Clement of Alex. interprets John 6 symbolically?!

[jphilapy]

mtr01:

For my part to show agreement with Mickey’s post, I’ll post Strong’s definition of both words in question:

and…

Now notice the difference in definitions? If you’ll notice, the definition of phago has a figurative element included, whereas trogo is definitely more graphic, but has no figurative element.

Now, in all honesty, isn’t it reasonable to believe that our Lord changed verbs precisely to emphasize that he was not speaking figuratively, in using a more specific word for eat? Isn’t this more reasonable than some explanation that relies on a verb tense that can certainly apply to the literal interpretation as well?

mt, strong’s is a great concordance but the scholarship has far advanced beyond him. He is about 110+ years past. Although I believe his greek explanation is somewhat correct it isn’t as detailed as later scholarship and doesn’t take into account much more modern information. For one there have been many greek text found since his time which he was never aware of so he doesn’t take into account many new words, and better information on older words. And what Michael quoted is of later scholarship. For one I have found that in a few cases strongs tends to be more generalized where as other scholar’s tend to be more knowledgable on the use of certain words. There are better references available but I am not real knowledgable on which ones. Maybe mike can make some recomendations?

Does the catholic church offer any tools like Strong’s?

Jeff

 

[Mickey]

jphilapy:

mt, strong’s is a great concordance but the scholarship has far advanced beyond him. He is about 110+ years past. Although I believe his greek explanation is somewhat correct it isn’t as detailed as later scholarship and doesn’t take into account much more modern information. For one there have been many greek text found since his time which he was never aware of so he doesn’t take into account many new words, and better information on older words. And what Michael quoted is of later scholarship. For one I have found that in a few cases strongs tends to be more generalized where as other scholar’s tend to be more knowledgable on the use of certain words. There are better references available but I am not real knowledgable on which ones. Maybe mike can make some recomendations?

Jeff

Hey mtr01!

Maybe that’s why the apostles got it wrong–because they didn’t have Michael P’s knowledgeable modern resources for a proper exegesis!

 

[mtr01]

jphilapy:

mt, strong’s is a great concordance but the scholarship has far advanced beyond him. He is about 110+ years past. Although I believe his greek explanation is somewhat correct it isn’t as detailed as later scholarship and doesn’t take into account much more modern information. For one there have been many greek text found since his time which he was never aware of so he doesn’t take into account many new words, and better information on older words. And what Michael quoted is of later scholarship. For one I have found that in a few cases strongs tends to be more generalized where as other scholar’s tend to be more knowledgable on the use of certain words. There are better references available but I am not real knowledgable on which ones. Maybe mike can make some recomendations?

Not to cast doubts on Michael’s post, but he didn’t give us any link or tell us where his definition came from.

Be that as it may, all he posted on was trogo. My point was that *phago *contains a metaphorical meaning that trogo does not. My impression is that *phago *can be used in the same manner as we would say “he really devoured that book”. Michael’s post does nothing to refute my point. Notice that when you take into account the definitions, one need not make the claim that *trogo *is specifically referring to “gnawing” or “crunching”, but merely literal eating. The same cannot be said of phago. Now, if someone can show me recent evidence that Strong’s is incoorect, and either *phago *in fact does not have a metaphorical use, or that *trogo *does, then we can talk. Otherwise I still posit that the change in verbs is consistent with our Lord removing any doubt that he was speaking metaphorically.

Does the catholic church offer any tools like Strong’s?
Jeff

I’m not sure. I use Strong’s because it is easily available online, and I’ve never seen it contradict the Catholic Church’s teachings. If I need further information, there are other lexicons available on the web. For what it’s worth, though, I would love to have an exhaustive Catholic lexicon/concordance.

 

[jphilapy]

Mickey:

Hey mtr01!

Maybe that’s why the apostles got it wrong–because they didn’t have Michael P’s knowledgeable modern resources for a proper exegesis!

If I recall right the catholic church teaches developing doctrine, ie a reference to having insight or understanding that the early apostle’s didn’t have. ? Which would mean the catholic church at any given time would rely on more modern research. The pope does have to study you know.

Jeff

 

[Mickey]

jphilapy:

If I recall right the catholic church teaches developing doctrine, ie a reference to having insight or understanding that the early apostle’s didn’t have. ? Which would mean the catholic church at any given time would rely on more modern research. The pope does have to study you know.

