Trogos to a Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexPetrosPio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AlexPetrosPio

Guest
Out of curiosity, when in the Greek, John switches to trogos to further the teaching of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and that we have to eat this Presence to gain eternal life, how does the average Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant respond when shown this Greek?
 
AlexPetrosPio said:
Out of curiosity, when in the Greek, John switches to trogos to further the teaching of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and that we have to eat this Presence to gain eternal life, how does the average Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant respond when shown this Greek?
Click to expand...
Just what does trogos mean and what is its signifigance in Greek? I imagine the average evangelical response would be like this soon to be Catholic: Trogos, what’s trogos:confused:"
 
How are you meant to eat His presence?? that just sounds stupid.
The presence of God comes upon you when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.
 
josephback said:
Just what does trogos mean and what is its signifigance in Greek? I imagine the average evangelical response would be like this soon to be Catholic: Trogos, what’s trogos:confused:"
Click to expand...
My understanding, gleaned from here and a few other sources and not from some great background in Greek scholarship, is that trogos is to chew or to gnaw – so, a more specific way of saying to eat that implies really eating. Not metaphorically eating.
 
fieldsparrow said:
My understanding, gleaned from here and a few other sources and not from some great background in Greek scholarship, is that trogos is to chew or to gnaw – so, a more specific way of saying to eat that implies really eating. Not metaphorically eating.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see!
 
(Edited)

Ya know, the pagan Romans also had misconceptions about the Eucharist. They thought it was cannibalism. But Jesus clearly says “this is my Body” and that we have to eat Him in a sacramental meal. Read the Gospels. (Edited)
 
AlexPetrosPio said:
Out of curiosity, when in the Greek, John switches to trogos to further the teaching of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and that we have to eat this Presence to gain eternal life, how does the average Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant respond when shown this Greek?
Click to expand...
How many fluent Greek speaking Protestants do you know?

In Christ,
Andrew
 
AlexPetrosPio said:
Out of curiosity, when in the Greek, John switches to trogos to further the teaching of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and that we have to eat this Presence to gain eternal life, how does the average Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant respond when shown this Greek?
Click to expand...
well, I am not Fundamentalist, doubt that I am average, but could fall under the Evangelical label…I expect that the typical Evangelical would not think that “trogos” in any way necessitates a non-figurative understanding…we are absolutely unaware of any linguistic rule (in either greek or english) that prohibits the use of “trogos” in a figurative statement…

For example, I might tell you that “I’d eat you alive” if you try to make the argument that the use of “trogos” in John 6 supports the doctrine of a real bodily presence. I might also tell you that “I’d chew you up and spit you out” if you try to argue that the use of “trogos” in John 6 supports the doctrine of a real bodily presence. You should note that my use of more graphic words such as “chew” and “spit” does not mean that the second claim should be understood literally.

What has always puzzled me about the question you present is the obvious fact that no one who believes in a real bodily presence actually has ever “trogos-ed” any flesh at a Eucharist…the participant’s teeth never actually touch the flesh of Jesus…the most that could be claimed is that the “accidents” of the participant’s teeth are involved in a chewing action that also involves the “accidents” of the bread. Chewing flesh involves grinding it into smaller bits…at your Eucharist do you grind Christ’s flesh into ever smaller bits?..I thought Christ’s body was supposed to be present (in its entirety)in each and every bit…I have no idea why you would think the use of “trogos” presents any sort of problem for the average Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant.
 
Harpazo said:
How many fluent Greek speaking Protestants do you know?

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
Actually I have known several. I had a professor in college that read the New Testament in Greek everyday. Actually the Greek in the Bible is Koine Greek (common, or the language of the masses) not the classical Greek found in literature of that time.

Joh 6:54 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

trōgō
tro’-go
Probably strengthened from a collateral form of the base of G5134* and G5147* through the idea of corrosion or wear; or perhaps rather of a base of G5167* and G5149* through the idea of a craunching sound; to gnaw or chew, that is, (genitive case) to eat: - eat.

*The numbers are Reference numbers from Strong’s Greek Dictionary
 
josephback said:
(Edited)

Ya know, the pagan Romans also had misconceptions about the Eucharist. They thought it was cannibalism. But Jesus clearly says “this is my Body” and that we have to eat Him in a sacramental meal. Read the Gospels. (Edited)
Click to expand...
Furthermore, if I am correct, Jesus also could have used a dozen of words in Aramaic which means represents/symbolic,but he does not.
 
