22 (the last supper). Get it once for all.

You’ve actually just strengthened my argument for me. My point all along has been that John 6 and the Last Supper are talking about the same thing, and we need to look at both in light of each other to get the full understanding of Jesus’ words.

So yes, we are agreed that the flesh Jesus is talking about in both is his real, actual flesh that he is going to offer on the cross. But here’s where I don’t follow: when he also in both he tells his disciples to eat this same real, actual flesh, now it’s not literal? I’m just not seeing why Marcos. In both he says the bread we eat IS his flesh, and in the Last Supper he even gives us a way to physically eat this flesh. Yet, you still insist that believing in him is how we are to eat. No offense, but how much clearer could Jesus get? He literally shows us what he meant.

I really do want to get this once and for all Marcos, but if I am to come around to your interpretation, I need you offer a convincing explanation for why Jesus uses identical language at both. You keep claiming that they are completely unrelated, but I find it hard to believe that when he told the apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood at the Last Supper, he wasn’t trying to hearken back to that sermon in Capernaum.

 

[Marcos100]

You’ve actually just strengthened my argument for me. My point all along has been that John 6 and the Last Supper are talking about the same thing, and we need to look at both in light of each other to get the full understanding of Jesus’ words.

So yes, we are agreed that the flesh Jesus is talking about in both is his real, actual flesh that he is going to offer on the cross. But here’s where I don’t follow: when he also in both he tells his disciples to eat this same real, actual flesh, now it’s not literal? I’m just not seeing why Marcos. In both he says the bread we eat IS his flesh, and in the Last Supper he even gives us a way to physically eat this flesh. Yet, you still insist that believing in him is how we are to eat. No offense, but how much clearer could Jesus get? He literally shows us what he meant.

I really do want to get this once and for all Marcos, but if I am to come around to your interpretation, I need you offer a convincing explanation for why Jesus uses identical language at both. You keep claiming that they are completely unrelated, but I find it hard to believe that when he told the apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood at the Last Supper, he wasn’t trying to hearken back to that sermon in Capernaum.

Several things,

first, I never agreed with you that Jesus was talking about His literal body in Luke 22, not once. We did agree Jesus was talking about His literal flesh in John 6.
Now you keep saying the word IDENTICAL. Do you know what identical mean?
In John 6 Jesus used the word sarx( flesh) and in Luke 22 he uses the word body (soma).That is not identical. Three writers recorded the last supper not one of them used the word sarx. Not one? That is not identical. If they had in mind the same even why not at least one used the identical word? Jesus never refers his blood as wine in John 6. It was a pretty long sermons but he didnt.
You catholics keep confusing the issue, please, again: The sacrifice of the cross is for everybody, the partaking of the bread is exclusively of believers, the passover was exclusively for the people of Israel or circuncided people.

 

[Marcos100]

You’ve actually just strengthened my argument for me. My point all along has been that John 6 and the Last Supper are talking about the same thing, and we need to look at both in light of each other to get the full understanding of Jesus’ words.

So yes, we are agreed that the flesh Jesus is talking about in both is his real, actual flesh that he is going to offer on the cross. But here’s where I don’t follow: when he also in both he tells his disciples to eat this same real, actual flesh, now it’s not literal? I’m just not seeing why Marcos. In both he says the bread we eat IS his flesh, and in the Last Supper he even gives us a way to physically eat this flesh. Yet, you still insist that believing in him is how we are to eat. No offense, but how much clearer could Jesus get? He literally shows us what he meant.

I really do want to get this once and for all Marcos, but if I am to come around to your interpretation, I need you offer a convincing explanation for why Jesus uses identical language at both. You keep claiming that they are completely unrelated, but I find it hard to believe that when he told the apostles to eat his flesh and drink his blood at the Last Supper, he wasn’t trying to hearken back to that sermon in Capernaum.

It is not “my interpetation” it is a fact in the Word of God.

You need to read the book of John through, read it in context form bengining to end. There are things in the book of John that are not in other gospels that will help you understand corretlyJohn 6, thnigs that dont apear in other gospels, nor they are there by chance.
The purpose of the book of JOHN was to make people beleive that Jesus was the Messiah , the sof God. Bevleive what? you have to read JOHN six in the whole context of the book, you have to keep that in mind while interpreting this book.