"This is my body...blood".. Greek and Latin Vulgate. Protestant argument

[bogeydogg]

Having an online discussion with a protestant who says…

Strange semantics there. How would you respond??

Thanks.

I’ll tell you what is strange is that our protestant brothers never point this out.

Λάβετε (take) φάγετε (eat) τοῦτό (this) ἐστιν (is) τὸ σῶμά (body) μου (my).

and…

Πίετε (Drink) ἐξ (of) αὐτοῦ (this) πάντες (all of you) τοῦτο (this) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (is) τὸ αἷμά (the blood) μου (my).

Notice the word that is missing that our protestant friends insist on inserting? The word is “like”. As in this is like my blood or this is like my body. The word in Greek for “like” is “ὅμοιος” or “Homois”. It means “Like, like unto or similar.”

As in…

Mat 13:24 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is*** like*** to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Mat 13:33 ¶ Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is*** like*** unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened

Mat 13:44 ¶ Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Mat 13:45 ¶ Again, the kingdom of heaven is*** like*** unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls

Mat 13:47 ¶ Again, the kingdom of heaven is*** like*** unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

Mat 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is* like* unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

Now a very fast search finds the Gospel writer putting this word into Jesus mouth seven times in one discourse and yet that same writer excludes it concerning the central teaching of Jesus about the Passover and the New Covenant.

What is strange is that our protestant brethren ignore this inconsistency because they insist on reading their conclusions backward onto the text.

God Bless

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Someone who believes that Jesus is speaking figuratively might reply something like this:

“When Jesus said, ‘I am the door of the sheep’ (Jn 10.7), it states he was only speaking this way as a figure of speech (Jn 10.6). This is implicit in Jesus’ words at the Last Supper and the Bread of Life discourse as well. After all, you do not believe that Jesus is literally a door. Why then do you believe that the bread and wine at the Last Supper were literally the flesh and blood of Jesus? The word ‘is’ can, as it is here, be used metaphorically.”

However, this is problematic. Jesus is certainly the door by way of analogy since it is through Jesus that we will be able to enter heaven. All the images uses to Jesus speak of himself can be applied to him by analogy. On the other hand, in what sense is ordinary bread and wine Jesus by analogy? Jesus says, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Is plain wine poured out for the remission of sins? Are we saved by bread and wine?

 

[bogeydogg]

Someone who believes that Jesus is speaking figuratively might reply something like this:

“When Jesus said, ‘I am the door of the sheep’ (Jn 10.7), it states he was only speaking this way as a figure of speech (Jn 10.6). This is implicit in Jesus’ words at the Last Supper and the Bread of Life discourse as well. After all, you do not believe that Jesus is literally a door. Why then do you believe that the bread and wine at the Last Supper were literally the flesh and blood of Jesus? The word ‘is’ can, as it is here, be used metaphorically.”

However, this is problematic. Jesus is certainly the door by way of analogy since it is through Jesus that we will be able to enter heaven. All the images uses to Jesus speak of himself can be applied to him by analogy. On the other hand, in what sense is ordinary bread and wine Jesus by analogy? Jesus says, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Is plain wine poured out for the remission of sins? Are we saved by bread and wine?

Yes but such an argument on Jesus being the door equivocates on how Jesus is using the word “door”. Of course Jesus is not saying He is actually made of wood and hangs on hinges, but Jesus does say that no man enters into the Kingdom of Heaven except by Him, that is by entering into his life they enter in through the way, the door who is Christ Himself. So for one to argue this way would be to change how Jesus is using the word. That is, the context of Jesus’ other teachings make this one perfectly clear.

The same is true of the “This is my…” language. Jesus did in fact use analogy many times in His teachings, in fact that He was a parable teller is perhaps his most famous mode of teaching among non-believers. So for the anti-Sacramental bunch to impose analogous language here when it is not used, especially in light of the fact that Jesus did use it so often, is special pleading at best and outright eisegesis at worst.

To ignore the way the Lord used language so that the pre-determined conclusion can be read backward onto His words while claiming to believe only Scripture is laughable, and we should point this out.

God Bless

 

[Nigel7]

Thanks again, bogeydogg. Very helpful.

 

[brb3]

I usually respond by saying that the early disciples, who spoke Greek and/or Latin as a native language, very clearly understood what Jesus meant given the preponderance of consistent writings by the early fathers and continuous living tradition by the Church. For me, it’s always kind of been “can’t see the forest through the trees” argument. Today, we are so quick to jump on google translate, etc. and grab a word study to begin dissecting scripture that sometimes we forget that there have been centuries of disciples that understood their own language very well. It may be a better idea to just ask them. After years of early fathers writing about the Real Presence, centuries of teaching about the Real Presence, not to mention that the disciples in John 6 that left Jesus understood it pretty well too, there really isn’t much likelihood that a fresh new protestant linguistics argument will glean new revelation.

Bingo ! Always search for the Apostles & consensus ECF understanding on ANY topic. That’s our Gold Standard !