Radical said:
well, I am not Fundamentalist, doubt that I am average, but could fall under the Evangelical label…I expect that the typical Evangelical would not think that “trogos” in any way necessitates a non-figurative understanding…we are absolutely unaware of any linguistic rule (in either greek or english) that prohibits the use of “trogos” in a figurative statement…

For example, I might tell you that “I’d eat you alive” if you try to make the argument that the use of “trogos” in John 6 supports the doctrine of a real bodily presence. I might also tell you that “I’d chew you up and spit you out” if you try to argue that the use of “trogos” in John 6 supports the doctrine of a real bodily presence. You should note that my use of more graphic words such as “chew” and “spit” does not mean that the second claim should be understood literally.

What has always puzzled me about the question you present is the obvious fact that no one who believes in a real bodily presence actually has ever “trogos-ed” any flesh at a Eucharist…the participant’s teeth never actually touch the flesh of Jesus…the most that could be claimed is that the “accidents” of the participant’s teeth are involved in a chewing action that also involves the “accidents” of the bread. Chewing flesh involves grinding it into smaller bits…at your Eucharist do you grind Christ’s flesh into ever smaller bits?..I thought Christ’s body was supposed to be present (in its entirety)in each and every bit…I have no idea why you would think the use of “trogos” presents any sort of problem for the average Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant.
Click to expand...
If it is not a problem,then why do the majority of deny the ancient and historical belief the early Christians taught it was truly the Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Jesus? As I once stated,if the Eucharist was never taught or believed as the RP,why is it not taught from the get-go as being false or a ursupation of Christ teaching?
 
Nicea325 said:
If it is not a problem, then why do the majority of deny the ancient and historical belief the early Christians taught it was truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus?
Click to expand...
well that is exactly it…if it was a problem and required an interpretation supportive of a real bodily presence(RBP), then we wouldn’t deny the existence of a RBP. I don’t deny that some ECFs taught a RBP (the 4th century Antiochan school seems to be the source of the belief in a real somatic presence as opposed to a real presence).
As I once stated, if the Eucharist was never taught or believed as the RP, why is it not taught from the get-go as being false or a ursupation of Christ teaching?
Click to expand...
first, you should distinguish between a real presence that is little more than Christ’s presence (as per his promise of, “where two or three are gathered”) and a RBP which took some time to develop and which was able to grow on the ground fertilized by Greek philosophical ideas regarding manner of existence. Augustine, is an example of a ECF that did not believe in a RBP…I expect that you and/or others will protest against that claim, but recent scholarship nicely supports (and makes) that claim. (See Wills, Van der Meer and Kilmartin). It would seem to me that the early Church loved to ruminate on scripture/the gospels and “find” ever more profound meaning within the words…the ideas of earlier fathers were built upon by later fathers and gradually one sees the various views regarding Christ’s presence that existed in the early centuries become ever more grand and coalesce into a RBP. Once that happened and once the Church’s hierarchy had achieved the necessary power, any further dissent was eliminated by intimidation and/or violence. This “development” took time and had not been entirely achieved by Augustine’s day. The existence of a wide range of views in the first centuries speaks (IMHO) to the fact that the RBP is not a thing that originated with Christ or the Apostles, but rather, is a thing that we should attribute to pious imagination.
 
AlexPetrosPio said:
Out of curiosity, when in the Greek, John switches to trogos to further the teaching of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and that we have to eat this Presence to gain eternal life, how does the average Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant respond when shown this Greek?
Click to expand...
They would say John 6 isn’t about the eucharist.
 
Radical said:
What has always puzzled me about the question you present is the obvious fact that no one who believes in a real bodily presence actually has ever “trogos-ed” any flesh at a Eucharist…the participant’s teeth never actually touch the flesh of Jesus…the most that could be claimed is that the “accidents” of the participant’s teeth are involved in a chewing action that also involves the “accidents” of the bread. Chewing flesh involves grinding it into smaller bits…at your Eucharist do you grind Christ’s flesh into ever smaller bits?..
Click to expand...
Actually, Radical, I have been at not a few Catholic liturgies, esp. in my college days, in which the bread that was consecrated was a pita-like bread, and consuming it did indeed involve chewing. Teeth grinding it into smaller bits and all that. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Actually, Radical, I have been at not a few Catholic liturgies, esp. in my college days, in which the bread that was consecrated was a pita-like bread, and consuming it did indeed involve chewing. Teeth grinding it into smaller bits and all that.
Click to expand...
yep…that is exactly my point…the thing being chewed is pita-like bread and what isn’t being chewed is Jesus’s flesh. As I stated above, if Christ’s flesh underwent a chewing process, then Christ’s flesh would be broken into ever smaller bits. So although Christ commanded that we chew his flesh and although you might like to claim that you chew his flesh, it is an obvious fact that you don’t actually chew flesh…you chew bread. BTW, Protestants also chew bread at a Lord’s Supper…chewing bread isn’t chewing flesh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top