Jeff

Correction. The core belief **never **changes. The Roman Catholic Church was forced to define these core beliefs due to the persistent attacks by protestants and heretics. Unfortunately, when they define it, they open themselves up for further attack–as you have just done (albeit with subtlety). The Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholics were not under such attacks and left the core doctrines undefined (Mysteries). Hope that helps.

 

[mtr01]

Mickey:

Correction. The core belief **never **changes. The Roman Catholic Church was forced to define these core beliefs due to the persistent attacks by protestants and heretics. Unfortunately, when they define it, they open themselves up for further attack–as you have just done (albeit with subtlety). The Orthodox and the Byzantine Catholics were not under such attacks and left the core doctrines undefined (Mysteries). Hope that helps.

I’m glad you pointed that out Mickey! There’s another thread going around (on the Non-Catholic Religion forum I believe) about an article that claims that the early Church did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that it was a Catholic invention in the 12th Century (which I believe is a reference to some early attempts to define Transubstantiation). What the author fails to realize is that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches also believe in the Real Presence, but they haven’t been in union with Rome since 1054 and 451, respectively). Transubstantiation was an attempt to respond to Berengarius of Tours who denied the Real Presence (and later recanted). However it wasn’t “adopted” until Trent, as a result of the Reformation. The Orthodox, on the other hand, did not have to deal with such an attack on their faith, so they never had the need to define it.

 

[mercygate]

mtr01:

. . .[Real Presence] was a Catholic invention in the 12th Century (which I believe is a reference to some early attempts to define Transubstantiation). . . . However it wasn’t “adopted” until Trent, as a result of the Reformation.

Transubstantiation was adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. All your other facts are spot-on! It was a definition which removed any doubt about** how** Christ is present in the Eucharist and not a new proclamation that he is truly present.

 

[mtr01]

mercygate:

Transubstantiation was adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. All your other facts are spot-on! It was a definition which removed any doubt about** how** Christ is present in the Eucharist and not a new proclamation that he is truly present.

Thanks for your correction. I just double checked, and you are correct, it was indeed adopted at the 4th Lateran and Lyons Councils. I got mixed up concerning a phrase I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia a while back, where Trent

“not only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the “aptitude of the term” to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept.”

So all Trent really did was basically confirm the earlier councils, and add that transubstantiation “is a really good term” .

Thanks again!

 

[MariaG]

posted by jphilapy

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

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_7_207.gifWorms? Now would I do that?

You are right. This discussion is about what the text says. As you graciously admitted, we can both show our point from the Scripture.

So that then logically leads to the question, well what did the apostles say about it. We don’t have that except in Scripture, but we do have what those who were taught by the Apostles said. And once again, they agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Real Presence of Christ.

The Bible has many promises of sending the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us. And while I do believe you should use a critical eye when it comes to any teaching, I would just throw in another worm. God promised the Holy Spirit would lead and guide His Church and His people. His Church and His people in the early centuries all believed and taught the Real Presence of Christ. Were they lead by the Spirit? Or Not? If not, where does that leave all those promises of God?

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_7_207.gif Okay. I’ll take my worms and play elsewhere. Unfortunately, the ultimate question usually ends up opening the can. But once the can is opened and the questions answered, the peace that passes all understanding becomes the gift from God.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Apparently no else wants to open the can either?!

You are right. This discussion is about what the text says. As you graciously admitted, we can both show our point from the Scripture.

So that then logically leads to the question, well what did the apostles say about it. We don’t have that except in Scripture, but we do have what those who were taught by the Apostles said.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mink]

Mickey:

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.

Says who? You are just appealing to ridicule here: a fallacy. Unless you can prove that “chewing” and “figurative” are mutually exclusive concepts, this argument does not make any sense.

Mickey:

John 6 is very clear guys. “My body is food indeed, My blood is drink indeed”.

How come then catholics don’t drink? If you really believe Jesus commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, then you should protest when only the priests are allowed to drink.

Jesus tells the two brothers in Matt 20:13 that Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with

Is this passage also is talking about literal drinking? If we accept that these passages are to be understood literally, then we MUST understand it to mean that Jesus’ actual body was the “food indeed”, anything else is not literal. What is the literal link between Jesus proclaimation and the transubstantiation doctrine (If any). For the literal interpretation to be even remotely possible, it has to be Jesus’s physical flesh, the one hanging on the cross that should be eaten. And if this is what Jesus really said, there would have been no body left in the tomb to ressurect since the disciples would have eaten him up (shrug).

