The Complete, Essential Guide to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: Part Three - John 6, Bread of Life Discourse

Scott Smith September 18, 2019

Is there proof in the Bible that Jesus actually meant for us to eat His flesh? Absolutely and unequivocally.

I'm not just going to give you a few verses to support that statement. I'm going to cite an entire chapter. The 6th chapter of the Gospel of John to be exact.

I recently wrote about the recent survey that found only 26% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Here's why Jesus Himself expects us to believe in the Real Presence.

Hit play below if you would like to listen to the overview of Real Presence topics that we covered on the Catholic Nerds Podcast. Here's the Apple/iTunes link to the podcast, too ... and Podbean.

Here are all the topics that will be covered in this and upcoming articles:

Pew Survey of Catholics
Flannery O'Connor and her amazing quote on the Real Presence
[THIS ARTICLE] Jesus on the Real Presence - Gospel of John, Chapter 6
Early Church Fathers on the Real Presence - St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch
Protestants and the Real Presence - Martin Luther argues from the Real Presence against Ulrich Zwingli

So what exactly were Jesus' words about the Real Presence?

Jesus on the Real Presence - John 6

Let's take a look at the Bread of Life Discourse. This takes place in the Gospel of John, chapter 6.

I won't reproduce the entire chapter here, though here's a link to the text. It's basically one very long, undeniable, and obvious statement of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Let's begin with a little story ...

The Story of the Little Jehovah's Witness Girl

The multiplying of the loaves and fishes was miraculous. This is a very important point. Jesus is God. He can perform miracles, especially with bread.

I love it when the Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door. Why? Because I love talking about the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our existence, so it's pretty easy to turn every conversation back to the Eucharist.

There was a long series of weekends that the Jehovah's Witnesses kept coming back to my house. Each weekend, they would bring one more person. Eventually, it became sort of a party.

One weekend, they brought a little girl with them. She's was sharp!

We were talking about the Eucharist, obviously, and she asked a question. A really good question! It knocked me on my heels at first.

She asked, "if all the world is really supposed to be eating Jesus, aren't we going to run out of Jesus? I mean, Jesus' body is only so big, right?"

Good question, right?

At first, I didn't know how to answer such a ridiculous question. I wanted to just shrug it off, and say, "That's ridiculous, little girl."

I also felt a little surge of panic in my gut. I had done so well for so long, easily answering all the adults' questions. I was about to be outdone by a little girl!

I crossed my forehead discretely, and asked the Holy Spirit for help.

The Holy Spirit delivered the answer so quickly I was ashamed.

This is JESUS. Multiplying bread and wine is His thing! Jesus begins his Bread of Life Discourse by multiplying five loaves and two fish a thousand-fold. Not only that, if the Manna could feed the Israelites for forty years in the desert, Jesus could feed the Eucharist to the whole world as long as He wants.

Jesus Feeding the 5,000

How begins the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John? Jesus miraculously feeds 5,000 people with just a few loaves and fish:

There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many? (John 6:9)

A Miracle of Sharing?

I have heard some people describe this miracle as a "miracle of sharing". I'm not going to name any names, like the Jesuits or this guy. I'm just not going to name any names. Pope Francis. No names.

Many of our 1960s-era priests will describe this as miracle by which Jesus encourage people to share their food. Jesus didn't actually multiply the five loaves and two fish. That's nuts and obviously not what's being described.

I can't imagine why Catholics might be confused about the miraculous nature of the Eucharist.

For one, there were twelve baskets left over:

Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.” So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. (John 6:11-13)

Jesus also follows the Eucharistic formula. What's the word for "given thanks" in Greek? Eucharist.

They Want More Free Stuff - Sound Familiar?

Also, why do they continue to follow Jesus? Jesus answers this question Himself:

When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.” (John 25-27)

The multitudes aren't following Jesus because they love Him or want to worship Him. They are certainly not following him because they want to share more. They want more free food. It is their bellies that are following Jesus.

The food that Jesus just gave them was completely miraculous, but it was nothing compared to the bread Jesus will give them. Therefore, the bread which Jesus will give, the Eucharist, will be a far greater miracle than feeding 5,000 people with a little boy's lunch. This bread will be far more than a symbol.

"They murmured against him" - The New Moses and the New Manna

What's all this murmuring about?

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” (John 6:41)

Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. (John 6:43)

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? (John 6:60)

Jesus just performed a mind-blowing miracle. Jesus fed 5,000 people with basically crumbs. Why do they keep murmuring against Jesus?

"Murmuring" is a direct reference to the Israelites "murmuring" against Moses. Here are some examples of this:

And the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and said to them, “Would that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” (Exodus 16:2-3)

And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink? (Exodus 15:24)

They "murmured" against Moses because they were hungry and thirsty. How did Moses respond?

What is the greatest miracle of Moses? Is it the crossing of the Red Sea? Is it turning the Nile to blood?

No.

Moses fed tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of Israelites in the desert AND for forty years. How? God fed them "Bread from Heaven" plus the flesh of quails:

So Moses and Aaron said to all the people of Israel, “At evening you shall know that it was the Lord who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and in the morning you shall see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your murmurings against the Lord. For what are we, that you murmur against us?” And Moses said, “When the Lord gives you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full, because the Lord has heard your murmurings which you murmur against him—what are we? Your murmurings are not against us but against the Lord.” (Exodus 16:6-8)

I don't know. Do you think God heard the Israelites' murmurings? Either God or Moses really didn't appreciate the murmurings, I think.

