Replies

FYI, a discussion I had with another Catholic about the mass on a thread a few days ago, here:

"What I find profoundly ironic is that while Catholics love to quote John 6:51-56 in support of their error, they conveniently forget to also cite v. 6:63,

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

The words Jesus spoke were meant to be understood by his hearers in a figurative sense. They are spirit, and they are life. A spiritual understanding gives life as we believe on Him and "ingest" Him by faith (actually a very similar idea to that found in Jeremiah 15:16 - "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts."). Having a fleshly, carnal understanding of Jesus' words "profiteth nothing". This is shown, too, in that those who became offended by His saying and departed were those who took His words woodenly literally - THEY (the people who thought He literally meant to eat His flesh and drink His blood) were the ones who had a carnal, fleshly understanding, THEY were the ones who demonstrated that they had never been called by the Father to come to Jesus to begin with (cf. vv. 64-65). The faithful disciples, in contrast, understood that the eternal life being offered was a result of Christ's WORDS (v. 68). It was believing on Christ's message of Messiahship and being the one God had given to His people to nourish their SPIRITUAL needs, that gave eternal life - as Peter understood.

Elsewhere, the Scripture gives no indication of any sort of understanding of the transubstantiative sense of the bread and wine. In Luke 22:18, in the very act of instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." Jesus clearly says it was "fruit of the vine", and He gave it to them while He was yet living. If we are to take Catholicism literally on this, we have to believe that Jesus gave His disciples blood and flesh pertaining to His sacrificial death, when He hadn't even been crucified yet. They were eating His flesh as a re-presentation of a sacrifice which had not even occurred yet. And one which Jesus had clearly and specifically said was NOT His actual blood, and which He then said (v. 19) was "in remembrance of Him". Jesus outright TELLS them that the Lord's Supper was not anything more than a symbolic remembrance of what He was shortly going to do for them.

The other major place in the NT besides the Gospels where the Lord's Supper is dealt with is in I Corinthians 11. In this passage, again, Catholics like to pull a verse out of context (in this case v. 26 - "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."), while ignoring the surrounding context and the lexical analysis. I've seen Catholic apologists point to this verse and argue that the act of "shewing" the Lord's death till He comes means that the act is occurring again and again in the transubstantiated Eucharist. Of course, this is not what "shew" (Gk. kataggelo) means. the words actually means "to proclaim, announce, report, or publish", and refers again to the act of remembrance (which Paul makes explicitly clear in vv. 24-25, where he again states that these were "in remembrance of" Christ's sacrifice - not a re-creation or "re-presentation" of it. The act of the Lord's Supper is exclamatory and evangelistic, not re-presentational."

---------------------------------------------------------

Which was replied to with this (me in italics):

What I find profoundly ironic is that while Catholics love to quote John 6:51-56 in support of their error, they conveniently forget to also cite v. 6:63.

Before we get to 6:63, the verb "eats" of "eats my flesh" in 6:54-58 is not the Greek verb used to denote human eating, but instead the gnawing of animals - why would Jesus go out of the way to emphasize physical eating if He meant merely "spiritual feasting" on His words? Just to confuse or scare away His disciples?

"It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." John 6:63

This references John 3:6 - "What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit." Peter and the rest remained because they were not afraid of His WORDS - the words were eat my body. It was a command. Yes, they were not afraid of such a command because they recognized the Christ, the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29), and they knew that they must eat the Lamb, as their forefathers did at Passover.

In Luke 22:18, in the very act of instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus said, "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." Jesus clearly says it was "fruit of the vine", and He gave it to them while He was yet living

You're mistaken here. This is part of the Passover celebration - the Jewish ritual required 4 cups of wine. Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, ceased the ritual sacrifice with the third cup. Ask a Jew you know what it would mean if they stopped their Passover celebration with only 3 cups - it borders near sacrilege. Jesus' ceasing demonstrates the sacrificial nature of his death - the Passover sacrifice he celebrated was not complete until the Lamb was slain. "It is finished" marks the completion of the Passover celebration.

John 22:19-20 is the institution of the last supper. Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." Yes, He is giving the Apostles His Body and Blood before He died - this supports my position, since His Sacrifice exists outside time. It is the interplay between Kairos and Chronos. God exists outside of time, as does His sacrifice. The "do this in remembrance of me" is a rough translation - a more proper one is probably "offer this as my memorial offering." The sacrifice of the Lamb is one in perpetuity which we are called to take part of - that is the entire reason for the Mass.