The other argument that doesn’t make sense is:
“If the passage is not literal, why then did Jesus allow some of his disciples to leave without explanation?”
Lets settle a few things first:

1. The disciples left because they misunderstood Jesus
   Either 2a. They understood Him literally when he meant figuratively.
   Or 2b. They understood Him figuratively when he meant literally.

But they already mentioned how they understood him (literally) so 2b. is false. (Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” ) This clearly spells out how they understood Him.

Therefore they left because they understood him literally when he meant figuratively.

Now the claim that Jesus did not try to prevent his disciples from leaving by explaining is false. He did! (John 6:62-63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”)

If anybody wants to claim that when Jesus said “THIS IS MY BODY”, and IS is IS, then ask yourself why should THIS not be THIS, and if THIS is THIS, what gives you the idea that THIS could become a piece of bread 2000+ years later?

If you want to ride the literal pony, you better be ready for a literal gallop. You can’t have the one and not the other.

---

There are ultimately only two choices in intellectual live: you either conform your desire to truth, or conform truth to your desire. – Michael Jones.

 

[Mickey]

mink:

Says who? You are just appealing to ridicule here: a fallacy. Unless you can prove that “chewing” and “figurative” are mutually exclusive concepts, this argument does not make any sense.
How come then catholics don’t drink? If you really believe Jesus commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, then you should protest when only the priests are allowed to drink.

Jesus tells the two brothers in Matt 20:13 that Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with

Is this passage also is talking about literal drinking? If we accept that these passages are to be understood literally, then we MUST understand it to mean that Jesus’ actual body was the “food indeed”, anything else is not literal. What is the literal link between Jesus proclaimation and the transubstantiation doctrine (If any). For the literal interpretation to be even remotely possible, it has to be Jesus’s physical flesh, the one hanging on the cross that should be eaten. And if this is what Jesus really said, there would have been no body left in the tomb to ressurect since the disciples would have eaten him up (shrug).

The other argument that doesn’t make sense is:
“If the passage is not literal, why then did Jesus allow some of his disciples to leave without explanation?”
Lets settle a few things first:

1. The disciples left because they misunderstood Jesus
   Either 2a. They understood Him literally when he meant figuratively.
   Or 2b. They understood Him figuratively when he meant literally.

But they already mentioned how they understood him (literally) so 2b. is false. (Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” ) This clearly spells out how they understood Him.

Therefore they left because they understood him literally when he meant figuratively.

Now the claim that Jesus did not try to prevent his disciples from leaving by explaining is false. He did! (John 6:62-63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”)

If anybody wants to claim that when Jesus said “THIS IS MY BODY”, and IS is IS, then ask yourself why should THIS not be THIS, and if THIS is THIS, what gives you the idea that THIS could become a piece of bread 2000+ years later?

If you want to ride the literal pony, you better be ready for a literal gallop. You can’t have the one and not the other.

---

There are ultimately only two choices in intellectual live: you either conform your desire to truth, or conform truth to your desire. – Michael Jones.

With all due respect Mink,

Yours is the oldest protestant exegetical error in the book. Jesus is referring to OUR sinful flesh when He proclaims that the flesh profits nothing—not His own!!! Also, I don’t know where you get your understanding of the Catholic Church, but I drink the Precious Blood at every Mass or Divine Liturgy I attend. As far as your cannibal comment–I’m finished responding to that nonsense.

 

[mtr01]

mink:

Says who? You are just appealing to ridicule here: a fallacy. Unless you can prove that “chewing” and “figurative” are mutually exclusive concepts, this argument does not make any sense.

Says me…and Strong’s, of course Go back and read my several posts that demonstrate that phago has a figurative sense, but trogo has only a literal meaning. Unless you can demonstrate from current Greek lexicons that this is mistaken, your argument is false.

mink:

How come then catholics don’t drink? If you really believe Jesus commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, then you should protest when only the priests are allowed to drink.

Jesus tells the two brothers in Matt 20:13 that Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.

The precious blood is offered at my parish 7 days a week at Mass

mink:

Is this passage also is talking about literal drinking? If we accept that these passages are to be understood literally, then we MUST understand it to mean that Jesus’ actual body was the “food indeed”, anything else is not literal. What is the literal link between Jesus proclaimation and the transubstantiation doctrine (If any). For the literal interpretation to be even remotely possible, it has to be Jesus’s physical flesh, the one hanging on the cross that should be eaten. And if this is what Jesus really said, there would have been no body left in the tomb to ressurect since the disciples would have eaten him up (shrug).

