J
jphilapy
Guest
How about you explain why it is so funny rather than laughing about it.
Jeff
- Status
Jeff
J
jphilapy
Guest
What I am getting as is you said the bread that came down from heaven is his flesh. Now the bread that came down from heaven could have not meant his flesh because his flesh didn’t come down from heaven. So the bread in that sense has to be referring to something else. For example John in the beginning of his gospel says that Jesus is the Word made flesh. Well bread is often used to represent the word of God.
So when Jesus says he is the bread that came down from heaven is he really talking about the meat on his body? Are you suggesting that Jesus is the bread of life only after he became human?
Jeff
M
mtr01
Guest
Not to be technical, Jeff, but I didn’t say it, our Lord said it in Jn 6:52
This sounds awfully Nestorian to me, Jeff. Of course He didn’t have flesh before the incarnation. However his two natures are united and inseparable, so when he says “me” or “my flesh”, you can’t separate his divine nature from his human nature.
Yes.
No.
M
Mickey
Guest
Answer my question on interpretation first, then go to any other thread on the Real Presence and your inquiries will be more than sufficiently addressed. Again, I should not have laughed at your post. It was not charitable. I have already apologized.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Mickey said:
Mickey the point was that mt said eating flesh drinking blood as symbolism always means to do violence to. Ezekial is one passage where is doesn’t mean that. the sacrifice was already done and the blood already shed. The animals doing the eating and drinking were not doing the violence.
Jeff
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes, I read your post Jeff. Did you read mtr01’s response in post #118?
Also for your reading pleasure:
Merely Figurative?
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). **The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
**
J
jphilapy
Guest
So explain to me then how it is that you argue ardently against the symbolic interpretation of the passage when the early church fathers allowed for it?
Jeff
Jeff
M
michaelp
Guest
Mickey,
I don’t get relevance of this:
It actually only has this meaning when used of animals. Respectfully, you have just committed the exegetical fallacy called “illigetimate totality transfer” which is ascribing all possible meanings and nuances of a term to the current situation. It just means eat. It does not carry any other nuance when it comes to humans.
Of animals gnaw, nibble; of human beings *eat, take food, partake of (a meal) *(MT 24.38); idiomatically **trw,gein tino,j to.n a;rton **literally eat someone’s bread, i.e. *be a close companion *(JN 13.18); figuratively and as a religious technical term, of deriving benefit from Christ’s atoning death *benefit from, partake of *(JN 6.54-58)
Otherwise, what are your implications of the word usage here?
Matt 24:38
“For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark.”
They were chewing or nawing their food until the day of Noah?
Michael
I don’t get relevance of this:
Mickey said:
It actually only has this meaning when used of animals. Respectfully, you have just committed the exegetical fallacy called “illigetimate totality transfer” which is ascribing all possible meanings and nuances of a term to the current situation. It just means eat. It does not carry any other nuance when it comes to humans.
Of animals gnaw, nibble; of human beings *eat, take food, partake of (a meal) *(MT 24.38); idiomatically **trw,gein tino,j to.n a;rton **literally eat someone’s bread, i.e. *be a close companion *(JN 13.18); figuratively and as a religious technical term, of deriving benefit from Christ’s atoning death *benefit from, partake of *(JN 6.54-58)
Otherwise, what are your implications of the word usage here?
Matt 24:38
“For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark.”
They were chewing or nawing their food until the day of Noah?
Michael
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi mike, you are right. I would like to add this thought which agrees with the use of trogon in Matt 24:38 as to why there was a switch from the greek word phagō to trogon. Christ was saying that we must eat of his flesh, but not only must we eat of it but we must eat of it continually. This is the more plausible explanation of the switch opposed to the explanation that says we are to not only eat but we are gnaw and chew etc.
Jeff
M
Mickey
Guest
Exactly! We eat of His flesh continually. The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I’m glad you agree with this Jeff.
