Trogos to a Protestant

[Radical]

A Greek philosophic understanding of existence? Huh?

yep…if it is going to make any sense

Well, it’s not protein molecules. It’s the substance of bread, which is carbohydrate molecules. But during transubstantiation the bread actually becomes the Body (flesh) of Jesus.

this is the sort of thing that makes no sense to me…if carbohydrate molecules (which are present) are the subsatnce of bread, then how is the substance of flesh present?..from what you say it would seem that the substance of bread remains present throughout…and how come protein molecules aren’t the substance of flesh? I think that you might have strayed from official teaching here.

One need not hold to any certain philosophy (Greek or otherwise, except. of course, to Apostolic philosophy) to understand that the Eucharist is the RP of Christ.

I think what you mean is that “One need not hold to any certain philosophy (Greek or otherwise, except. of course, to Apostolic philosophy) to believe that the Eucharist is the RP of Christ”…but please, explain to me how the body is really (substantially) present and the bread isn’t w/o resorting to that certain greek philosophy.

 

[PRmerger]

yep…if it is going to make any sense

Isn’t transubstantiation a Western concept?

 

[Radical]

Radical, were you aware the Augustine’s view on the Eucharist is that which the Catholic Church holds?

I know that is what Catholics want to believe…but we seem to be getting off topic here…I have discussed Augustine at length on these threads, feel free to search for a more extensive explanation from me.

Why, even Protestant theologian JND Kelly writes: "There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM…

JND Kelly was a great scholar, but his opinion no longer reflects the opinion of more recent biographers of Augustine/specialists on the history of Eucharistic theology…I invite you to it check out, but I think we have discussed Augustine enough for this thread.

 

[PRmerger]

but I think we have discussed Augustine enough for this thread.

As you wish.

Curious, though, that *you *would bring him up, and then when refutations are provided, then you back out with “he’s off topic”.

 

[PRmerger]

I think what you mean is that “One need not hold to any certain philosophy (Greek or otherwise, except. of course, to Apostolic philosophy) to believe that the Eucharist is the RP of Christ”…but please, explain to me how the body is really (substantially) present and the bread isn’t w/o resorting to that certain greek philosophy.

Fair enough.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

following this logic the early Christians must have professed that a Christian brother had sex with his Christian sister, and that is why the pagans accused them of incest…what do you think that the early Christians claimed so that they were accused of infanticide and canine pimps?

Thankfully, we don’t base our doctrines on what Pagans thought they were, but we can use their accusations as proof that there was a belief that was controversial, yet still believed.

 

[Kristin234]

How many fluent Greek speaking Protestants do you know?

In Christ,
Andrew

I don’t know if you are trying to make fun but my mother’s whole side of the family speaks Greek and most of them are Protestant. Some of them have even majored in theology

As for my father’s side, my grandfather taught all 8 of his children to speak Aramaic and 5 of the 8 including my father can still speak it. Three of the 5 are Protestants.

Protestants aren’t just made up of Americans who can only speak English

 

[Radical]

As you wish.

Curious, though, that *you *would bring him up, and then when refutations are provided, then you back out with “he’s off topic”.

well, I don’t think that your refutations are sound at all and I have dealt with sermon 227 and other Augustine works over and over again on threads such as these:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=267774

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5958490

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7002393

Augustine is relevant when he expresses his understanding of how we should understand the command to “eat Christ’s flesh” and is also relevant to explaining to N325 how I think the doctrine developed (and took a great deal of time to do so)…but if you want to debate Augustine’s belief in a real presence, I think you are going too far afield. As far as Augustine goes, I’ll leave you with the challenge that has remained unanswered by quite a few on these threads…you quoted a little bit of Sermon 227…why not post all of that sermon on a new thread and then explain to me how it establishes that Augustine held to a real bodily presence (and how the scholars [ie Wills, Van der Meer and Kilmartin]somehow missed that sermon when arriving at their conclusion?

 

[Cristiano]

… it is a continuation of what Christ said at 4: 34 (His food is to do the will of the Father)…it would be nice if “transubstantiated bread” was in the verse too.

I thought that the words “transubstantiated bread” are written in the same chapter next to the word “trinity”. I have to assume that I have been wrong.

Oops! Is then the Trinity a Catholic invention too?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
Radical, were you aware the Augustine’s view on the Eucharist is that which the Catholic Church holds?

I know that is what Catholics want to believe…but we seem to be getting off topic here…I have discussed Augustine at length on these threads, feel free to search for a more extensive explanation from me.