Ahh the cannibalism argument once again? Once more, this is the interpretation that St. Augustine called foolish 1600 years ago, and it still is (IMO). Mink, did you even read the previous posts in this thread? This is exactly why the disciples left, they thought he meant to cut off his limbs to give it to them to eat. Jesus had something else in mind…

mink:

The other argument that doesn’t make sense is:
“If the passage is not literal, why then did Jesus allow some of his disciples to leave without explanation?”
Lets settle a few things first:

1. The disciples left because they misunderstood Jesus
   Either 2a. They understood Him literally when he meant figuratively.
   Or 2b. They understood Him figuratively when he meant literally.

or the correct option: they understood him carnally when he meant spiritually.

mink:

But they already mentioned how they understood him (literally) so 2b. is false. (Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” ) This clearly spells out how they understood Him.

They understood him correctly to be speaking literally, but foolishly in a carnal sense.

mink:

Therefore they left because they understood him literally when he meant figuratively.

False, the understood him carnally when He meant spiritually.

mink:

Now the claim that Jesus did not try to prevent his disciples from leaving by explaining is false. He did! (John 6:62-63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”)

I hope you know that you just made a seriously heretical statement there. You interpret this passage to mean Jesus’ own flesh profits nothing (as no other flesh was being spoken about). If Christ’s flesh profits nothing, then it was unable to be a fitting sacrifice to the Father for our sins, and thus, according to your interpretation) our sins have not been forgiven and we have not been redeemed. Are you sure that your twisting of Scripture to deny the Real Presence is worth denying Christ’s sacrifce on Calvary, and ultimately the Incarnation?

mink:

If anybody wants to claim that when Jesus said “THIS IS MY BODY”, and IS is IS, then ask yourself why should THIS not be THIS, and if THIS is THIS, what gives you the idea that THIS could become a piece of bread 2000+ years later?

I don’t remember Jesus saying “This represents my body”. Don’t make a liar out of Our Lord. This is mystery that must be literally, but spiritually understood.

mink:

If you want to ride the literal pony, you better be ready for a literal gallop. You can’t have the one and not the other.

Conversely, you must be willing to ride your figurative pony down the backstretch and to the finish line which ultimately denies the incarnation. Happy trails

---

There are ultimately only two choices in intellectual live: you either conform your desire to truth, or conform truth to your desire. – Michael Jones.

 

[mink]

mtr01:

Says me…and Strong’s, of course Go back and read my several posts that demonstrate that phago has a figurative sense, but trogo has only a literal meaning. Unless you can demonstrate from current Greek lexicons that this is mistaken, your argument is false.

I did read your definition.
Your argument is that:

1. It mentioned figurative under phago.
2. It did not mention figurative under trogo.
3. Therfore trogo has ONLY a literal meaning.

This is a classical fallacy. If you think this is evidence that trogo ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT BE figurative, then it is just wishful thinking on your part. Lack of mention is not mention of lack!

mtr01:

Ahh the cannibalism argument once again? Once more, this is the interpretation that St. Augustine called foolish 1600 years ago, and it still is (IMO). Mink, did you even read the previous posts in this thread? This is exactly why the disciples left, they thought he meant to cut off his limbs to give it to them to eat. Jesus had something else in mind…

Yes I did read the posts. There was no response to the argument. Just ad-hominems and ridicule. Isn’t it interesting that I did not mention cannibalism but you guys are quick to classify my statement as cannibalism. Yet you don’t consider eating Jesus’ real flesh and drinking his “precious blood” to be cannibalism. Isn’t that what “real precense” means?

mtr01:

or the correct option: they understood him carnally when he meant spiritually.

They understood him correctly to be speaking literally, but foolishly in a carnal sense.

False, the understood him carnally when He meant spiritually.

Can you explain abit more detail what you mean by spiritually as opposed to carnally in this context? You seem to be saying they disciples understood him, that is why they left. But if they understood him “carnally” instead of “spiritually” as you claim, then it means they MISUNDERSTOOD HIM. Can you clarify? Did they understand him, or did they misunderstand him. What in your opinion was their misunderstanding then. (please be more specific than “carnally”)

mtr01:

I hope you know that you just made a seriously heretical statement there. You interpret this passage to mean Jesus’ own flesh profits nothing (as no other flesh was being spoken about).