So the bread came down like the "dewfall". Does that sound familiar? Here's the full description of the Manna:

In the evening quails came up and covered the camp; and in the morning dew lay round about the camp. And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground. When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat. (Exodus 16:13-15)

Jesus confirms the connection between the Eucharist and the Manna, too:

So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. (John 6:30-34)

What is the "sign" of Jesus? Like the Manna was the greatest miracle of Moses, what will be Jesus' greatest miracle? The Eucharist. Jesus isn't merely going to resurrect Himself from the dead; we are going to eat of His resurrection.

Here's the problem. If the Eucharist is just a symbol, the Eucharist is much, much less than the miraculous Manna. If Jesus' Manna is inferior to Moses' Manna, Jesus must be inferior to Moses, as well. That's a big problem!

The bread which Jesus is going to give, the "bread of life", isn't going to be merely natural bread. The "bread of life" will be supernatural. More than even that, the "living bread" will be Jesus' own flesh.

Does Jesus mean that literally? YES. Jesus makes this clear again and again. Just look at Jesus' words below:

Two Greek words for "Flesh": Soma & Sarx

Is the "bread of life" really Jesus' own flesh or just a symbol? What does Jesus' say?

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." (John 6:51)

That seems pretty clear, right? Of course, but what is Jesus saying in the original Greek?

This is the first time Jesus mentions His "flesh: in the Bread of Life discourse. The word Jesus uses for "flesh" is sarx (σάρξ). The word sarx denotes real, physical flesh. Strong's Concordance, which is a Protestant book, defines sarx as, "flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts."

So, is sarx a literal or symbolic understanding "flesh"? Literal, without question.

There is another Greek word for "body" that is far less literal: soma. If Jesus wanted to convey a symbolic meaning, He could have used soma. The word soma is used for body in the Synoptic Gospels at the Last Supper, as well as in 1 Corinthians 10.

Yet here, when the Jews are pressing Jesus to clarify His meaning, Jesus chooses the word sarx, an unambiguous term for physical, literal flesh.

The Jews are practically begging Jesus to say "it's just a parable". Some of Jesus' disciples are actually about to leave Him because of Jesus' insistence on a literal meaning of His words. That will be at John 6:66. Don't think the number of that verse is just a coincidence.

Instead of leaving room for a symbolic interpretation, Jesus doubles down. And triples down.

Jesus: Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, or No Life Within You

Jesus gets even more literal. Seeing that the Jews still seem to be misunderstanding Him, our Lord insistently declares:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." (John 6:53-55)

If Jesus meant this to be symbolic, He has an odd way of showing it. If someone mistakes your words for literal when you mean them to be symbolic, would you rephrase yourself in a more stringently literal fashion? No. But this is what Jesus does.

Lazarus is Dead

Was there ever a time when the disciples took Jesus too literally? Yes, at John 11:13-14:

"Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then therefore Jesus said to them plainly: "Lazarus is dead."

How does Jesus respond? Jesus basically says, "Look, friends, I was just speaking symbolically."

This is not what happens when Jesus tells His disciples to eat His flesh. Gulp.

Jesus behaves very differently in John 6. The people are scandalized by what appears to be a very shocking statement of literal truth. Far from dissuade them from this opinion, Jesus goes out of His way to state the truth even more literally.

Jesus doubles down. Besides sarx and soma, Jesus uses another Greek word to insist on His literal meaning of eating His flesh.

Two Greek words for "Flesh": Phago & Trogon

Jesus again insists on a literal meaning of "eating His flesh" when he switches the Greek word for eat. Jesus begins the Bread of Life Discourse using the Greek word phago (φάγω) for eat, but switches to trogon (τρώγω).

Initially, the verb is phago (φάγω). Jesus uses phago in John 6:48-53. Phago simply means "to eat". Much like the English word, phago can have a variety of meanings. I can eat something literally. There are also plenty of figurative meanings, as well: I can "eat something up" or "eat a horse"; you can "eat your heart out" or "eat my dust" or, like Bart Simpson, "eat my shorts".

At John 6:54, Jesus suddenly switches verbs. Instead of the broad, often figurative term phago, Jesus changes to the very pointed term trogon.

Trogon (τρώγω) has one very specific and literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. When Jesus starts using trogon instead of phago at John 6:54, He is removing all doubt from his listeners as to His meaning.

The proper English equivalent of trogon would be "masticate". Masticate is the scientific term for the act of chewing. It is precise and unambiguous. Jesus uses trogon exclusively from John 6:54 forward to describe the eating of Jesus' flesh.

John 6:58 is a particularly interesting verse, because Jesus makes a distinction. Jesus uses both phago and trogon together in verse 58:

"This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate [phago] and died; he who eats [trogon] this bread will live for ever."

Jesus uses phago when referring to the Israelites eating the manna, but uses trogon when referring to His flesh. The Eucharistic meaning is plain. Jesus wants us to understand that we will "eat" His Body in the most literal, direct sense of the word.

Conclusion

Jesus uses sarx for flesh and trogon for eat to eradicate any symbolic interpretation of eating His flesh.

If Jesus intended His teaching of the Eucharist to be symbolic, why did He do the following?

Choose specific and unequivocal terms when more general terms were available, terms He had used on previous occasions.
Stress the literal interpretation of His statements even as it scandalized and finally scared off His disciples.
Decline to say it was just a parable.
Refuse to clarify that His words were not meant to be taken literally, as He had done on other occasions.