The other major place in the NT besides the Gospels where the Lord's Supper is dealt with is in I Corinthians 11. In this passage, again, Catholics like to pull a verse out of context (in this case v. 26 - "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."), while ignoring the surrounding context and the lexical analysis. I've seen Catholic apologists point to this verse and argue that the act of "shewing" the Lord's death till He comes means that the act is occurring again and again in the transubstantiated Eucharist. I've seen Catholic apologists point to this verse and argue that the act of "shewing" the Lord's death till He comes means that the act is occurring again and again in the transubstantiated Eucharist. Of course, this is not what "shew" (Gk. kataggelo) means. the words actually means "to proclaim, announce, report, or publish",

The words of the Mass are "when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus Christ," so I'm not sure where these Catholics you speak of struggle with the translation. But you need also look at 1 Cor. 11:28-29

A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself

The Greek word for "examine" translates better as "test and find true" - part of that examination requires discerning the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

------------------------------------------------------------

Which I responded to with (him in italics):

Because what Jesus was doing in this passage is pointing to Himself as the Word, and using allusions to the Old Testament to do so. Granted, I think we all can agree that Jesus is the Word - John's Christology, as it saturates his Gospel, makes that plain enough. One thing Jesus did before the verse in question was to point to Himself as the bread of life (vv. 32, 35, 48), as the true fulfillment of that typology taught by the giving of the manna to their fathers in the wilderness (vv. 49-51). Essentially, Jesus is saying, look, you want bread, well *I* am that bread - but I am bread that satisfies your SPIRITUAL need, rather than your physical hunger - He was directly referring back to the people's error in seeking Him because He fed the 5,000, and telling them not to seek Him to have physical needs met, but to have their spiritually lost condition changed (cf. v. 27). In other words, that is the "set up", the context for what we see later in the chapter, which is usually ignored by Catholic apologists.

Jesus' allusion to Himself as the bread of life fits right in with His role as the Word, and fits nicely with Matthew 4:4,

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Same concept as we see in John 6 - He cites Deut. 8:3 in refuting satan's temptation, a passage in Moses which also refers to the manna in the wilderness. So, Jesus, as the Word, is the true bread of life which sustains a person's life and soul. Now, did He mean it literally? Was He saying to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood? Of course not. He was instead alluding to Jeremiah 15:16,

"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts."

"Eating" God's Words means to internalise them mentally and spiritually to such a degree that they become a deep, inner part of you. That's what Jesus was telling His disciples they needed to do with Him - move away from a surface acceptance of Him as great teacher who provides a lot of free food, and instead learn and understand that He, as the Messiah, as the Word of God, must be "internalised" to such a degree that serving and living for Him becomes the very reason they live. Incidentally, the Hebrew word translated as "eat" in that verse is 'akal, which is ALSO a word used to describe the devouring of food as an animal would. Hence, when Jesus uses the same type of word in Greek, He is, again, referring back to this concept of devouring/eating God's Word by giving full heed to it.

Near the start of His discourse, He more or less laid it out plainly that His words were not meant to be taken woodenly literally, but that they had a spiritual import instead, when He said,

"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (v. 35)

Notice the Hebrew parallelism. Though the Gospel is written in Greek, Jesus and His audience were Jews - they thought like Jews, acted like Jews, and spoke like Jews. Jesus uses a classic example of the "poetic parallel" so common in Jewish poetry and wisdom literature (the latter of which John 6 can arguably be said to be a representative). He parallels "coming to Him to never hunger" with "believing on Him to never thirst". Coming to Him and believing on Him are paralleled - believing on Him is the whole point. Clearly, He has NO intention in this passage of telling His audience that they actually, truly, literally were to eat Him.

Just to confuse or scare away His disciples?

Actually, yes. It's common enough in the Gospels for Jesus to use hyperbolic language so as to force His listeners to make a decision about Him or something He has said. Usually, He does so as part of the "true disciples have their eyes and ears open to the true meaning, while false disciples will get offended by not understanding the true meaning, and leave" motif. This is what we see happening here - the people who didn't "get it", who still had their minds on filling their bellies, the people who were still thinking carnally, were the ones who took His words in a woodenly literal fashion, thought He was saying to actually eat Him, and left.

Peter and the rest knew that His Words were of a spiritual, rather than literal, intention. Jesus clearly is speaking figuratively in this passage, just as He was speaking figuratively each and every other time where He made a declarative "I am the ______" statement. Surely you don't believe that Jesus was really and truly a flat, wooden board with an iron bar across Him, just because He said "I am the door", do you? You don't think He was a green, leafy plant because He said "I am the true vine", do you?

Your argument from John 3:6 doesn't really seem to apply in any sense. If anything, those born of the flesh but not yet born of the Spirit (i.e. those who were unregenerate) would be the ones who would understand His words in a fleshly, literal way on this point, which actually goes against your argument.