I beg your pardon? What Catholics WANT to believe? What we WANT to believe? No! We believe what the early church truthfully taught, unlike you as a Protestant adheres to novelties due to the fact you follow some man-made church founded centuries apart. I find it so absurd when Protestants will revise history to support their novelties. 'll ask you again, I want you to show me ONE VERSE where Jesus taught about the canon of scripture,since you said the RBP is a pious imagination invention and not taught by Jesus or the Apostles.

Quote:
Why, even Protestant theologian JND Kelly writes: "There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM…

JND Kelly was a great scholar, but his opinion no longer reflects the opinion of more recent biographers of Augustine/specialists on the history of Eucharistic theology…I invite you to it check out, but I think we have discussed Augustine enough for this thread

.

Was a great scholar? Care to elaborate why he no longer is a great scholar? Why? Because of recent biographers of Augustiine and so-called specialist on the history of Eucharistic theology? Sorry,but modern scholarship at times is pure garbage.

 

[Radical]

I thought that the words “transubstantiated bread” are written in the same chapter next to the word “trinity”.

looks like you need to read scripture a little more than you have been doing…but it at least explains a few things regarding your view

Oops! Is then the Trinity a Catholic invention too?

I wouldn’t call it a Catholic invention b/c the early Church and the church now called the Catholic Church differ too much in doctrine to be equated with one another…the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of man’s reasoning (mainly reasoning from the books that became the NT)…plain and simple. In contrast, I would say that the doctrine of a real bodily presence is a product of pious imagination mixed with a inclination for a too literal interpretation of a select set of passages, stirred into a paste of Greek philosophy and salted with a dash of reasoning. The doctrine of the Trinity is much more palatable to Protestant taste buds b/c of the quality and foundation of the reasoning, whereas we tend to gag on the greek philosophy and pious imagination. (hmmm…it must be lunchtime)

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

I’m starting to see that we are starting to drift from my original question. So, Radical, point one: cuf.org/FileDownloads/augustine.pdf regardless what you say about St Augustine, and also, Radical, John 6 does not use figurtive, symbolic language, and that a Christian needs to eat His Body in order to gain eternal life. Regardless who believed what in the past or who believes what now, that is that authentic Universal (Καθολικός → katholikos–> Catholic) Christian teaching. Since John 6 is not figurtive or symbolic, how would you respond to the Greek and nothing more.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Oops! Is then the Trinity a Catholic invention too?

I wouldn’t call it a Catholic invention b/c the early Church and the church now called the Catholic Church differ too much in doctrine to be equated with one another…the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of man’s reasoning (mainly reasoning from the books that became the NT)…plain and simple.

This is absurd. Name ONE doctrine the RCC differs from the early church? Wow! Then why do Protestants adhere to a NT canon? Show me ONE verse where Jesus and the Apostles mentioned a canon? I thought you just said the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of man’s reasoning? So where did the canon come from? Pious imaginations?

In contrast, I would say that the doctrine of a real bodily presence is a product of pious imagination mixed with a inclination for a too literal interpretation of a select set of passages, stirred into a paste of Greek philosophy and salted with a dash of reasoning.

Wow! Then I am curious for you to tell me what pious imaginations came up with the Canon of Scripture? I’ll ask again,show me where scripture mentions a formulated OT/NT canon for production of a one volume book called the Bible?

The doctrine of the Trinity is much more palatable to Protestant taste buds b/c of the quality and foundation of the reasoning, whereas we tend to gag on the greek philosophy and pious imagination. (hmmm…it must be lunchtime)

Which still begs the question: Do you and Protestants gag on the NT canon?

 

[Radical]

…and also, Radical, John 6 does not use figurtive, symbolic language, and that a Christian needs to eat His Body in order to gain eternal life.

it is patently ridiculous to suggest that John 6 doesn’t use figurative language…what is “bread of life” if not a figure? Your problem is that you can’t see that Jesus continued to use figurative language when he spoke about eating his flesh.