77 Comments

Eucharist AngelJune 25, 2020 at 8:32 PM

Jesus no more wishes us to eat his flesh and drink his blood than he wants us to pluck out our eye or cut off our hand, as stated elsewhere.
THESE ARE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS!
For 100 biblical reasons why Transubstantiation is false, request it at...
eucharistangel@gmail.com
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousApril 4, 2023 at 7:09 AM
I am very curious to know what Greek word Jesus uses for "flesh" in John 6:63. Do you know?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 15, 2024 at 9:34 PM
Mr. Smith...I'm just now noticing your reply to me 4 years later, and am perfectly able to answer any supposed "proof" you have for your fairy tale belief in Transubstantiation. I therefore challenge you to a written debate right here on your website, for all to see, and let it stand for years to come in cyberspace.
I will abide by any rules you choose.
Up for the challenge? If you're so sure Jesus shrinks himself down to the size of a Ritz cracker 24/7 a million times a day on Catholic altars world-wide, then either put up or shut up.
Your arguments in this article are easily dealt with, and if you think for even ONE MOMENT that Protestants are left speechless by your efforts, you're only kidding yourself. As a matter of fact, I can disprove RC teaching on the Eucharist with only...ONE WORD.
Yes, I said, ONE WORD.
Don't believe me? Then accept my challenge, or be considered a coward.
Why don't you entitle the debate: "Will this Protestant succeed in disproving Transubstantiation with just one word? Let's see".
So I'll be waiting for your reply. You can contact me at the address I gave in my previous reply.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 24, 2024 at 4:52 PM
Good day Mr. Smith,
I'm happy to debate you here, but something needs to be cleared up first. As shown above, some years ago I offered to send you 100 reasons why Transubstantiation is unsubstantiated, which contained therein a refutation of the points made in your article and then some. Your response was that I did not address a single point right then and THERE.
But excuse me, I could not fit 25,000 words in a combox (nor would you want me to) so I offered to send you the essay in its place. Apparently, you declined my kind invitation and so that was that.
Fast forward 4 years to today. I originally began to reply to your accepting my challenge in my email account when I got your note, but not knowing if those replies would post directly on your website, I decided to reply here instead to be sure.
The point is, when I put in your address, I saw that it popped up automatically, which means I must have replied to you in SOME way previously, which I don't recall.
So my question is this: Did you ever request and receive from me those 100 reasons, and if so, why did I not ever get a reply?
If you did not, then it will remain a mystery how your name came up in my account, and I will then proceed to prove that Catholicism in general, and the Eucharist in particular, must be classified as "another jesus and another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4, all with the use of only ONE WORD that came out of the allegedly "infallible" Council of Trent.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 25, 2024 at 11:13 PM

You say in this article:
"If someone mistakes your words for literal when you mean them to be symbolic, would you REPHRASE yourself [emphasis mine] in a more stringently literal fashion?
No. But this is what Jesus does."

I take from your analysis that you believe Jesus would tell us all to stick as "stringently" close to his sacred words as possible and under no circumstances whatsoever -- REPHRASE any of them to suit our own agenda.
That being so, the rephrase/paraphrase in CCC 1376 is inexcusable.
The magisterium claims that the Catholic faith is "summarized" in just one sentence; essentially that Transubstantiation is "proper and fitting" because Jesus "SAID" at the Last Supper that the bread was "TRULY" his body.
However, no Bible on Earth records him as having "SAID" any such thing! All he "SAID" was, "This is my body", not that the bread was "TRULY" his body. He knew very well the biblical evidence shows "This is"
can just as easily be taken literally OR metaphorically, and so, no doubt he wishes two FALLIBLE parties to engage with his statement AS IT STANDS so that the better evidence of the two would be manifest to all (Prov 18:17; 1 Cor 11:19). He would therefore NOT appoint a supposedly INFALLIBLE Council REPHRASING his statement all in favor of Roman Catholic protocol to settle the issue 1500 years after he left that table.
Which means all who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, “The Lord says”, (when the Lord did not say), will be swiftly cast out of his presence (Deut 18:22; Jer 23:30-40) because they refused the command to, “add nothing to his words, lest you be found a liar"
(Prov 30:6; Jer 14:14-16).
Which means the Council of Trent wasn't infallible after all, and if infallibility is a delusion, then the entire system collapses, as does everything they have to say about the Eucharist, based simply on their ungodly, unbiblical, ONE WORD flub.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 28, 2024 at 1:34 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 29, 2024 at 6:12 AM
I'll simply say the same thing over time broken down in pieces. Makes no difference.
Your insistence CCC 1376 does NOT refer to the Last Supper is categorically false. Trent claims Jesus "SAID" the bread was TRULY his body OFFERED in sacrifice. This offering is confirmed in CCC 621 and Session 13 of Trent, lying again to report that he “AFFIRMED WITH TRUTH that to be his own body which he presented to... THEMMMM”.
But no "affirmation of truth" is recorded anywhere!
And just whoooooo did he supposedly "present his body to?"
Answer: To the disciples... at the Last Supper.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousAugust 30, 2024 at 1:53 PM