're mistaken here. This is part of the Passover celebration - the Jewish ritual required 4 cups of wine. Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, ceased the ritual sacrifice with the third cup. Ask a Jew you know what it would mean if they stopped their Passover celebration with only 3 cups - it borders near sacrilege. Jesus' ceasing demonstrates the sacrificial nature of his death - the Passover sacrifice he celebrated was not complete until the Lamb was slain. "It is finished" marks the completion of the Passover celebration.

This argument has no merit. The four cups ceremony which you describe was actually institued very late - it's doubtful that it was widely practiced at the time of Jesus, and even if it were, the Jewish sources themselves are very clear that it was a "rabbinic tradition" (a term which itself suggests a post-70 AD origin), not sanctioned by the Scriptures themselves. Given Jesus' disdain for Pharisaical (the folks who more or less "became" the later rabbinate after the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora) innovations to Scripture, it's not likely that He even engaged in this ritual at all - since the OT never mentions it. The New Testament certainly doesn't say that He did - it says nothing about how many cups of wine He drank/offered period, other than the one He used when instituting the Lord's Supper.

Yes, He is giving the Apostles His Body and Blood before He died - this supports my position, since His Sacrifice exists outside time. It is the interplay between Kairos and Chronos.

That's exactly the point, however. Suggesting that Jesus' sacrifice "exists outside of time" is pagan, as pagan as going in to a Phoenician temple prostitute to re-enact fertility rites to Ba'al to ensure the rains come in.

God exists outside of time, as does His sacrifice.

That is a non-sequitur. Yes, God exists outside of time, by virtue of His being the Creator and being GREATER than time. However, the Scripture clearly says that Jesus' sacrifice came at one, specific point in time, and that it's economy was centred about that one specific moment. The Scripture positively denies your "sacrifice exists outside of time" argument.

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;" (Hebrews 10:12)

He offered one sacrifice, a singular sacrifice which has efficacy "for ever". Further, the sacrifice is treated punctiliarly - it had a point in time, which was sequentially antecedent to His sitting down at the right hand of God. Further, the verb "to offer sacrifice" (prosphero) is in the aorist tense, indicating one-time action.

"For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:26)

Again, this verse indicates that the sacrifice offered by Christ had not occurred until that one, single incident at "the end of the world" (lit. aeon, age, the transition between the OT and the NT). He did it once, and it's importance was met at one, singular instance in time. It's efficacy, true, is from the beginning of the world, but not its ACTIVITY, which is where you are in error. Hebrews 7:27 makes the same point as well.

The "do this in remembrance of me" is a rough translation - a more proper one is probably "offer this as my memorial offering."

Completely untrue. Actually, "this do in remembrance of me" is a very clear translation of the phrase touto poieite eis ten emen anamnesin. Touto = this, poiteite = do (present active imperative), eis = of, ten emen = me (accusative), and anamnesin = remembrance. Perhaps a more modern sounding translation would be "Do this in my remembrance", but there is nothing in the actual Greek text to suggest "offer this as a memorial offering" as any sort of a valid translation.

The sacrifice of the Lamb is one in perpetuity which we are called to take part of - that is the entire reason for the Mass.

And that is a lot (though not all) of the reason why the mass represents (no pun intended) a pagan syncretisation into Christianity.

A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself

The Greek word for "examine" translates better as "test and find true" - part of that examination requires discerning the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the elements of the Supper actually turn into the body and blood of Christ, or are just symbols. What Paul is referring to when He tells them to examine themselves, and that eating unworthily means they are not discerning the Lord's body looks back to the earlier parts of the chapter, when Paul had to take the Corinthians to task for their abuse of the Lord's Supper - getting drunken, eating everything up before the poor and others had a chance to get any, etc. (which, interestingly, seems to suggest that the Lord's Supper was much more than just the "eat a wafer and drink a little wine/grape juice as we sit in the pews" that is common to Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists alike). The discerning going on here is that which understands the importance of the ordinance. Treating it lightly is to basically treat the sacrifice which Christ made for us lightly. There's nothing in vv. 28-29 which specifically or even alludingly refers to the actual nature of the elements.

-------------------------------------------------------

When we understand fully revelation and reason, the mass suddenly appears to be the laughably pagan tomfoolery that it realy is. The "real presence" interpretation of John 6 is clearly refuted by other portions of Scripture, it relies upon a complete ignorance of the allusions to Jeremiah 15:16 which Jesus was making, it relies upon a completely pagan (and therefore foreign to God's Word) conception of repetition in "sacred time", and it is simply the result of syncretising Christianity with late Roman paganisms found throughout the Empire.

