How many words are there in Aramaic and Greek for "represents"?

[dje101]

How many words are there in Aramaic and Greek for “represents”? And if there are multiple words (as I’ve heard there are), were any of them used when Jesus said “this is my body”, so that he might have meant that the bread only represents his body and is not actually his flesh?

 

[Lubomyr]

How many words are there in Aramaic and Greek for “represents”? And if there are multiple words (as I’ve heard there are), were any of them used when Jesus said “this is my body”, so that he might have meant that the bread only represents his body and is not actually his flesh?

Probably. I think I know where you’re going with this, and whatever word was used at that time is not what Jesus said. The contention you’re arguing against is that the word “is” *really *means “represents”, which is a backwards argument used by people who want to deny transubstantiation and inject Protestant heresies into the scriptural text. The reason this argument seems logical at first is because in everyday language we use the word “is” when we really mean “represents”, but in context Jesus said - and meant - “is”, and no one before the Reformation ever thought otherwise.

 

[po18guy]

Note the timing of not only Jesus’ words, but His actions. During the Passover meal, He offered His Body. Yet, He waited before He offered His Blood as the new Covenant. We see the acts of both fulfilling the old covenant, as well as initiating the new and everlasting covenant at this balance point in faith history. Nothing symbolic or metaphorical about it.

 

[dje101]

Probably. I think I know where you’re going with this, and whatever word was used at that time is not what Jesus said. The contention you’re arguing against is that the word “is” *really *means “represents”, which is a backwards argument used by people who want to deny transubstantiation and inject Protestant heresies into the scriptural text. The reason this argument seems logical at first is because in everyday language we use the word “is” when we really mean “represents”, but in context Jesus said - and meant - “is”, and no one before the Reformation ever thought otherwise.

It was something I heard on catholic radio. That there are like 44 words in Greek or Aramaic for “represents” and none of them were used, so that when Christ said “is”, he literally meant “is”. Just looking for confirmation of this.

 

[Lubomyr]

It was something I heard on catholic radio. That there are like 44 words in Greek or Aramaic for “represents” and none of them were used, so that when Christ said “is”, he literally meant “is”. Just looking for confirmation of this.

Technically we can’t say for sure that he meant “is” in the normal sense. Paul, after all, says “and the rock was Christ” while James says “the tongue is a fire”.

No, this is not a case of looking up the definition of the word “is” or verifying that ἐστι is universally attested in the manuscript tradition. It’s a matter of common sense, bolstered by the fact Jesus changed water in to wine, altering the outward appearance and the inner essence, then multiplied loaves and fishes, changing the outward appearance without changing the inner essence. The next logical step would be to change the inner essence without changing the outward appearance. And why, literally hours before that fateful encounter in the garden, would Jesus play word games?

 

[po18guy]

If it was merely representative, I doubt that Paul would teach that believers were “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27), or by unworthy consumption they were “eating and drinking damnation” unto themselves (1 Corinthians 11:29). As well, “participation in the Body… participation in the Blood” (1 Corinthians 10:16) is not mere symbolism. Even the KJV calls it a communion and not a symbol.

 

[dje101]

Technically we can’t say for sure that he meant “is” in the normal sense. Paul, after all, says “and the rock was Christ” while James says “the tongue is a fire”.

No, this is not a case of looking up the definition of the word “is” or verifying that ἐστι is universally attested in the manuscript tradition. It’s a matter of common sense, bolstered by the fact Jesus changed water in to wine, altering the outward appearance and the inner essence, then multiplied loaves and fishes, changing the outward appearance without changing the inner essence. The next logical step would be to change the inner essence without changing the outward appearance. And why, literally hours before that fateful encounter in the garden, would Jesus play word games?

You bring up quite a few excellent points. Also, I had NEVER heard or read anything that connected the wine, loaves, and Eucharist like that. Where did u get that bit?

 

[dje101]

If it was merely representative, I doubt that Paul would teach that believers were “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27), or by unworthy consumption they were “eating and drinking damnation” unto themselves (1 Corinthians 11:29). As well, “participation in the Body… participation in the Blood” (1 Corinthians 10:16) is not mere symbolism. Even the KJV calls it a communion and not a symbol.

Thank you for bringing up these verses. I don’t have the greatest memory so I’m a little short on the number of verses committed to memory.

 

[Lubomyr]

You bring up quite a few excellent points. Also, I had NEVER heard or read anything that connected the wine, loaves, and Eucharist like that. Where did u get that bit?

From common sense! There’s a lot hiding behind the text.

I know this is off-topic, but I just wanted to say that I used to read the Bible in snippets the way others do, a chapter a day, or whatever the lectionary prescribed, but it prevented me from getting a sense of the whole.

Then I started reading entire books all in one sitting, and things began to jump out at me. I came across Matthew 16:9-10 where Jesus says, “Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?” and I thought about that, and I realized Jesus was basically saying, there’s a pattern to what I’m doing here, the miracles aren’t just pinch-hitting, there’s a message in them, pay attention to the bigger picture or you will miss it.

Then I remembered that the loaves and fishes weren’t the only food-oriented miracles, there was the water into wine. The water into wine is in John alone, and I remembered that John’s gospel sort of fills in stuff that the other three leave out but which John realized were still really important. In fact, in general John steers clear of what the other three mention.

But with a couple big exceptions. One of those big exceptions is this very miracle of the loaves and fishes, which is one of the few things that is in all four gospels. So I knew I was on to something.

Long story short, I remembered all the other food miracles and other eating-oriented stories of the Bible, Elijah being fed by ravens, the widow’s oil not giving out, Daniel eating only vegetables, plus John eating the bittersweet scroll, the command to eat the passover lamb, and so on and so forth, and it all comes to a head in John 6 where Jesus practically gives it away that he is going to make himself into food and we are going to eat him.

And sure enough, at the very moment he gives us a heads-up about his greatest miracle - greatest because change of substance is impossible without change of accidents, a greater miracle than resurrection itself - he loses half his followers. (John 6:66, of all verses! LOL)

So anyway, I recommend reading the Bible like you would a normal book, straight through instead of in artificial snippets.