You failed to acknowledge your error; namely, "CCC 1376 **DOESN'T** state that Jesus said 'TRULY'
at the Last Supper."
Any third grader can see that is EXACTLY what it says!
You were also wrong to accuse me of ADDING the location of the upper room. I proved Trent and CCC 621 say otherwise.
You now try justifying Trent's false claim that Jesus "affirmed with truth" the idea of Transubstantiation... by his ACTIONS at table
But that's exactly what this debate is all about! I violently DISAGREE that the actions ORRRR words of Jesus amount to the "Tranz". All you've done is say... IT'S TRUE!... which TRUUUULY proves absolutely nothing.
The confinement of 100 words makes it hard to lay out the facts.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 31, 2024 at 3:14 PM
Trent: Session 13, chapter 3: "For THE APOSTLES had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented
(to them).".
Thus, you are refuted.
Be it resolved then that Trent wasn't infallible after all when they inexcusably PARAPHRASED the original dialogue...AT THE LAST SUPPER...all in their favor.
Considering Jesus wants his word ACCURATELY dispatched right down to the last "jot and tittle"
(Matt 5:18) he endorses "searching the Scriptures" and "debate" (John 5:39, Acts 17:11; 19:8-10;
1 Cor 11:19) not an infallible council 1500 years later to set the record straight!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 31, 2024 at 6:12 PM
S.S. Unfortunately for you, Trent is infallible. Nevertheless, what is so inexcusable about Trent's paraphrasing of Jesus' words?
E.A. Trent was no more infallible than there is a man in the moon.
S.S. But Jesus said "Truly, truly" in J-6-53.
E.A. Who cares?! It's GRAMMATICALLY (to use your word) out of order to take the DOUBLE use of
“truly, truly” in 6:53; then transfer its SINGLE use as a paraphrase into another context altogether.
“Truly, truly” (double) and “truly” (single) convey two entirely different things!
The double use is a rhetorical attention-getting device...
(e.g., “Listen up people, this is important!”),
while the single use is a fact-supporting device
(e.g., “The coins were not fake, but truly made of gold”).
Hence, when Christ said, “Truly, truly [double]... that means his *STATEMENT* about their ulterior motive cannot be denied; while Trent’s use of “truly” [single] conveys that the *STATE* of the bread was now undeniably changed into his body. Therefore, a STATEMENT that something is true - as opposed to the STATE of something, are mutually exclusive.
Trent stole the word “truly” from its double use as an ATTENTION-getting device in 6:53, and transported its single use over to the Last Supper as a FACT-supporting device in a mad rush to prove the bread had “truly” changed into the Lord's body.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelAugust 31, 2024 at 6:18 PM
S,S, The tense of the verb doesn't imply a single occasion.
E.A. It doesn't matter in the LEAST if the tense signified a HUNDRED other occasions! They are MISQUOTING Jesus Christ.
Now Trent was perfectly free to THINK Transubstantiation is what Jesus MEANT by, “This is my body”, just as we are free to think that he meant no such literal thing. However, they were NOT free to infallibly paraphrase that he “SAID” the bread was “truly” his body to convey that Transubstantiation is a literal fact -and then send everyone to hell who disagrees!
For Trent to deconstruct what Christ ACTUALLY said, and reconstruct it to what they WANTED him to say, is a serious sin, especially in view of the biblical evidence powerfully proving he was speaking metaphorically both in J-6 *AND* the Last Supper.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 1, 2024 at 7:45 AM
S.S. You went over 200.

E.A. Guilty. But so did you, by multiple replies amounting to the same thing (325 to be exact).
So, multiple boxes, around 100 words? Fine by me. Or you can change the rules. Whatever.
Now what you said about "Truly, truly" being an oath is PARTIALLY true, but it depends on CONTEXT
(see next reply).
I agree with you on 6-53 in terms of an oath. However, the fact remains that in, “The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” translated by Rev. Schroeder, he quotes the passage from Trent about Jesus saying the bread was truly his body and then refers to the double use of "truly" in J-6-53 to justify it
(footnote 20, under Session 13).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 1, 2024 at 7:51 AM
S.S. Your previous post says that Trent "paraphrased" Jesus. Now, you're saying Trent "misquoted" him.
If Trent misquoted Jesus, show me the quotation marks in the passages you cited. There were none. Zero.

E.A. Trent's paraphrasing of the dialogue is JUST AS acceptable as saying they misquoted it. After all, they were crystal clear that Christ...(watch it now!)... "SAID" it.
NO QUOTES NEEDED.

TRENT: Quoniam autem Christus, redemptor noster, corpus suum id, quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit;

TRANSLATION: And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared
[or "said", per the catechism] that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body...
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 1, 2024 at 8:00 AM
I see that you can delete, but I can't.
Wanted to change a sentence in my first reply but the site says I'm not allowed. Is that the way it works?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 14, 2024 at 7:21 AM
I think 2 weeks of silence is long enough to wait, so I must now ask the question, "have you dropped out?"
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 23, 2024 at 5:08 PM