Appealing to fear huh . What justification do you have for the sudden change of context from Jesus’s body to the disciples body? What reason do you have to split John 6 up at that point? Jesus says “eat my flesh”, the disciples get confused by the hard saying, then Jesus says “flesh profits nothing”. Don’t you see that you need a lot of quarter-inch-paint to separate the subject matter from Jesus flesh to someother flesh?

mtr01:

If Christ’s flesh profits nothing, then it was unable to be a fitting sacrifice to the Father for our sins, and thus, according to your interpretation) our sins have not been forgiven and we have not been redeemed. Are you sure that your twisting of Scripture to deny the Real Presence is worth denying Christ’s sacrifce on Calvary, and ultimately the Incarnation?

The argument that: “if what I believe about John 6 is wrong, then many of my other beliefs about Jesus will be wrong.” Is not only interesting, it points out what keeps the flames burning on errorneous interpretations of scripture. You don’t want to admit error because you are afraid of the consequencies – wishful thinking. What if your other beliefs you are trying so hard to keep are also in error. Who will be the heretic then?

mtr01:

I don’t remember Jesus saying “This represents my body”. Don’t make a liar out of Our Lord.
This is mystery that must be literally, but spiritually understood.

Pot calling the kettle black huh? I don’t remember Jesus saying “This does not represent my body” either. If you don’t understand it yet, and decide to call it a mystery, then how do you know that IT MUST be literally, but spiritually understood? You can’t claim not to understand something, yet claim to know exactly how to understand it!

mtr01:

Conversely, you must be willing to ride your figurative pony down the backstretch and to the finish line which ultimately denies the incarnation. Happy trails

Appealing to fear again! How does interpreting John 6 figuratively lead to denying the incarnation?

Mickey:

obedience to the truth is a virtue.

–
Intellectual honesty is a virtue. Without it, you can never know the truth. Without knowing the truth, you can not obey it. Everything else is wishful thinking. You can not wish the truth away by arguing against it.

 

[mink]

mtr01:

Says me…and Strong’s, of course Go back and read my several posts that demonstrate that phago has a figurative sense, but trogo has only a literal meaning. Unless you can demonstrate from current Greek lexicons that this is mistaken, your argument is false.

I did read your definition.
Your argument is that:

1. It mentioned figurative under phago.
2. It did not mention figurative under trogo.
3. Therfore trogo has ONLY a literal meaning.

This is a classical fallacy. If you think this is evidence that trogo ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT BE figurative, then it is just wishful thinking on your part. Lack of mention is not mention of lack!

mtr01:

Ahh the cannibalism argument once again? Once more, this is the interpretation that St. Augustine called foolish 1600 years ago, and it still is (IMO). Mink, did you even read the previous posts in this thread? This is exactly why the disciples left, they thought he meant to cut off his limbs to give it to them to eat. Jesus had something else in mind…

Yes I did read the posts. There was no response to the argument. Just ad-hominems and ridicule. Isn’t it interesting that I did not mention cannibalism but you guys are quick to classify my statement as cannibalism. Yet you don’t consider eating Jesus’ real flesh and drinking his “precious blood” to be cannibalism. Isn’t that what “real precense” means?

mtr01:

or the correct option: they understood him carnally when he meant spiritually.

They understood him correctly to be speaking literally, but foolishly in a carnal sense.

False, the understood him carnally when He meant spiritually.

Can you explain abit more detail what you mean by spiritually as opposed to carnally in this context? You seem to be saying they disciples understood him, that is why they left. But if they understood him “carnally” instead of “spiritually” as you claim, then it means they MISUNDERSTOOD HIM. Can you clarify? Did they understand him, or did they misunderstand him. What in your opinion was their misunderstanding then. (please be more specific than “carnally”)

mtr01:

I hope you know that you just made a seriously heretical statement there. You interpret this passage to mean Jesus’ own flesh profits nothing (as no other flesh was being spoken about).

Appealing to fear huh . What justification do you have for the sudden change of context from Jesus’s body to the disciples body? What reason do you have to split John 6 up at that point? Jesus says “eat my flesh”, the disciples get confused by the hard saying, then Jesus says “flesh profits nothing”. Don’t you see that you need a lot of quarter-inch-paint to separate the subject matter from Jesus flesh to someother flesh?

mtr01:

If Christ’s flesh profits nothing, then it was unable to be a fitting sacrifice to the Father for our sins, and thus, according to your interpretation) our sins have not been forgiven and we have not been redeemed. Are you sure that your twisting of Scripture to deny the Real Presence is worth denying Christ’s sacrifce on Calvary, and ultimately the Incarnation?

