Greek language in defence of the Real Presence

[at0m1c]

Ok, I need some help with Greek. This fellow I'm debating with has managed to counteract the usual answer of ;

[quote]“The normal word in Greek for "eat" is Phagon but in this passage the author uses Trogon which literally means to crunch or gnaw. It is not just a metaphor. We literally eat Him.” [/quote]

He says that,

[quote]Whatever the word was used whether the Lord used the word ‘phagon’, ‘trogon’ or ‘esthio’ [which is another word for eat in Greek], all of these in the original means eat.

Trogon means indeed to gnaw and to chew

Phago means to eat, devour, consume. It is used literally in Luke 8:55.

Esthio means to eat, devour and consume. It is used literally in Mark 2:16, Luke 12:45, 1 Cor. 9:7; 11:22; and etc.

The Greek doesn’t have a normal word for eat like what you said about ‘phagon’ as if to make it appear that something different is happening here in this verse
[/quote]

In addition,

[quote]And so the R.C. says : ‘aha so you agree that we literally devour the body of Christ here, since you agree that these things means in the literal sense!!!!”

Of course not!!!!! All we are saying is that the Lord spoke figuratively here. Isn’t that the essence of figurative language at times? They use literal words to illustrate something else

For example the word ‘esthio’ in many New Testament passages means to eat, devour and consume physically. Does it mean then that every time the word appears in the Bible we have to interpret it literally ripping it of it’s figurative sense which the author means to convey? Of course not.

Say for example this verse:

Heb 10:27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour [esthio meaning physically eat, physically consume and physically devour in many places in the New Testament] the adversaries.


The word ‘devour’ in the Greek is the word ‘esthien’ coming from the root word ‘esthio’ which means to physically eat and physically devour in other portions of Scripture. Are we to picture then of the fiery indignation of God as something that has literal teeth and literal pangs and literally munch the apostates of Christianity? Of course not. Context determines the meaning.

Perhaps you will say: “Ah the word used there is ‘esthio’ not ‘trogon’ in John 6, so it’s different.”

Okay let’s see. The words trogon, phagon and esthio are used by the Lord in John 6, here:

Joh 6:50 "This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat [THE ROOT WORD IS ‘ESTHIO’] of it and not die.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat [AGAIN THE ROOT WORD USED IS ‘ESTHIO’] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Important rule in Biblical languages: DO NOT FORGET TO LOOK UP THE ROOT WORD OF A WORD IN EITHER HEBREW OR GREEK.

For the word ‘phago’:

Joh 6:51 "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats [THE GREEK WORD USED IS ‘PHAGE’ WHICH COMES FROM ‘PHAGO’ WITH A ROOT WORD ‘ESTHIO’]of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."

And then there’s the word ‘trogon’: Joh 6:54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[/quote]

argh!! help!!

[Brother Adam]

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



This is all I got man, good luck. Hopefully Nick has more.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I have trouble understanding why droves of followers would leave Jesus over some figurative language.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 10 2006, 07:48 AM']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 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
This is all I got man, good luck. Hopefully Nick has more.
[right][snapback]882784[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote]ἡ γὰρ [b]σάρξ[/b] μου [b]ἀληθής[/b] ἐστι βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου [b]ἀληθῶς[/b] ἐστι πόσις. [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

The main problem I have with the stuff you posted is that the actual point regarding [i]trogon [/i]was poorly made. The fellow's response was empty fluff and really missed the point entirely.
I don't see how he thinks he actually has an argument. Why ought the verse in question be understood symbolically again? One cannot get at the meaning of metaphor without exploring the connotative relationships. The discussion above seems stuck on detached denotative meaning whereas the pertinent and actual semantic content here is context-dependent.

Let's say that [i]trogon [/i]was never used anywhere in Greek literature in a metaphorical way, would this prove that the verse in question cannot possibly be symbolic? I wouldn't say so; it is possible to use this word metaphorically regardless of whether it was done before. It isn't the nature of the word [i]per se[/i], or some statistic based on usage that determines whether or not a word in a certain context is metaphorical or literal, the context itself is the main factor; the structure of the word informs this process, but is not the sole determinant. If no one had ever referred to themself as a door would this mean that we must take Christ literally on this? I would say that the context typically establishes connotative relationships, but while such connotations may be context-dependent, the context itself is audience-dependent (I'm setting up something of a false dichotomy). If we approach the interpretation from this perspective what does the text itself tell us about the meaning of this text? Unfortunately I am forced to deny the possibility of a strictly scientific determination for a variety of reasons, however, we can determine which possibility bears the most interpretive light and perhaps resolves the tensions of the pericope. If we can achieve this we can simultaneously be confident that we have a relatively correct interpretation.
A protestant audience might understand the text with the contextual baggage of that theological tradition, a Catholic may be equally guilty of such a thing. The neutrality fallacy is the original sin of interpretation IMHO.
I would like to rant on and on but the only point I'm trying to make is that further considerations, such as those put forth by Adam and thedude, are important for getting at the meaning of this text. The statements which that fellow made really say nothing at all. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I fail to see even a remnant of an argument or any evidence that he understands what the [i]trogon [/i]point is all about. However, in his defense, the [i]trogon [/i]point ought not be made in a stand-alone fashion, this only invites the type of response that the fellow made. And such a debate is generally fruitless and meaningless.