Housekeeping:
I retract the scolding e-mail I sent you.
Now so far, I've proved that the "infallible" paraphrase by Trent, which sought to close the debate 1500 years after Christ left that table; telling us he "SAID" the bread was "TRULY" his body, proves they were not infallible after all because such a statement is categorically OUTSIDE the intention of Christ. And let's get it straight: his intention was to be PURPOSELY ambiguous and to let that intention stand till kingdom come.
He knew very well that "THIS IS..." could be taken either literally or figuratively. The sheep who care to know the truth must compare Scripture with Scripture to seek it out (1 Cor 2:13). The goats who trust in a self-proclaiming "infallible" council, will be left up a creek without a spiritual paddle (Matt 11:25-6; 13:35; Mk 4:11-12; Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 9:37-39, 12:40).
That said, Protestants have a very strong case for taking "THIS IS..." in a figurative manner, whereas all your reasons are falling over like a house of cards.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 23, 2024 at 5:13 PM
I do tire of the recent and novel RC apologetic buzzword these days; namely, that Jesus "doubled down", supposedly proving that any repetition is to be taken literally.
It does not prove any such thing.
What you omit to say is that while he does “double down” five times on the “eating” aspect in verses 53-57,
he ALSO “doubles down” five times on believing in him (!!!). See verses 29, 35, 40, 47, 64.
Consequently, the Catholic argument sinks like the Titanic when asserting someone must be speaking literally when they “double down” on something. Rather, it appears each time the highly evocative language of eating his flesh is used, they are meant to correlate to (and be the metaphorical equivalent of) believing in him, which his audience did NOT (6:29, 36 & 64).
Ergo, he had only ONE thought in mind and he phrased it in two different ways, as he did 5 other times in John's gospel (!!!).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 23, 2024 at 5:15 PM
I'll get to "trogo" next time, but had to address your thinking (as well as every Catholic on planet Earth) taking the position that they dropped him like a hot potato because of his cannibalistic words.
Contextually, they left him over NO SUCH THING. They left him in vs. 66 because of the reason in vs. 65 (i.e., "As a result of this", in your NASB).
And what was the..."THIS" ?
Four times in John (6:29, 37-39, 44 & 65) Christ presses the point that it is the "work of God" over and against man's free will when it comes to choosing Christ as Savior. No one is even ABLE to come to him without the Father's operating power to compel them to do so.
While his words about flesh-eating may have exacerbated their discontent, the primary reason was that they could not accept God's sovereignty over man's free will in the matter of salvation!
Hence, if the Pope's army has been wrong for centuries as to why people walked away in John 6, then it stands to reason they've been wrong all along about eating his flesh in the Eucharist.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 25, 2024 at 9:15 AM
To the contrary, the art of DISPROVING infallibility based on a "divine" paraphrase given to Trent by
God Almighty makes PERFECT sense. It's a claim that needs to be tested (1 These 5:21) which I'm doing here-- but which you are not.
You only ASSERT this that or the other thing and tell me I'm distracting from the "plain meaning".
While I do thank you for your opinion, I say the evidence points to his words NOT being "plain" in the literal sense. If I am...truuuly... guilty of distraction, then you would have to provide me just ONE Protestant, alive or dead, whom you thought gave an apologetic which was NOT a distraction. This you can't do because you obviously disagree with the conclusions of EVERY non-catholic apologetic, and thus your criticism must be rejected and we'll let God be my judge.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 25, 2024 at 9:30 AM
The bread used in conjunction with “This is my body” is just as symbolic as, “The Lord IS my shepherd” (Psalm 23), “The Lord IS my rock” (Psalm 182), “All flesh IS as grass” (1 Peter 1:24). The object in each verse symbolizes or represents the subject, and that being the case, the bread at supper must REPRESENT Christ’s body, and is no more literal than “You ARE the body of Christ” means we ARE part of Christ’s literal body (1 Cor 12:27).
Further making mincemeat out of your "no evidence claim"...
“He who sows the good seed IS the Son of Man; The field IS the world; The good seeds ARE the sons of the kingdom; The tares ARE the sons of the wicked one; The enemy who sowed them IS the devil; The harvest IS the end of the age; The reapers ARE the angels” (Matthew 13:37-39).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 25, 2024 at 9:38 AM
Now we all know, Jesus never "SAID" what Trents reports. Trent is the one displeased with the original account and preferred it be more... "plain" (as leverage in their angst against the Reformers). Nor did Jesus close the door on any fixed meaning of what he DID actually say, neither did the apostles ask him to explain, let alone is there any "systematic theology" about it anywhere in the N.T. That means Christians are obligated to interact with the biblical criteria.
Non-infallible humans may get away with paraphrasing (saying someone "SAID.."), but from the utopian standpoint of a claimed infallibility, it cannot be so, not when Jesus is concerned about his word accurately let loose down to the last "jot and tittle".
Moreover, Trent isn't infallible because they destroy Christ's intended ambiguity -- which he uses to confuse the non-elect (in the verses I cited above).
The fact that there is LOTS of evidence that "THIS IS" may be taken figuratively... (and only the two I furnished with Ezekiel and Hagar you TOTALLY ignored) demolishes your dishonest claim that there's "no case for his words to be taken symbolically".
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 25, 2024 at 8:12 PM
S.S. Luther, himself, believing in the Real Presence, carved the words "This is my Body" into his debate podium.
E.A. Whooooo in the world cares?! Jesus TRUMPS Luther (and the Pope down to the pauper in the pew)
by telling us that his "real, physical presence" was GOING AWAY, no less than 10 times! He is therefore no more physically present in a crumb of bread than I am the king of Egypt.
Now if I told you that Pope Gelasius and Paschal II are on record rejecting communion under only one kind (calling it a superstitious sentiment and that BOTH elements must be taken), will you then follow their directive and follow Christ's command to take both? Of course you won't.
Well then, if it's good enough for you to disagree with those in your camp, it's good enough for me!

(I'm in the hurricane's path, so power will likely go out Thursday).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 25, 2024 at 8:16 PM
S.S. You're proof-texting again. You can't just cite every use of "is" in the Bible outside the context of Jesus' extensive teaching on the Eucharist.

E.A. First of all, neither Jesus or any of the N.T. writers, ever gave an "EXTENSIVE" teaching on the Eucharist, so kindly curb your enthusiasm. There is actually more "systematic theology" on a woman's
head-coverings than there is on your "miraculous wafer" (1 Cor 11: 2-16).