The argument that: “if what I believe about John 6 is wrong, then many of my other beliefs about Jesus will be wrong.” Is not only interesting, it points out what keeps the flames burning on errorneous interpretations of scripture. You don’t want to admit error because you are afraid of the consequencies – wishful thinking. What if your other beliefs you are trying so hard to keep are also in error. Who will be the heretic then?

mtr01:

I don’t remember Jesus saying “This represents my body”. Don’t make a liar out of Our Lord.
This is mystery that must be literally, but spiritually understood.

Pot calling the kettle black huh? I don’t remember Jesus saying “This does not represent my body” either. If you don’t understand it yet, and decide to call it a mystery, then how do you know that IT MUST be literally, but spiritually understood? You can’t claim not to understand something, yet claim to know exactly how to understand it!

mtr01:

Conversely, you must be willing to ride your figurative pony down the backstretch and to the finish line which ultimately denies the incarnation. Happy trails

Appealing to fear again! How does interpreting John 6 figuratively lead to denying the incarnation?

Mickey:

obedience to the truth is a virtue.

–
Intellectual honesty is a virtue. Without it, you can never know the truth. Without knowing the truth, you can not obey it. Everything else is wishful thinking. You can not wish the truth away by arguing against it.

 

[mtr01]

Round and round we go…

mink:

I did read your definition.

Your argument is that:

1. It mentioned figurative under phago.
2. It did not mention figurative under trogo.
3. Therfore trogo has ONLY a literal meaning.

This is a classical fallacy. If you think this is evidence that trogo ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT BE figurative, then it is just wishful thinking on your part. Lack of mention is not mention of lack!

Your argument is uncompelling. A lexicon or dictionary, by definition, includes all known definitions/usages of a word. Not one has a figurative meaning attributed to trogo. Therefore, the burden still remains for you to demonstrate an exception. Find one single Greek lexicon or dictionary that has a figurative sense as part of the definition of trogo. Only then will your argument be valid. (To take your example to an extreme, there is no mention of trogo having an alternate definition that includes gossiping. Therefore are we to assume that because no dictionary says that trogo *does not *mean gossip, that we can use it in such a sense?)

mink:

Yes I did read the posts. There was no response to the argument. Just ad-hominems and ridicule. Isn’t it interesting that I did not mention cannibalism but you guys are quick to classify my statement as cannibalism. Yet you don’t consider eating Jesus’ real flesh and drinking his “precious blood” to be cannibalism. Isn’t that what “real precense” means?

Show me one post where I engaged in ad hominem or ridicule. As for your cannibalism comment, what else does, “For the literal interpretation to be even remotely possible, it has to be Jesus’s physical flesh, the one hanging on the cross that should be eaten” mean?

Of course we don’t mean cannibalism (interesting how you embrace that term, after objecting that we attributed it to you). It is a mystery to be understood spiritually. Same sort of thing as His promise to be present whenever there are 2 or 3 gathered in his name. I figure he must be present in millions of places throughout the world at the same time. How does he do that? Can you explain it, or is it a mystery? Remember also, that Christ has a glorified body. What does that mean? Can you explain that?

mink:

Can you explain abit more detail what you mean by spiritually as opposed to carnally in this context? You seem to be saying they disciples understood him, that is why they left. But if they understood him “carnally” instead of “spiritually” as you claim, then it means they MISUNDERSTOOD HIM. Can you clarify? Did they understand him, or did they misunderstand him. What in your opinion was their misunderstanding then. (please be more specific than “carnally”)

St. Augustine described it quite well in the quote I posted in one of my previous posts. Understanding him carnally, is what you did when you made your cannibalism comment - that he would tear his limbs off and give them to his disciples to gnaw on (trogo). Instead, Jesus states that he is speaking spiritually, that is, sacramentally. Look what happens right before He talks of spirit and life: in John 6:62 He states, “and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? (KJV)” He is talking of his ascension and glorified body. In other words, suppose the disciples were to see the very flesh of Jesus not just risen from the dead, but also ascending to heaven. Don’t you think that it would be alot easier to understand words of “spirit and of life”? They would realize that His flesh not only existed as they saw it during that discourse (carnally, physically), but also spiritually (able to ascend to and exist in heaven). Understanding spiritually means that His flesh in this spiritual “mode” is what Jesus gives to us as food (but either spiritual or carnal, it is the same flesh).

cont’d…

 

[mtr01]

…cont’d to Mink:

mink:

Appealing to fear huh . What justification do you have for the sudden change of context from Jesus’s body to the disciples body? What reason do you have to split John 6 up at that point? Jesus says “eat my flesh”, the disciples get confused by the hard saying, then Jesus says “flesh profits nothing”. Don’t you see that you need a lot of quarter-inch-paint to separate the subject matter from Jesus flesh to someother flesh?