Regardless who believed what in the past or who believes what now, that is that authentic Universal (Καθολικός → katholikos–> Catholic) Christian teaching.

this doesn’t become true simply b/c you want to believe it

Since John 6 is not figurtive or symbolic,…

this doesn’t become true simply b/c you repeat it

…how would you respond *to the Greek *and nothing more.

see post #9

 

[Cristiano]

looks like you need to read scripture a little more than you have been doing…but it at least explains a few things regarding your view

I wouldn’t call it a Catholic invention b/c the early Church and the church now called the Catholic Church differ too much in doctrine to be equated with one another…the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of man’s reasoning (mainly reasoning from the books that became the NT)…plain and simple. In contrast, I would say that the doctrine of a real bodily presence is a product of pious imagination mixed with a inclination for a too literal interpretation of a select set of passages, stirred into a paste of Greek philosophy and salted with a dash of reasoning. The doctrine of the Trinity is much more palatable to Protestant taste buds b/c of the quality and foundation of the reasoning, whereas we tend to gag on the greek philosophy and pious imagination. (hmmm…it must be lunchtime)

I think that you are wrong. The Trinity must be an invention too because the early Church that you mention also said that Christ was really present (his flesh and blood) in the Eucharist, and we can only assume that they reasoned it out of the scriptures. I mean they are the ones that put the scriptures together, and I can only assume that they tried to be consistent with what they did.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

see post #9

My bad, it seems I forgot about post #9. I apologize. However, that is only a half answer. If I take your word for it that trogos is not always literal in every single time it is used, that does not change the fact that St John clearly implied a literal meaning when he switched from phago (“to eat”) to trogo (“to gnaw”), because that drives the image of eating Christ’s Body further into our head.

Even the disciples understood it to be literal when Jesus was speaking, and that is why they are seen to be leaving, because canniblism was against Mosaic Law and still against Natural Law.

Also, the early Christians took a literal interpretation of John 6, seen in 1 Corinthians 11. “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
Further readings:

• Letter to the Romans by St Ignatius
• Letter to the Smyrnaeans by St Ignatius
• First Apology by St Justin Marter
• Against Heresies by St Irenaeus
• The Instructor of Children by St Clement of Alexandria
• The Resurrection of the Dead by Tertullian
• Commentary on Proverbs by St Hippolytus
• Homilies on Numbers by Origen
• The Lapsed by St Cyprian of Carthage
• Canon 18 of the First Council of Nicaea
• Treatises by Aphraahat the Persian Sage
• Catechetical Lectures by Cyril of Jerusalem
• The Mysteries by St Ambros of Milan
• Catechetical Homilies by Theodore of Mopsuestia
• Explanations of the Psalms by St Augustine
• Sermons by St Augustine
• Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, Session 1 of the Council of Ephesus
• The Didache

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexPetrosPio
…and also, Radical, John 6 does not use figurtive, symbolic language, and that a Christian needs to eat His Body in order to gain eternal life.

it is patently ridiculous to suggest that John 6 doesn’t use figurative language…what is “bread of life” if not a figure? Your problem is that you can’t see that Jesus continued to use figurative language when he spoke about eating his flesh.

And it is even more arrogant to suggest all of John 6 was merely figurative. So figurative that many disciples walked away and Jesus ask the 12 they too are offended? Wow! Such harsh figurative langauge. Secondly, does not Jesus correct any misunderstandings throughout the NT? If he truly meant it to be figurative,then why not clarify it?

Quote:
Regardless who believed what in the past or who believes what now, that is that authentic Universal (Καθολικός → katholikos–> Catholic) Christian teaching.

this doesn’t become true simply b/c you want to believe it

Likewise and your position is NOT true either because you have fallen for a novelty founded centuries later and you believe it as Truth.

Quote:
Since John 6 is not figurtive or symbolic,…

this doesn’t become true simply b/c you repeat it

And it dfoes not negate it either because you choose to deny it.

Quote:
…how would you respond to the Greek and nothing more.

see post #9

:yawn:

 

[dharmasister]

When peoplewrongly take Him literally, Jesus corrects them and explains:

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodumus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3-5)

Other examples of Christ clarifying his meaning are:
(John 11:11-14)
(Matherw 19:24-26)
(John 8:21-23)
(John 8:31-36)

When people rightly take Him Literally, Jesus confirms and repeats:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was able to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they took up stones to throw at him b; but Jesus his himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:56-59)

Furthermore, Jesus couldn’t be speaking figuratively, because that expression already had a specific figurative meaning. Verses which show “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” as a figure of speech are describing assault and persecution:

(Psalm 27:2)
(Isaish 9:18-20)
(Micah 3:3)
(2 Samuel 23:15-17)
(Revelation 17:6, 16)

If Jesus had been speaking figuratively about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then what He really means is “whoever persecutes, assaults, and destroys me will have eternal life.” This makes absolute nonsense of the passage!