Second, if Jesus could "proof-text" and argue his deity from the tense of a SINGLE VERB (i.e., “before Abraham was, I AM”) and OUTSIDE of any context of his deity, then I can do the same with "is" and"are", thank you very much.
So face it: "This is my body" no more means Christ changes into a piece of bread, than "The Lord is my rock" means he changes into the likes of Mt. Everest.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 25, 2024 at 8:22 PM
As for Jesus switching from "to eat" (esthio) to "chew" (trogo), proves absolutely nothing.
He was simply varying his metaphors as he did in John 21. Why the switch from, “Feed my lambs” to “Feed my sheep”? Answer? There izzzz no essential difference - and is nothing more than a STYLISTIC VARIANCE, rather than a theological variance, which is what Rome would have us believe. These are simply the earmarks of a good teacher to avoid being redundant.
When all is said and done, the variance between “to eat” and “to chew” does not in any way imply that the object of our chewing is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 25, 2024 at 8:28 PM
"TROGO" continued...
Ultimately, there's nothing intrinsically literal about the word “chew” that would lead us into the territory of Transubstantiation because
1) it may simply mean to “eat generally” (Vocabulary of the Greek N.T., entry 4362, p. 644).
2). Jesus himself used it in a metaphorical context when anticipating getting kicked from behind by Judas in John 13:18: “He who eats [trogo] bread with me has lifted up his heel against me.”
3) “Esthio” is used in all of the Last Supper passages (“take and eat”, not chew).
4) By the time of John’s gospel, the Greek word for “chew” (trogo) had become synonymous with the ordinary word for “eat” (esthio). Originally, “trogo” was used of animals and conveyed chewing, or mastication. But over time, the word had gradually begun to replace the more common “to eat” (esthio). According to the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", John seems to follow a usage, which (repeat!) generally REPLACES 'esthio' with 'trogo' (Vol. 8, p. 236).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 29, 2024 at 5:00 PM
S.S. You didn't answer the previous question, so I'll repeat it:

E.A. I'm perfectly aware of all your comments. I just didn't think it apropos to bulldoze you all at once. However, if that's the way you prefer it, then fine.
But in fact, is it not you whose failed to interact with a few of my own replies, such as the use of
"stylistic variance" with regard to "trogo"...or your criticism that I was..."distracting", which if true, you would have to provide one Protestant apologist alive or dead, whom you felt WAS NOT a distraction and somebody I could admire.
But since you know I will obviously agree with anyone you quote, that would eliminate the charge of me being a "distraction" -- and thus, your labeling me as such would prove to be a canard.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelSeptember 29, 2024 at 6:00 PM

Now let's get literal.
What is sure to come as a shock to your system is the indisputable fact that linguistic protocol proves without a doubt that Christ was indeed using a figure of speech when he said, “This is my body” ... even if it WAS to prove Transubstantiation!
You will tell me the Pope claims the Lord did not say,
“This is a symbol of my body” (Mysterium Fidei, #44).

ANSWER: Well yes, but neither did the Lord say, "This is TRULY my body" as that lying Council of Trent reported.
In any case, the point here is that all Catholics have no choice but to agree that Jesus was using a figure of speech called “synecdoche” (sin-ECK-toe-kee) whether they like it or not.
To be clear: when someone refers to a part of something, but actually means the whole of something, this is synecdoche.
Does this pertain to Catholic doctrine? YES.
How? When Christ holds each of the elements individually and says, “This is my body" or "This cup is the New Testament in my blood", they claim he **MEANS** the bread is not only his body, but contains his blood as well; and the cup too contains his blood as well as his body.
One Catholic apologist admits,
“Luke is using synecdoche, that is, allowing the cup to stand for the contents within the cup”
(“Not By Bread Alone”, by R. Sungenis, p. 151).
Or we may say, “check out my new wheels”, referring to both the wheels AND all other parts of the car. Likewise, in the Catholic scheme, they think “This is my body” refers to both the body AND the blood in the single element of bread, as does “This is my blood” refers to the blood AND all other parts of his body in the cup.
Thus, the Roman church is hypocritical to accuse Protestants of thinking that Jesus was using a symbolic, literary device - when they have no choice but to admit THE VERY SAME THING.
Hence, it is irrefutable. Catholics no more think Jesus was speaking in a strictly literal sense than any Protestant does, since they attribute a figurative meaning to his words just as their opponents do.
At the end of the day, both Protestants and Catholics must believe Jesus was using figures of speech to get his point across (whatever point that may be) something the Council of Trent DID NOT know.
If they HAD known it, or if they really WERE being led by the Spirit as they claimed, they would never have coined our position as an “intolerable disgrace”, and that the “express and clear words of Christ” have been “twisted by contentious and evil men to artificial and imaginary figures of speech, by which the reality of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, [which we] denounce as satanic and godless”.
This scathing outburst by Trent only further solidifies the clear fact they were not infallible after all - because the tribunal of heaven would never call anyone, "contentious, evil, satanic and godless" (let alone approve of burning at the stake) those who show biblical and secular evidence that Jesus was using figures of speech!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelOctober 5, 2024 at 8:54 PM
S.S. Answer this: Which of [the] "Truly, Truly" statements in the Gospel of John should NOT be interpreted literally? Here are all of them...

E.A. You misunderstand my point on the double use of T.T. I never said that the double use of T has any less literal force than the single use. The statements which follow the double or single use, are both equally emphatic that the upcoming subject is non-negotiable.
The point of contention is examining *TRENT'S* use of the word in the same manner as, "This is TRULY the Christ" or “This is TRULY the prophet who comes into the world” (John 6:14, 7:26).-- and if their claim to be under the direction by the Holy Spirit stands up to biblical scrutiny (1 Thess 5:21). I say it doesn't.
You began this discussion by asserting 1376 was not referring to the Last Supper. I refuted that on 8/24. Likewise on 8/31 you supposed that "This is my body" MUST be taken literally with or WITHOUT the word "truly"-- symbolism being out of the question. I refuted that with "Hair" and "Hagar" on 9/1, to which you had no comment.

S.S. You have to stop falsely describing the Council of Trent as "lying", which is itself a lie, or this discussion ends now.

