Original Languages Of John 6

[goldenchild17]

Hey all, I posted this same question in the Questions about Catholicism and I just wanted to open the question to more answers....
[quote]Hey, I'm in a discussion with someone on the Eucharist. This person mantains that Christ is speaking as "spiritually" eating the flesh and blood of Christ. So I gave Him some of the original Greek... This is what I gave

QUOTE 
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



Now, I may expect Him to tell me that Christ spoke Aramaic so this whole point is moot. I also believe that Christ would have been speaking in the normal Aramaic. So, is there any way to see that Christ's use of the Aramaic is also in a literal use?
Sorry, this post may be kind of confusing. I'll clarify if you need me to.[/quote]

What says ya's?

[goldenchild17]

Sorry, this must be a bit more difficult question than I expected. But does anyone know anything about this? I haven't found anything yet.

[cmotherofpirl]

We weren't at the Last Supper to know what language was spoken, but Saint John was. Since he wrote his Gospel in eloquent Greek, you would assume he would know basic Greek as well.
Remember the Gospel of John was written around the year 100 so the Church had been celebtreating Mass for 60+ years already.
The first 1000 years of Church history attests to the absolute belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

[goldenchild17]

I know that we cannot know for certain which language He spoke, but we Catholics do appeal to the argument that He was speaking in Aramaic when He promised Peter with the keys(hence "Kepha" instead of "Petra/Petros".) So is it really illogical to think that this was his native language? There is evidence of Him speaking Aramaic, for example at the crucifixion(my God, my God, why have you forsaken me was left in Aramaic). Would Jesus really know all that many languages, or am I just going off the deep end on this one? I do believe that Christ was being literal when He spoke about the bread being His body, but I just had these questions about the language used, that's all. I guess it's really not all that important, but I was just wondering I guess. Thanks for the help.

[p0lar_bear]

goldenchild,

I think it is reasonable to say that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic. I also think that it is likely that a number of them also knew Greek.

I'm not sure, but I don't think we have early Aramaic translations of John. Even if we did, they would be translations from the Greek. That said, I don't think it really matters so much. John obviously spoke both. In writing in Greek he would have held true to the meaning and intent of the Aramaic.

Why does it not matter here when it matters for the passage with Peter? The argument used against Peter being the rock is based on the gender of the word "petros." ("Petros" has a slightly different meaning than the feminine "petras.") The Aramaic word (kephas) is important because it does not have any gender. In Greek you would have to use either the feminine or the masculine. The author chose the masculine not because of definition but because Peter was a man, it would be inappropriate in Greek to give a man a feminine name.


Anyway, because John choose to write in Greek, his word choice in Greek is significant whether or not Jesus spoke those words in Greek or Aramaic. John was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his choice of words. Assuming Greek does have words for "flesh" and "eat" that can be used metaphorically (I'm sure it does, I just don't know what they are), then John, under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit, specifically chose those words without metaphorical interpretations.

Unless the other person in this conversation can provide some other plausible reasoning for John's word choice, then he cannot legitimately argue on the basis that Jesus was not speaking Greek.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Mar 24 2004, 05:09 AM'] Would Jesus really know all that many languages, or am I just going off the deep end on this one? [/quote]
Jesus is the God-man, one Person with a divine and a human nature. He can speak any language He wants. Jesus is the Word.
John 1: 1-4

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 24 2004, 07:27 AM'] Jesus is the God-man, one Person with a divine and a human nature. He can speak any language He wants. [/quote]
That's interesting. I've never heard that one before. So, He could speak English? Oh well, it really doesn't matter. And the guy I am discussing this with didn't bring this point up anyways. So this whole question was moot. I think I will go ahead and point out his next argument. He agrees that Jesus was speaking literally. But now he says that Jesus was speaking about us LITERALLY eating the SPIRITUAL part of Jesus. Not the PHYSICAL part. What now?

[IcePrincessKRS]

You can't eat the Spiritual part of Jesus in something merely symbolic--which is what most/many protestants believe their communion is. The Spiritual and Physical parts of Jesus are united, He is fully human and fully God. He, in His Glorified Body, ascended into Heaven. How does one take only one part of Jesus? (My logic may be a bit skewed here, it IS nearly 3 am.... If I'm wrong anywhere I'll soon get a correction, no doubt about it! lol)

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus had a divine nature bacause He was God, and a human nature He recieved from his mother, but He was ONE person. You cannot split Him up, and say I only having part of Him in communion.

The Greek words in John 6 are words you would use in referring to chewing steak and tacos, so very tasty and good for you, etc, they are not talking symbolism here.

[IcePrincessKRS]

hehe Ok, I was right. Cmom said the same thing only I think she's making more sense than I did....

[Brother Adam]

Interesting. It seems that Zwigli made the only logical conclusion if you HAD to assert that real presence was wrong.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]But do they not acheive eternal life, according to John 6?  Is that not what the flesh and blood of Christ imparts?[/quote]

This question was in response to me saying that people who are in mortal sin commit an even greater sin. What do I say. Anything from Scripture on this?


[quote]If we partake of the salvific benefits of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, why do we not get eternal life and propitiation from mortal sins? [/quote]

Do we obtain benefits from the Eucharist? I thought that there were venial sins absolved at this time. So what's the answer to the above question.

[p0lar_bear]

I Cor. 11:27

[quote]Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.[/quote]


You are right in saying that recieving the Eucharist removes venial sins. It is not the same with mortal sin because with venial sins, you have not lost sanctifying grace, i.e. relationship with God. Mortal sin separates us from God. We need to be brought back into relationship with God before we can participate in the Body and Blood, otherwise we eat and drink unworthily. It is the same as someone who is not baptized partaking in the Eucharist (which, by the way, was definitely not allowed in the early Church).

I John 5:16-17

[quote]If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. [/quote]

Here John indicates that sins that are "not deadly" can be dealt with more easily than sins that are deadly. A sin that is not deadly can be forgiven by simply praying to God for the sinner. For a sin that is deadly, this is not enough, something more is needed (i.e. confession to a priest).

[Bruce S]

Are all venial sins the same, CLASS, or does the Magisterium break them down further...

Venial sin X = five hours in purgatory.

Venial sin Y = five years in purgatory.

Venial sin Z = five centuries in purgatory?

Inquiring as to the severity and the expected punishments?

[Brother Adam]

It is incorrect to use days and hours for purgatory. Priests around Luthers time were doing this, which lead to much confusion and gave Luther even better legs to stand on when he broke from the Church.

Any time going through purification cannot be associated with "time" here on earth. The heavens do not opperate in the same sense of time that we have, they are outside of time.

No one can tell you how long purgatory will last, if it will seem like centuries, or seconds. We only know that we have not been "perfected" in our time on earth and we will receive new glorified bodies in the perfection of heaven.