Bread of life Discourse

[Brother Adam]

I was reading this today and thought it was fascinating. The next time a Protestant states that John 6 is nothing more than a symbol, go ahead and say "oh, okay". Then share with them what it would have meant to the disciples if Jesus shared with their culture that they were to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood' symbolically. To those he was talking to, it would have meant that those who follow him were to mock and scorn him, to beat him and his family. Because Jesus was so oriented in his message to the culture and time he was in, he would have not dared to say this as a symbol and then let people walk away believing that they were to scorn him, dispise him, and spit on him.

[SarahB]

The problem with most Protestants is that they don't have any understanding of the culture of Jesus' time. I mean, lets face it...most Catholics don't either unless they take the time to study it. It's not hard to see why they think we're nuts. Heck....growing up Catholic I never heard any of this stuff and eventually I left the Church because someone else's explination made more sense. It wasn't until I took the time to study the Church's teachings(and not for increased knowledge) that I began to see the Truth in the Church's teachings.

Even if you tell them that.....most of them aren't going to believe it. Most of them probably won't even give it a second thought. But....for those of us who do, it's well worth it to try.

[Brother Adam]

To an extent you are right of course. The vast majority of Protestants will turn to intellectual dishonesty when there is no other way out. Those who are intellectually honest, and seek truth, there is only conclusion. The same one that so many of us here came to - the Catholic Church is what she says she is. This piece of information serves as just one more 'point' for us catechists and apologists.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[SarahB]

I've actually discussed this with some of my Protestant friends. Their response is, "Well, the reason some of the people didn't follow Jesus anymore is because that's exactly what they thought he was saying. They thought he was saying that they were going to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. But the disciples stayed because they realized that's not what he was saying at all."

It's quite frustrating.

[Brother Adam]

Sarah, there is no way he was speaking symbolic though. If he was, he would have an obligation, like he does thoughout the rest of the scirptures, to tell them "Hey - guys, I was speaking symbolically", else what kind of teacher does that make him? Not even the disciples knew what to make of it. So their assertion that the disciples understood it as symbolic is false. Jesus turned to Peter and asked him what he would do. Peter didn't say "ah, Jesus, I gotcha, you sly dog, you were just talking in symbols back there, haha". He instead said "Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life". The disciples didn't understand it as symbolic at all.

The Greek

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." The disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So what does Jesus do?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. There is not one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if you are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink

[SarahB]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='May 13 2005, 01:57 PM'] Sarah, there is no way he was speaking symbolic though. If he was, he would have an obligation, like he does thoughout the rest of the scirptures, to tell them "Hey - guys, I was speaking symbolically", else what kind of teacher does that make him? Not even the disciples knew what to make of it. So their assertion that the disciples understood it as symbolic is false. Jesus turned to Peter and asked him what he would do. Peter didn't say "ah, Jesus, I gotcha, you sly dog, you were just talking in symbols back there, haha". He instead said "Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life". The disciples didn't understand it as symbolic at all.

The Greek

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." The disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So what does Jesus do?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. There is not one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if you are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink [/quote]
Oh, I know all this. Trust me....I had it pounded into my head by my Catholic friends when I tried to tell them they were wrong.

I'm just still trying to find a way to get through to my Protestant friends who haven't ever been exposed to the Catholic Church. I think it was easier for me to start to understand because I was baptized and raised Catholic. This all makes perfect sense to me. I just wish I knew how to help my friends come to these conclusions.

[Brother Adam]

Well, they need to be open for one. I know if I wasn't open to learning, it wouldn't have mattered what you or anyone could have said, I would still be Baptist. I wish there was a way to make people open to learning, but we must rely on prayer and wait for the Holy Spirit to move peoples hearts.

[Socrates]

[quote name='SarahB' date='May 13 2005, 12:35 PM'] I've actually discussed this with some of my Protestant friends. Their response is, "Well, the reason some of the people didn't follow Jesus anymore is because that's exactly what they thought he was saying. They thought he was saying that they were going to really eat his flesh and drink his blood. But the disciples stayed because they realized that's not what he was saying at all."

It's quite frustrating. [/quote]
There's an obvious reply to this.