E.A. Doesn't that cut both ways? After all, I could just as easily ask you to stop falsely describing Trent as infallible or I will have no choice but to exit the scene. By your logic, no debate anywhere on Earth could ever exist if either party holds strongly to a particular view on any topic whatsoever.
On 8/31, without a speck of proof, you triumphantly announced, "Unfortunately for you, Trent is infallible". Well, unfortunately for you, that is an EXTREMELY debatable position which I say is a concept pulled out of thin air like a rabbit out of a hat. Debates consist of two opposing parties who bring forth grievances and provide evidence to dismantle their opponent's position which God commands "so the better position may be manifest to all" (Prov 18:17; 1 Cor 11:19). As I see it, I'm well within biblical parameters by asserting Council members were liars; that is, if I attempt to prove my case. Thus, if I am correct, then what we have here is a classic case of adding to the word of God, wherein if you do, "thou will be found a liar” and guilty of tampering with the Text (Proverbs 30:6, Deut 4:2; 2 Cor 4:2); ergo, there should not be anything objectionable to my position that, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them" (Jeremiah 14:14).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelOctober 5, 2024 at 8:58 PM
S.S. You even lie when presenting what the Council of Trent said by using quotation marks where none were used....Trent was not quoting Jesus, but you use quotes. Lie.

E.A. I told you before that I don't need any quotes due to the fact that Trent, without any warning of a paraphrase, reported Jesus "SAID" the bread was truly his body; hence, the word "SAID" makes the use of quotation marks, superfluous.   Personally, I don't believe Council members could have been THAT stupid. They HAD to know that Jesus didn't actually use the word "truly" at the Last Supper, yet we are to believe God caused them to use it anyway...(and worse still, that he "SAID" it) all in an effort to thwart the Reformers.
I deny. He would NEVER condemn the Reformer's objection, as Trent did, that Jesus was using a figure of speech when the Lord himself says he would do just THAT as shown in the Old and the New; plus linguistic protocol says he was also using a figure of speech by virtue of synecdoche (next combox). Consequently, Trent is in the same category as the friends of Job: "You have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job has" (Job 42:7).
You say that Trent was not quoting Jesus. But do I really have to spell it out? Since they claimed to be God's mouthpiece on Earth, EACH AND EVERY ONE of their documents are, for all intents and purposes, SURROUNDED in quotes! In this case, a word for word, verbatim PARAPHRASE of the Last Supper account was received from heaven into someone's ear in order to show what Jesus actually MEANT by "This is my body". But that's one of the problems.. The clarified meaning was already done in chapter 1 of Session 13. We're told Transubstantiation is the “proper and most manifest MEANING” of “This is my body”, and that Jesus  "testified in clear and definite words" that this was so. However, I contend the Lord would never move Trent to make such a clarification, let alone ...double down... in chapter 4, insisting that Jesus "SAID" the bread was truly his body after all.

In light of the fact that Trent, not God, made the biblical account obsolete by their unwarranted paraphrase, the case for Trent's infallibility is fraught with insurmountable difficulties. Jesus obviously knew "This is..." could be used either symbolically or literally, so it's crystal clear that instead of using the word "truly" to tidy things up till kingdom come, he was making SURE the metaphorical view of "This is my body" had legs to stand on till kingdom come. This would press lazy couch-potatoes to get up and “investigate, search out and inquire thoroughly” the better of two options (Deut 13:14). Thus, I conclude, the proposition that God used Trent's "algorithm" (i.e., their unambiguous method of processing the data under the guise of infallibility) was...a lie.  They changed what Christ DID say, (which was purposely ambiguous) into what he did NOT say (categorically UNambiguous) all in FAVOR of the Roman church and all in FAVOR of ending the controversy then and there, and CONTRARY to Christ's intention to cause division (Luke 12:51; cf Matt 11:25-6; 13:35; Mk 4:11-12; Luke 8:10, 9:37-39; John 12:40).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelOctober 5, 2024 at 9:09 PM
S.S. Even though synecdoche is a literary device...it does NOT equate to figure of speech.

E.A. I have in my possession the 1,000 page, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" by Bullinger, and he devotes 50 pages to the use of S in...THE BIBLE. Case closed. It does equate.

S.S. Your synecdoche-means-symbolic argument fails [when you say] "The Roman church is hypocritical to accuse Protestants of thinking that Jesus was using a symbolic, literary device - when they have no choice but to admit THE VERY SAME THING."
That's the logical fallacy of false equivalence. Literary device does NOT equate to symbolic. Literary device also does NOT equate to figure of speech. Synecdoche, even though it's a literary device, may still be literal.

E.A. Who in the world cares if S may be literal on occasion? We're talking about a particular incident at the Last Supper! The facts speak for themselves, which I will not rehearse here. Just to remind you, Protestants don't believe for a MINUTE that Jesus was using the S word. But if Catholics wish to believe that a separate, individual entity of Christ the Lord is hiding away in every crumb of bread and molecular drop of wine
(and they do), then it is undeniable Jesus MUST be using a form of S, (by definition!) when he held the bread (but MEANT the blood was included) and when holding the wine, he meant the body was included also.

S.S. [You are guilty] of a logical fallacy.

E.A. The only logical fallacy that should be apparent to the student of the Bible is that the Catholic view on the molecular biology of the Eucharist fails at every point. In other words, while it’s true that a body contains blood, it is not true that blood contains flesh and bones! This means the theory that every separate drop of wine contains his blood along WITH his flesh and bones, is false.
Blood may be in a body, yes, but a body cannot be in the blood.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelOctober 14, 2024 at 12:25 PM
S.S. Thanks for admitting that the use of synecdoche doesn't mean Jesus is speaking symbolically, and might even be employed to make Jesus' words MORE literal.