Just came across this, but to that i would like to add my reasons as to why the trustworthy Biblical evidence shows that the RC doctrine in which consecrated communion wafer actually literally becomes the body and blood of Christ, is erroneous.

1.The Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood, the penalty being to be cut off from God’s people, “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Lv. 17:0). And that the apostles, far from being learned theologians, who might have understood what Rome proposes, were unlearned Jews, who (especially Peter) would voice concerns when troubled about things, even as they did at the last supper, (it is I?). It is revealed that Peter was still following Kosher Law as far after the Lord’s supper as Acts 10 (9-16), in which he protested “Not so, Lord” (an oxymoron). How much more he, or one of the other apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually ingesting the Lord’s corporeal flesh and drinking His blood! Peter did not even (initially) want the Lord to wash his feet (Jn. 13:6), never mind eat His flesh! Peter instead exhorts believers to “desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet 2:2).

2.The Jews were well acquainted with the use of symbolic language, with the O.T. often speaking of eating in a figurative manner. When the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that EATETH UP the inhabitants thereof;” or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are BREAD for us” Num. 13:32; 14:9), it is not to be supposed that the land or the Israelites would become cannibals. And when Jeremiah proclaims, Your WORDS were found. and I ATE them. and your WORD was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (15:16), or Ezekiel and Joghn are told, “EAT this SCROLL, and go, speak to the house of Israel” ( 3:1), “Take the SCROLL ... Take it and EAT it” (Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9), it is not speaking of literal eating. In Jn. 6, it is likewise speaking of receiving the words of Christ in order to live (Mt. 4:4).

As relates to equating men with blood, the most analogous example is found in 2Sam. 23:15-17, wherein we read, “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.” Here, David equates the thing gotten at the peril of the men’s life (blood representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves. So it is in the Lord’s supper accounts. The Lord is holding up bread and wine as a “picture”” of Himself, illustrating that just as such life giving substances could be broken and poured out, respectively, so would His body be “broken,” and His precious sinless blood “pour out “ as the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10).

3. If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have “life in you”, which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved. Instead, they preached that we are believe on the Lord Jesus, which is what Jn. 6: 63 confirms is the meaning of v. 53. The apostles taught how one becomes born again, and so have “life in you” (Eph. 2:1, 5), is by believing the word of the gospel, that of Christ crucified and risen again (Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47). For Jesus said, “It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Mt. 4:4). This is how Jesus “lived by” the Father” (John 6:57), not by physically consuming Him, but by doing His will in believing and obeying Him, which was Jesus’ “meat and drink” (Jn. 4:34).

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 the priority on constant 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, then contrary to the women at the well in Jn. 4, when Jesus leads them to the higher spiritual using metaphorical language (living water: 4:10, 14 = Jesus, as living bread” in 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 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 Covenant.

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 changed, so that the bread and wine actually become the Lord’s body and blood though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, then this would be a unique miracle. For in every miracle which the Lord and His followers did the water actually became wine, and it tasted like it; the sick were made well, and knew it. And if i am not mistaken, according to Roman Catholic doctrine the miracle of transubstantiation is not the same thing as in the incarnation of Christ.

5. “Not discerning the Lord’s body” in 1 Cor. 11 is not speaking about a failure to recognize that the elements of the Supper were actually the body and blood of Christ, but about a failure to effectually recognize others members of the body of Christ, The context is that some souls were commemorating the utterly selfless sacrifice of the Lord in an entirely selfish way, that of pigging out at the love feast of charity (Jude 1:12) while others members of the body of Christ were starving. This is what is meant by not discerning (or judging) the Lord’s body. And which body Paul elsewhere defines as the church (Eph_1:23,16; 4:4,12,16;_5:23,30; Col_1:18,22; 2:11,17,19; 3:15).

6. Unlike other major doctrines - and the RC doctrine of transubstantiation is a most major one - very little mention of the Lord’s supper is made, and no theology on the doctrine of transubstantiation and it’s salvific necessity. In contrast, the preaching of the gospel is presented as the means to gain eternal life, and effectually believing on the Lord Jesus Christ gives spiritual life (Acts 10”43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:13; 2:1), and the theology behind it abundantly addressed. To God be the glory.

In summation, “the Lord’s body” referred to in the gospel accounts and the term “eating and drink in Jn. 6 is consistent with Biblical Jewish as well as Greek allegorical usage, and “this is my body” is no more literal than the water David held in his hand was “the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? And the Lord’s body in 1 Cor. 11 contextually represented the church. Those who are deceived into believing the carnal interpretation of Rome (which the lost souls in Jn. 6:66 did) may be said to have “eaten the fruit of lies” (Hos. 6:13), and which is another example of the abundant use of metaphors regarding eating.