Note that in the Gospel, after people were leaving Him, he did not try to explain what He really meant. He did not tsay that they misunderstood His message, and explain that this was all just metaphor. NO, He asked His disciples, if they would leave too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have a few ideas for response.

One is what were you refering to when you were talking about what Jesus was saying either meant to eat Jesus or to beat him? I've heard that before, and I've heard the argument that Jesus only used a more literal use of the word eat argument. But I always hear them separate. What's the connection between beating Jesus and his stronger use of the word eat?

What was the word used for "eat my words" or whatever phrases were used in the old testament when the prophets ate Jesus' words? How does this word for eat relate to the words Jesus used? I realize that if they are the same, then that doesnt' at all disprove the Catholic eucharist interpretation, I'm just curious for further study.

What relation does Greek have to the words that the bible were written in?

Didn't people walk away when Jesus made other parables and people just misunderstood him? Maybe it was "I am the door" but that's so obviously figurative that the people must have walked away because they did not want to follow him. Maybe there was another word. I can' think of the exact one, but I've heard this counter argument.

Also couldn't it be that he was using the words to test the people's faith in him in that even thought they knew he didn't mean what he was saying literally, they believed in Jesus and would come to a greater understanding of what he meant? Especially given that Jesus said, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. If this means that the people have to understand his words spiritually, the ones who left either did not want to or did not have God to show them to stick through until they did understand fully.

I will be back for clarifications of my points.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Brother Adam]

To answer your first question, the New Testament was written in koine Greek which developed out of Attic Greek. To answer your second assertion, the bread of life discourse was not a parable. Nothing about the langauge or Jesus' words suggests a parable. Protestants call it a parable all the time but they are bankrupt on evidence.

[dairygirl4u2c]

--- was saying either meant to eat Jesus or to beat him? I've heard that before, and I've heard the argument that Jesus only used a more literal use of the word eat argument. But I always hear them separate. What's the connection between beating Jesus and his stronger use of the word eat?----

This isn't very clear. I think you'd say that since he used a stronger word, it probably doesn't mean beat. I mean what word that he uses means beat?

The way he saved humanity according to mainstream christianity is by being beat and killed by mankind. I know no one uses this argument, but this does seem like a pretty good counter argument. Unless you crucify me, you will have no life within you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

--Protestants call it a parable all the time but they are bankrupt on evidence--

One thing Catholics like to avoid:

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (vs 63)

This was said to Jesus right [i]after[/i] they were undertanding him literally. This is not not exactly being bankrupt on evidence..

catholics have their interpretations, others have theirs.

Edited May 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='May 13 2005, 11:45 AM'] Because Jesus was so oriented in his message to the culture and time he was in, he would have not dared to say this as a symbol and then let people walk away believing that they were to scorn him, dispise him, and spit on him. [/quote]
In fact, those who rejected Him in John 6 were scorning Him. If that's what He had wanted, then the eleven faithful apostles, with emphasis on St. Peter, would have been the people opposing Him and those who refused His message, with emphasis on Judas (i.e. "the one who would betray Him") would be those accepting it by doing exactly what He said. A purely symbolic meaning is self-contradictory.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='May 14 2005, 05:14 PM'] --Protestants call it a parable all the time but they are bankrupt on evidence--

One thing Catholics like to avoid:

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." (vs 63)

This was said to Jesus right [i]after[/i] they were undertanding him literally. This is not not exactly being bankrupt on evidence..

catholics have their interpretations, others have theirs. [/quote]
That's hardly evidence. To be interpretted the way you suggest, Christ would basically have been saying, "this is My Body" (whether He was literal or figurative), and then, "but that doesn't mean anything, because it's the Spirit that counts."

Rather, Jesus is referring to the words He speaks as spirit and life, and therefore, there can be a couple interpretations:

1. He is saying that they are thinking carnally and not spiritually, i.e. as man thinks and not as God thinks, and that they must amend this.

2. He is saying that His words are of life and are life-giving, where as the words they think He is saying (they were thinking that He was telling them to be cannibals or something) are of the flesh. That is, that there is a "fleshy" thing in this world which is evil (cannibalism) and that He is offering the spiritual truth of which cannibalism is a twist (the Eucharist, which Satan defames by cannibalism).