The point is that in the Bread of Life Discourse there was no misunderstanding. Jesus never let anyone leave because they did not understand what he was saying. He wouldn’t lose a follower because they didn’t get his meaning. They absolutely understood his meaning and they did not accept it!! This lesson was so crucial to the Salvation Plan that he was willing to lose them over it. To say that Jesus would let a follower go because they misunderstood him is to say that Jesus is callous, which he is not!! I remember a translation of the verse (not sure which) where it says "Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does it shake your faith?” (John 6:61) I love that translation because it shows what true faith they had to have in him. In the context of the day, it was a hard saying, but his followers had faith in him to be able to bring them to a greater understanding of it.

 

[Radical]

My bad, it seems I forgot about post #9. I apologize. However, that is only a half answer. If I take your word for it that trogos is not always literal in every single time it is used,…

why would you need to take my word for it?..show me the linguistic rule that would (even remotely) suggest that trogos can’t be used in a figure of speech…it seems that you so convinced that Jesus must be speaking literally that you can’t even conceive that the God of the universe would be free to use “trogos” as he wishes

… that does not change the fact that St John clearly implied a literal meaning when he switched from phago (“to eat”) to trogo (“to gnaw”),…

this clear implication doesn’t exist apart from those who share your mindset…I am inclined to think that the author of John switched to “trogos” to accurately report the exchange and not to imply some extra meaning. Again back to my example given at post #9, if I said:
a) “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.”
b) and you responded with “no way!”
c) and I then said, “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.”
…then my switch to “chew” at (c) does not mean that I am “implying a literal meaning”…I am merely using a another, more graphic figure of speech to drive the point home.

Even the disciples understood it to be literal when Jesus was speaking, and that is why they are seen to be leaving, because canniblism was against Mosaic Law and still against Natural Law.

this again is merely your assumption and more than what the text states. You have one thing right, namely literal = cannibalism…and since you don’t particiapte in a cannibalistic act, you don’t literally follow Christ’s requirement. I have seen this remark repeatedly…so here is what I have said elsewhere on these threads:
this IMHO is an extremely common misreading of John 6 and an incorrect assessment of what the crowd understood that day and what Christ intended that day…

a) Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been transubstantiated into his body. Transubstantiation would have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not transubstantiation or the Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

b) Likewise, Christ made absolutely no mention and gave no indication that the flesh eating that he had in mind involved bread that had been mysteriously changed into his body. That such could be the case would also have been such a foreign concept to the people’s experience and to the reality that the people enjoyed that they would have never even envisioned such a possibility. As such, the “hard teaching” that some walked away from was not any sort of “real presence” teaching regarding the Eucharist, b/c that teaching was never provided.

c) At the time of John 6 the Lord’s Supper had not been held and as such, there is no way that the audience could have even understood that Jesus was talking about a future Sacrament involving bread and wine. As such, the “hard teaching” that some rejected was not in any way connected to the Eucharist (in their minds), b/c the future existence of that Sacrament was totally unknown to the audience.

What then was the “hard teaching” that they heard? I suppose (like Augustine) one could believe that they took Jesus to be requiring a cannibalistic act from them….such is possible b/c that is where a literal understanding (of his very graphic words) would lead. One should note that Christ’s use of “chew” or “gnaw” would require the eater to actually bite into his flesh and chew on it for a literal fulfillment of Jesus’ words. In the Catholic Eucharist, no gnawing of flesh actually occurs b/c the accidents of the teeth never meet the accidents of Christ’s body. The Catholic Eucharist is not a literal fulfillment of John 6. If some walked away from a literal understanding, then those that left, rejected cannibalism (and the teacher of it).

I don’t know that any of those people would have thought that Jesus was requiring a cannibalistic act from them. Jesus was profoundly moral and cannibalism is profoundly immoral. I suspect many would have concluded that Jesus couldn’t have intended to be taken literally, but w/o further explanation from him, they wouldn’t have known what to make of his words. Those words wouldn’t have made sense and would have been offensive. If that is right, then those that left rejected (what to them seemed to be) a nonsensical and offensive teaching (and the perceived teacher of it).

The text doesn’t say why Jesus made no effort to clarify his meaning, but it makes it very clear that none left who had been actually called by the Father. Christ could have called out, “Wait I am only speaking metaphorically” or “Wait I am not speaking of cannibalism or of your teeth actually chewing my flesh”, but he didn’t, b/c it seems, that he didn’t care to.

 

[Radical]

continuing…

Also, the early Christians took a literal interpretation of John 6, seen in 1 Corinthians 11. “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

I have seen this argument repeatedly…so here is what I have said elsewhere on these threads:

here, IMHO, you jump to an unwarranted conclusion. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RBP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RBP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) An assumption that a RBP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RBP being involved