[phatcatholic]

plus, how does he explain the switch from one word for "eat" to a much stronger word for "eat"? is he calling us to [i]reeeeally[/i] believe now?

[at0m1c]

but wait, there's more.

[quote]There are two crucifixions of Christ a) the real and actual and b) the picture and the symbol.

The real and the actual took place two thousand years ago in which He settled once and for all the sin issue:

Heb 7:27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

it is through these sacrifice alone that sinners are forgiven. The Old testament people look forward in faith towards it and we in our dispensation look backwards to it in faith. All the saints in all the world in all time converge there so to speak.

When the Lord said 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' He was talking about appropriation by faith.

Compare these verses in the same discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Joh 6:47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

Joh 6:54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Both promise eternal life. But the words of appropriating that life are different the other is figurative while the other is direct and actual and plain.

How do we explain 'eating and drinking his flesh and blood' in this passage? Well, instead of going to the other persons to look for the interpretation, we go to the Bible itself and seek the interpretation. For the Bible is its own interpreter.

First guide: Jesus Himself said that His words are not to be taken literally verse 63. And so we say: "Ah so eating and drinking there must not be taken literally, so how should we understand it? Well we need not look farther from John 6 because in the same chapter itself the Lord interprets it for us.

47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."

Joh 6:40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

There, so eating and drinking is interchangeable with believing in I Joh 6:40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

There we see that eating and drinking is interchangeable with believing or trusting, having faith in Him [not just mentally assenting His claims] [/quote]

[Brother Adam]

[quote]There are two crucifixions of Christ a) the real and actual and b) the picture and the symbol. [/quote]

No, there is only one, but there are different ways of interpreting passages.

[quote]it is through these sacrifice alone that sinners are forgiven. The Old testament people look forward in faith towards it and we in our dispensation look backwards to it in faith. All the saints in all the world in all time converge there so to speak. [/quote]

This is the Gospel of discontinuety that pits the Old against the New and the Gospel against the law. Luther forgot that Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it.

[quote]When the Lord said 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' He was talking about appropriation by faith. [/quote]

The Lord Jesus Christ was talking plainly in John 6. He reiterated the point three times,using stronger language each time. What more do you want? If Jesus was speaking figuratively only he was asking the those listening to insult him, spit on him, and reject his name. This is basic, common historical knowledge.

[quote]Compare these verses in the same discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Joh 6:47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

Joh 6:54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [/quote]

Arianism does the same thing. Take a few verses, apply a meaning to it, and force the rest of scripture to it. It's the same technique gay and lesbian activists try to use to force the BIble to say that homosexuality is permissible.

Jesus also says that the demons believe, but I don't think his implication was that demons inherit eternal life. The BIble needs to be taken on a unifying whole. This is why we have the Catholic Church, to avoid any tom, Johnsonville brat, or jane from interpreting it however they beaver dam well please.

[quote]Both promise eternal life. But the words of appropriating that life are different the other is figurative while the other is direct and actual and plain. [/quote]

When Jesus speaks figuratively he tells us. Jesus speaks symbollically often, in the ancient understanding of symbolic.

[quote]How do we explain 'eating and drinking his flesh and blood' in this passage? Well, instead of going to the other persons to look for the interpretation, we go to the Bible itself and seek the interpretation. For the Bible is its own interpreter. [/quote]

Ahahaha. I love this argument. Listen to me dammit I have the answer but then don't listen to me because I'm going to the through a whole bunch of Bible verses together to make it say what I want it to say. Yes it is often fruitful to use the Bible and compare differing passages, but not when you come up with stuff like this!

[quote]First guide: Jesus Himself said that His words are not to be taken literally verse 63. And so we say: "Ah so eating and drinking there must not be taken literally, so how should we understand it? Well we need not look farther from John 6 because in the same chapter itself the Lord interprets it for us.

47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."

Joh 6:40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

There, so eating and drinking is interchangeable with believing in I Joh 6:40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." [/quote]

Says who? Did the Bible say that is the correct way to interpret it? Or did this person? Is this person asking us to believe in him as his own personal magisterium?

[Brother Adam]

Sorry, in somewhat of a cynical mood...

[DAF]

Considering I don't know much about greek and hebrew (or care to know really), I usually just argue things like this from standpoint of the authority of the Church. If they can prove to me that the Church has no authority, then we're wrong and he's right, however, if he can't prove that the Church is without legitimate authority from Christ, you'll usually have him pinned. (know what the church teaches about her own authority, how it's relevant to a protestant, where the bible came from, etc. If you can establish that the Church has authority to teach on these matters, his argument collapses)

Of course, you definitely shouldn't engage in any sort of apologetics unless you're confident you have sufficient knowlegde of the topic, especially something so sweeping as "the authority of the Church," lest you harden your brother's eart further.

And remember, as St. Paul says, preach the Truth in love! (or keep your mouth shut).

in Christ,
Mason

Edited February 15, 2006 by DAF