Debate Politics Forums - View Single Post - niftydrifty vs. Felicity: The Eucharist, real or symbolic?

Felicity · 06-11-07, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

What this debate boils down to is that I believe that "Real Presence" is spiritual, and you believe "Real Presence is literal and spiritual. The way that you phrased the debate topic reveals much. Is it "real or symbolic?" In fact, both of our explanations can be real. I should have objected and subjected a more accurate title. "Real Presence: Literal or Spiritual?"

Well...I told you you could call it what you wanted...whatevah...I don’t like how you are characterizing me as if I was being sneaky..What exactly are you implying when you say the suggested title “reveals much?” What does it reveal? I simply thaought a more succinct title than * "felicity vs niftydrifty: what is the nature of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist?" * would work better. I do, however like your newly suggested title better. I wish you would have thought of it earlier.

Quote:

Felicity, can you read Greek? I admit that I cannot. And this is why you will never find me pointing to words from translations and claiming to know precisely what is meant, with authority, and without any doubt. Anyone whom does so, and that does not know Greek, I view with a great deal of suspicion. And even if you can read Greek, I believe that you're stuck on literal interpretations of the Gospel text. You won't entertain other possibilities. You assume when you do so.

I collect translations of the NT, and I have noticed the differences in word usage. For example, the key passage in John:

NIV "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
ESV "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."
NKJV "For My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
NASB "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

Even if John had been written in English, the phrase "true food," could mean something different than what you claim it does. It has been pointed out to me by someone whom does know Greek (I work in a Christian Academic setting and am surrounded by scholars) that elsewhere in John, the same word for true is used. "The true vine" (a metaphorical context), and "the truth." "True" could mean real, as in, literal. Or it could mean "true," as in 'not false.' It could be implying that Jesus's message is better than others.

I see your point, and no...I do not personally read Greek—however, any of those translations work for the point I’m making. Jesus said his flesh was “real,” “true” food “indeed” and his meaning is clear in the context in which he said he was “real, true food indeed.” When the disciples were confused by Jesus telling them they had to “eat his flesh” Jesus changed the word he used to make his meaning even MORE clear. The word Jesus used to describe the “eating” of his flesh was “trogo” –Ask your scholars about that word. There is NO DOUBT that Jesus was telling them to LITERALLY eat his flesh in a non-metaphorical way.

Quote:

after vs 53, Jesus uses an even stronger Greek word for "eat"; he switches from using phago (which just means "eat") to using trogo which means "gnaw" or "chew".
The Eucharist - The Body and Blood of Christ

Quote:

Nor can the command to "eat" the Lord’s flesh be taken metaphorically. St. John does not only use the normal Greek word for "eat," phagomai, but in verses 54, 56 and 57 uses the word trogo, a very vivid word meaning "to munch, gnaw." My research revealed that while phagomai is sometimes used metaphorically, trogo is never anything but literal in the Greek Bible and all other Greek literature.
In John 6:50-58 Jesus says six times that His hearers must eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is clear that His audience understood Him literally; they were scandalized by these words. But the Lord made no move to correct their understanding; rather, He simply reiterated His teaching more strongly. Elsewhere, when the disciples or others wrongly took Him literally, He explained His figurative meaning to them (see, for instance, John 3:1-15 and Matt 16:5-12). In another Gospel passage, we are told that Jesus always explained the true meaning of His hard teachings at least to His own disciples (Mark 4:34). But in this case, He challenged even the Twelve that they could leave if they could not accept this teaching (verse 67).
Affirming All Things

(also--you may have scholars that are friends, I have a Church with a 2000 year history of scholarship--the Bible itself was codified and maintained by the Catholic Church. Just thought you ought to consider that.)

CONTINUED...