You are in error. trōgō simply describes what happens in the process of eating, and only used of humans eating
I don't hold myself out as a Greek scholar, so you may very well have a stronger grasp of the language than I. However, this site gives a strong treatment of what I have learned about the use of "trogo" as opposed to "phago" - I don't believe I have the depth of knowledge required to continue this argument with you; however, I know of a couple Greek speaking FReepers who would be able to shed light on this matter from the Church's perspective, if you wish.
Regarding your other points:
The Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood
Indeed the Jews were - I, however, am not a Jew, and am not held to their laws. Yes, the Apostles continued to keep the law until the Council of Jerusalem, but there we learn that Christians are not required to keep such laws. I could keep Kosher if I so desired, but that would be merely a lifestyle choice for me - it has no bearing on my relationship with God. Same with the Apostles. They kept Kosher because that was what they knew, but the New Covenant superceded the dietary requirements. If Christians were eating pig before Acts 10, they were not in violation of the law, as it had already become obsolete.
How much more he, or one of the apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually ingesting the Lord's corporeal flesh and drinking His blood!
But that is exactly what occured in John 6. The disciples understood Him metaphorically at first - they were fine with that. It wasn't until their question of "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" that they began to understand Him. And His response? "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh..." Many were aghast at such a proposition, and left - however, Peter the Rock stayed and accepted Him at His word.
Grammatically, that the bread was Jesus actual body is no more literal than the cup was actually the New testament in His blood (Lk, 22:20), rather it clearly represented it
I already touched on this - the cup was His blood. Jesus spoke literally here, there was no mincing of words. I don't deny that there is symbolic usage of language in the Bible, but you're reaching here - sometimes He means exactly what He says.
Nowhere it presented as the means or necessity to gain eternal life, as the RC interpretation makes it
I'm going to touch on points 3 and 5 together, since I think they go together. The Church does not teach that the Eucharist is the means or is necessary to gain eternal life - it is a means to impart Grace upon the faithful. Your used of John 6:47 is touched on above - the disciples heard Him metaphorically, and it wasn't until John 6:53 that they really understood the gravity of what he was saying.
4. If what Roman Catholicism asserts is what happened at the Lord's Supper, that by means of transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine is actually exchanged, so that the bread and wine actually become the Lord's body and blood, though the sensory aspects of the earth;ly elements remain the same, then this would be a unique miracle. For in every miracle which the Lord and His followers did, there was no such exchange. The water actually became wine, and it who tasted like it, and sick were made well, and knew it. Even in the Lord's incarnation, it was Christ being made in the flesh, but not a transubstantiation, so that the Lord would be a type of phantom, or in any way no be literally flesh and blood, while yet being “God manifest in the flesh” (1Tim. 3:16).
If what you say is true, why did almost no one recognize Jesus as God? Because they did not know God? Then, did Jesus really hand over the keys to Peter? Physically? Or did He endow Peter with power? Or did He lie when He said He would give Peter the keys? And what of the Gift of the Holy Spirit? The Apostles were not physically changed when they received the gift, but they received it nonetheless. And why did the Apostles lay hands upon Paul, if not to pass on the gift of the Spirit? Lastly, I am curious if you've heard of the Miracle of Lanciano.
Now, I've neglected to include the testimony of the earliest Christians in this post recognizing the true Body and Blood in the Eucharist, only because I don't know if you would consider those sources as "valid". I do struggle on the Religion Fourm, because Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different sources of authority - either the Bible alone, or the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.
Hi thefrankbaum.
Your site for tro¯go¯ does not establish that this cannot mean spiritual eating, and it is the both the immediate and larger context of John 6 that determines that.
>he Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood<
“Indeed the Jews were - I, however, am not a Jew, and am not held to their laws.”
The point is not what you can do, but what the disciples could and would do. A study of the gospels shows the disciples, Peter in particular, were not men who would just submit to eating human flesh and drinking blood without some questioning and explanation, as is seen in Acts 10. Peter did not even want Jesus to wash his feet (Jn. 13), but know he just drinks His blood?
“But that is exactly what occurred in John 6.”
No it is not, rather that is a conclusion forced by a radical premise. The context of John 6 is that of men seeking physical food. Jesus had just fed them and they thought they had a good thing going, and wanted a (modern) Jesus who place a priority in physical satisfaction. Jesus instead tells them “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (John 6:27). Because they are “carnally minded,” who “mind the things of the flesh” (Rm. 8:5), and looking for the physical, contrary to the women at the well in Jn. 4, when Jesus leads them to the higher spiritual using physical metaphorical language (living water: 4:10, 14 = living bread” 6:51), their focus on a literal physical meaning restrains them perceiving it’s spiritual counterpart, and thus rather than telling others about the Messiah (4:28, 29), they will walk away with darkened minds (v. 66).
But as He did in Jn. 4, Jesus - whose “bread” is do the will of His Father (4:24) - reveals the spiritual meaning of His metaphor, that as “I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (v. 6:57), which is by every word of God (Mt. 4:4), “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)
Peter rightly discern this, as he states, “thou hast the words of eternal life” which is entirely consistent with the testimony of Scripture elsewhere.
Jesus use of metaphors is consistent with the gospel of John in general in which there is constant contrast between that which is below vs. that which is above, between the temporal and the eternal, between the physical and the spiritual. In Jn. 6 Jesus points them to “food” that will give them eternal life, which is every place in John and elsewhere is by believing, not believing in a doctrine of transubstantiation, but in Christ, the Son of the living God, for which John gives many physical types.
In John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New.
“The Church does not teach that the Eucharist is the means or is necessary to gain eternal life - it is a means to impart Grace upon the faithful.”
The point is, if you take Jn. 6:53 to be literal, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”, which you do, then you must make taking part in the RC Eucharist essential for being born again and obtaining eternal life. The Bible makes it clear before the new birth that man is “dead in trespasses and sins” and is made alive by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which happens only when a honest and contrite soul effectually repents and believes on the Lord Jesus and His sinless shed blood for salvation (Jn. 7:37; Act 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 1:13).
Like the blood gives life to flesh, so the Spirit makes one alive in Christ, and it is of His Spirit that one must “drink.” “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13).
And nowhere is participation is the Lord’s supper what the apostles preached in order to be converted and to obtain eternal life (Acts 2, 10, 13, 17, etc.).