John 6 is very clear guys. “My body is food indeed, My blood is drink indeed”. If you need further proof, read the epistles of St Ignatius of Antioch. St Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John. I doubt that St Ignatius misunderstood St John and committed “exegetical fallacy” in his writings. I don’t think he was guilty of “illigitimate totality transfer”. (although that’s a nice scholarly phrase and I’m glad I had a chance to use it). I know it is a hard saying guys, that is why Jesus’ disciples walked away. They too could not accept the magnitude of these words. With all due respect guys, the real precense was believed for more than 1500 years. Even Luther subscribed to consubstantiation. I’m not sure when the belief became perverted—maybe the anabaptists? Read John 6 again guys. Meditate on the words. One day you will see the seriousness of your flawed exegesis. 
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi Mickey,Exactly! We eat of His flesh continually. The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I’m glad you agree with this Jeff.
For what it is worth we are not saying the same thing. The articles you quoted are arguing for the idea that Jesus chose trogon to emphasize his point. I am disagreeing with that point and saying that Jesus chose trogon to emphasize simply that we are to continually eat. There is a difference between gnaw (catholic argument) and continually eat (my argument).
Catholic version: Jesus wanting to drive his point home chose trogon to make it clear that he meant eating.
Jeff version: Jesus wanting to make it clear what he was teaching used trogon to make it clear that we must continually eat of him. Not only must we eat of him but we need to eat continually.
And Mike’s point was "They were chewing or nawing their food until the day of Noah? "
See I concur with Mike’s explanation. They were not chewing or nawing their food until the day of Noah. But they were continually eating as we will do till we die.
Sorry for the confusion.
Jeff
M
Mickey
Guest
Hi Jeff!
No confusion. I just feel that you and Michael agree with the Catholic Church, but don’t realize it yet!
No Christian believed your interpretation for many, many centuries.
“. . . Whoever eats (Greek: trogon) me will live because of me. . . Also the one who feeds (trogon) on my flesh will have life . . .” (Jn 6 :48-58)
The normal word in Greek for “eat” is Phagon but in this passage the author uses Trogon which literally means to crunch or gnaw. It is not just a metaphor. The verb tense of Trogon implies continuous consumption of the body & blood of Christ. Death was introduced to humanity through eating the forbidden fruit. (The act of actually eating a food) and now life is restored by actually eating the “bread of life”, that is Christ’s flesh.
There is a Catholic Mass or Divine Liturgy ocurring somewhere in world every minute of every day. Never ending and continuous. Continuous consumption of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ–just like He commanded. Again, I urge you to read the epistles of St Ignatius of Antioch. If it is too hard a saying for you and Michael to grasp as it is written in the Bible, St Ignatius clarifies it even further. Remember, he was a disciple of St John!
M
MariaG
Guest
Jeff and Michaelp
Maybe I missed your reply earlier. If so I apologize. But how do you explain the fact that the early Church Fathers, ones that were taught by the apostles, interpreted Scripture in line with Catholic teaching and not yours?
Obviously we both can point to Scripture for our interpretations. Why is yours right and the Catholic one wrong? I truly do not understand how the Catholics are the ones who “changed” things when our interpretation is in line with Christians of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Why is the scholarship of later centuries more accurate than those who were taught by the apostles?
Truly, this is an honest question. I just don’t understand how you can say Catholics changed things when the interpretation can be seen (even if it is not agreed with) from Scripture, and historical writings back up the Catholic interpretation.
God Bless,
Maria
Maybe I missed your reply earlier. If so I apologize. But how do you explain the fact that the early Church Fathers, ones that were taught by the apostles, interpreted Scripture in line with Catholic teaching and not yours?
Obviously we both can point to Scripture for our interpretations. Why is yours right and the Catholic one wrong? I truly do not understand how the Catholics are the ones who “changed” things when our interpretation is in line with Christians of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Why is the scholarship of later centuries more accurate than those who were taught by the apostles?
Truly, this is an honest question. I just don’t understand how you can say Catholics changed things when the interpretation can be seen (even if it is not agreed with) from Scripture, and historical writings back up the Catholic interpretation.
God Bless,
Maria
M
mtr01
Guest
Jeff, could you please post a definition of *trogon, *from a reputable source that has "continually as part of the definition?
However, for my part to show agreement with Mickey’s post, I’ll post Strong’s definition of both words in question:
M
mtr01
Guest
For my part to show agreement with Mickey’s post, I’ll post Strong’s definition of both words in question:
M
Mickey
Guest
From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead…IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAEANS
Take care, then to partake of one Eucharist; for, one is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one to unite us with His Blood, and one altar, just as there is one bishop assisted by the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. Thus you will conform in all your actions to the will of God.
IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS
St Ignatius of Antioch was born around 50 AD. He was martyred in Rome between 98-117 AD. He was a disciple of the apostle John. He was appointed as bishop of Antioch by the apostle Peter. He was led to Rome in chains and devoured by wild beasts.
Take care, then to partake of one Eucharist; for, one is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one to unite us with His Blood, and one altar, just as there is one bishop assisted by the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. Thus you will conform in all your actions to the will of God.
IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS
St Ignatius of Antioch was born around 50 AD. He was martyred in Rome between 98-117 AD. He was a disciple of the apostle John. He was appointed as bishop of Antioch by the apostle Peter. He was led to Rome in chains and devoured by wild beasts.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Hi Maria,
No offense intended but to answer your questions will open up a whole new can of worms. Although catholics and protestants have some fundamental similarities we also have many fundamental differences which shape how we each approach any subject. In short, discussing these things here would take us into many more different threads.
Anyway even if I was catholic I wouldn’t except Ignatius or any of the other early christian writers without a critical eye. I don’t even accept protestant writers without a critical eye. See your point about how ‘we can both point to scripture…’ is a fair point but in the context of this discussion it isn’t about who’s interpretation is right or wrong. It is about what does the text say. And what can I learn from this discussion. If you guys are right and I am wrong then so be it however I won’t forgo study just because people assert themselves as having the one true revelation of God.
The opportunity for me to learn and to think is what is important to me.
This gets back to my point of the critical eye. I desire to read critically for understanding as well as correctness.
Even if I was to accept your interpretation as being right it would still be my interpretation that brought me to agree.
Peace,
Jeff
M
Mickey
Guest
With all due respect Jeff, It’s all about interpretation. The Catholic Church states that it’s interpretations are traced back to the apostles through the process of apostolic succession. In other words, it is the Church that Christ founded. There can be no other interpretations–that would be called relativism. If you were Catholic it would not be your interpretation. It would be obiedience to the fullness of truth. Obedience to the fullnes of truth is a virtue. The question remains—where do you get your interpretations? You see Jeff, if you were Catholic, you would be required to accept St Ignatius. He was a bishop. He was part of the apostolic succession–the deposit of faith. I appreciate that you read and understand all responses to the other posts here. I know that you are outnumbered–but we love you anyway!
J
jphilapy
Guest
Mickey what I am saying is although I challenge your interpretation for me it isn’t about proving to you that I am right. It is about me learning. So the question of who’s interepretation is right is moot to me.With all due respect Jeff, It’s all about interpretation. The Catholic Church states that it’s interpretations are traced back to the apostles through the process of apostolic succession. In other words, it is the Church that Christ founded. There can be no other interpretations–that would be called relativism. If you were Catholic it would not be your interpretation. It would be obiedience to the fullness of truth. Obedience to the fullnes of truth is a virtue. The question remains—where do you get your interpretations? You see Jeff, if you were Catholic, you would be required to accept St Ignatius. He was a bishop. He was part of the apostolic succession–the deposit of faith. I appreciate that you read and understand all responses to the other posts here. I know that you are outnumbered–but we love you anyway!
Your point about ignatius is one reason why I am not a catholic. I don’t believe in legislating thinking or submission. Quite simply I believe that if the Holy Spirit is living in you then you will be transformed into the likeness of Christ. You can’t legislate that!!! Only Christ can do it.
Jeff
M
Mickey
Guest
Again, obedience to the truth is a virtue. It’s not about legislation, or binding rules, or submission. We are willingly and lovingly obedient. It’s opposite than you think. There is a freedom in the loving obedience to the fullness of truth. You see Jeff, you cannot challenge my interpretation, because it is not my interpretation. My beliefs are interpreted by Christ, who passed it on to the apostles, who passed it on to their disciples…etc. That is called the magisterium. It would be foolish of me to say that I am right and you are wrong. That would be arrogant and judgemental. God has given you free-will like every other human. You will use this free-will how you see fit–and God will read your heart. All I can do is pray for you Jeff. And I will surely do that. God Bless you!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_12v.gif
- Status