T.C. Don't thank me for something I did not admit in your favor. The word "S" by definition, means describing something in PART, when in reality, the WHOLE is meant. This "definition" was fulfilled in its ENTIRETY by Jesus while holding the bread separately and the wine separately.
By the way, my statement that blood may be in a body, yes, but a body cannot be in the blood, remains unchallenged and stands as only one of a hundred reasons why Transubstantiation is unsubstantiated.

For the Catholic then, be it resolved that Transubstantiation is true, even though Jesus was using a figure of speech called "synecdoche" to describe the LITERAL reality of his body and blood in the Eucharist.
For the Protestant, be it resolved that Transubstantiation is false because Jesus was using a figure of speech called METAPHOR to describe the SYMBOLIC reality of how we ought to remember his virtuous life, via the bread, and the horror of shedding his blood in our behalf, via the wine (Romans 5:10).

Since both (MATURE) parties admit the Lord used a figure of speech to get his point across (whatever point that may be), the typical (INFANTILE) Catholic outcry DENYING Jesus was using a figure of speech, must be thrown out of court and further evidence gathered to decipher his actual meaning.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelOctober 14, 2024 at 12:47 PM
S.S. You misstate or misunderstand the Catholic position and Aristotelian metaphysics.

E.A. In light of the fact that, "The Lord does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7), it would be OUT of God's character to reveal the molecular biology behind the Eucharist to a pagan philosopher (even if Transubstantiation were true). Are we really to believe the tribunal of heaven wants us to understand his words in unproven, atheistic, metaphysical, Aristotelian categories???Meh.
Nevertheless, Ari's wishful thinking so bewitched Aquinas that he stole Ari's ideas in order that the RCC would have something to use to explain the unexplainable... via philosophy.

S.S. Protestants don't have philosophy.

E.A. And I'm so glad they don't. WHO NEEDS IT?!
Since God is adamantly opposed to any doctrine that “promotes controversial speculation” (1 Tim 1:3-4), he MUST be opposed to Transubstantiation since every single one of Rome's defense tactics breeds controversy like mold to a wet spot. Hence, we need to be on guard against “philosophy and vain deceit” (Colossians 2:8) such as metaphysics in general, and Transubstantiation in particular. Metaphysics is the art of assumption and not a discovery that is open to empirical investigation. Yet to this day, the Pope’s army takes shelter under the umbrella of philosophical hocus-pocus to explain “This is my body”.
It should also be mentioned that Aquinas held that Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist after all (“Summa Theologica”, 3rd part, Q. 76, article 5, Reply to objection 2).
The Aquinas theory of the Lord's NON-local presence in the Eucharist (when read alongside what Catholics typically say about his "REAL local presence") is the height of contradiction and no, they may not have it both ways. Metaphysics has ruinous consequences and carries with it a seducing spirit that cons people into believing that the mysteries of the universe may be discovered through an assortment of complex, mind-boggling propositions. It is unfathomable, confusing and deeply controversial, contrary to a gospel designed to be so simple that even a small child can understand it (2 Tim 3:15). Aquinas proposed a metaphysical transformation to answer any objections to the "Tranz", arguing that if unseen substance is part of the physical world, it must also be part of the metaphysical world in like manner. In other words, he opines that since unseen substance supposedly exists in material objects that hold an egg or elephant together; Christ can metaphysically become the unseen substance that holds bread and wine together in what supposedly appears to be bread and wine but which (by faith) is not bread and wine any longer because they have "ceased to exist" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #15).
All of this is nothing less than Yanky Doodle theology. Yanky Doodle Aquinas went to Rome riding on a pony, stuck a metaphysical feather in his hat and called it Transubstantioni.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Eucharist AngelOctober 14, 2024 at 12:58 PM
S.S. The substance of the bread changes to Jesus' body, blood, soul, and divinity, as Jesus Himself said.

E.A. I'm convinced beyond all doubt that (at least at this point in time) God has chosen to blind your eyes for his own good reasons because you refuse to accept the plain gospel in favor of a metaphysical one.
Now you're just as guilty as Trent, in that under no circumstances WHATSOEVER did Jesus Christ... "SAY"... he was CHANGING the bread and wine into his body, blood, soul and divinity (!!!). I must sorrowfully report that your apologetics are so full of hot air, if you were a balloon, you'd pop.
So let's get specific in order to deflate that balloon before it explodes.
Which brings us right back to the very reason Christ wants us here; namely, to explore the fact that when he said "This is..." he KNEW that whatever came after it would be taken either literally or metaphorically--and set his mind on that path anyway.
Consequently, the only resolution this side of heaven would be found in debate and only one view would be correct.
Now the verb “to be” (eimi, i.e., “is”) never has or conveys any idea of such a change ("Figures of Speech Used in the Bible", by Bullinger, p. 742).
The usual verb to express such a change is “ginomai”, which means to “become” and signifies a change of condition, state or place. Therefore, if the intention was to convey that the bread BECAME his body, THAT is the verb the writer would have chosen...

***There was (i.e., there BECAME) a great calm (i.e., the storm was changed, or turned into) calm (Mk 4:39).

***Command this stone that it BE MADE (i.e., changed into) bread (Luke 4:3).

***When the ruler of the feast tasted the water that WAS MADE (i.e., changed into) wine…(John 2:9).

***Your sorrow shall be TURNED INTO joy (John 16:20).

***You almost persuade me TO BE (i.e., TO BECOME) a Christian (Acts 26:28).

***The third part of the sea BECAME (i.e., changed into) blood (Rev 8:8).
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Check out our sponsors

The Complete, Essential Guide to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: Part Three - John 6, Bread of Life Discourse

Jesus on the Real Presence - John 6

The Story of the Little Jehovah's Witness Girl