No appeal to fear whatsoever. It is the logical implication of claiming that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing. Tell me, what do you think are the conclusions to be drawn if His flesh profits nothing?

mink:

The argument that: “if what I believe about John 6 is wrong, then many of my other beliefs about Jesus will be wrong.” Is not only interesting, it points out what keeps the flames burning on errorneous interpretations of scripture. You don’t want to admit error because you are afraid of the consequencies – wishful thinking. What if your other beliefs you are trying so hard to keep are also in error. Who will be the heretic then?

Again I ask, what are the logical implications of claiming that Jesus’s physical flesh profits nothing?

mink:

Pot calling the kettle black huh? I don’t remember Jesus saying “This does not represent my body” either. If you don’t understand it yet, and decide to call it a mystery, then how do you know that IT MUST be literally, but spiritually understood? You can’t claim not to understand something, yet claim to know exactly how to understand it!

As I mentioned, there is absolutely no other way to make sense of the discourse. His disciples took Him literally, the early Church Fathers took Him literally, The Church has always taken Him literally (it wasn’t untill 500 years ago that anyone took Him figuratively only).

Furthermore, you didn’t respond to my posts which demonstrate that in Jesus’ age and culture, “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” of someone was a figure of speech meaning to do grave harm to someone. Thus to take him figuratively (again) would render the meaning of John 6:53 to something like “Verily, verily I say unto you, except you attack the Son of man and harm him, ye have no life in you. Whoso reviles me and curses me hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day”.

So figuratively, the passage makes no sense whatsoever. As I mentioned also to Jeff in a previous post, if you suggest He was trying to introduce some new metaphor that was different from the one currently used by the Jews of the time without telling them, then you truly are suggesting our Lord was being deceptive. By “forcing” this new metaphor on Jesus’ words, you are therefore suggesting that He let the crowd leave Him and go off to eternal damnation (Matt 10:33) over a misunderstanding caused His own deliberately misleading use of a common Jewish metaphor.

Face it, Mink, the figurative interpretation is not only a novel one, but it is also supremely untenable, unless you believe our Lord spoke nonsense, or was deliberately deceitful.

mink:

Appealing to fear again! How does interpreting John 6 figuratively lead to denying the incarnation?

If you believe that Jesus was speaking about his flesh in purely a figurative way in John 6, then you must also believe that He was speaking figuratively in verse 51, when He says:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

Therefore if the flesh that we eat is only figurative flesh, and since this is the same flesh that was given for the world, one must conclude that he only figuratively gave his flesh for the world (after all, his flesh profits nothing). As a result, the Incarnation was meaningless at best, but figurative at worst.

mink:

Intellectual honesty is a virtue. Without it, you can never know the truth. Without knowing the truth, you can not obey it. Everything else is wishful thinking. You can not wish the truth away by arguing against it.

You would do well to remember the words I bolded in your quote. Remember, this Truth has been preserved, unchanged, for 2000 years in the Catholic Church. It wasn’t until the 1500’s that people began to doubt it seriously, and to create novel doctrines regarding it. (Note: Berengarius of Tours originally questioned the Real Presence in the 12th century, but later recanted, and repented of that heresy).

 

[Mickey]

mink:

Intellectual honesty is a virtue. Without it, you can never know the truth. Without knowing the truth, you can not obey it. Everything else is wishful thinking. You can not wish the truth away by arguing against it.

Your intellectual honesty is called relativism–the truth as it pertains to you. What a sad time in history when certain reformers relegated the truth that was being taught for 1500 years (real presence), and turned it into a symbolic afterthought. Read John 6 very carefully again , mink; and then study the church fathers. The truth was taught by Jesus and the apostles and deposited with the Catholic Church throughout the ages. I’ll say it again. Obedience is a virtue!