The difference is is that we know, from John 1:42, that Christ renamed Simon, Kephas. In light of that fact, any tortured distinction that our Protestant brethren keep trying to make regarding petros/petra is meaningless and futile. A fact which more and more Protestant scholars are admitting.
Now, as to my use of Greek rather than Aramaic in John 6, or "wishing to have Jesus speaking Greek". I used the Greek because, unlike the whole kephas/petros/petra situation, there is no Aramaic built into the NT that can shed any light on an exegesis of John 6. I think it is also safe to assume that we all believe that John wrote his Gospel in Greek. Since, in this instance, Greek is all we have, I used the Greek. It would be interesting though to see what Aramaic translations say regarding John 6 and trogo. I would think that the Aramaic NT manuscript tradition, although most likely less voluminous, is almost as ancient as the Greek.
Is that satisfactory? (A question not to be taken as condescension or sarcastic)
Hopefulpilgrim, I hope to have my response to your post #264 finished tomorrow.
As an aside, you know how we say, "It's all Greek to me", to express bewliderment. I wonder what the Greeks say?
Ora pro Ioannes Paulus II
There is the interesting usage of the word phago for the same scene used in Matthew. One might postulate quite reasonably that the logia, or sayings, (the Oral tradition) would be consistent if this were a pertinent point. Matthew's "This is my body, take eat" uses the good old common phago. In addition, Matthew uses the word once in connection with something quite differently (the comparison with Noah and his times "eating and drinking") but uses it literally. And outside of Matthew's single usage, John is the only other user of the word.
The dirty little secret is that phago and trogo are used interchangably in John 6. Phago is also used of partaking of Jesus' body and blood and receiving eternal life. Does that mean that John didn't mean it literally when he used phago and did when he used trogo? And if John wanted to signify the reality of it, why not use the words that every other Gospel writer uses for literal eating (esthio or phago)?
Finally, the other place one would expect to see trogo, if it is indeed the lynchpin of the doctrine of transubstantiation, is in 1 Corinthians in Paul's discourse on the topic of the Lord's Supper. It is absent.
In short, the use of the word trogo is not a good argument for or against transubstantiation. It is a non-starter. Both ways.
Somewhat. I understand the point you are making, but I still think one should be cautious about drawing theological conclusions from the connotations of a Greek word used by the gospel writer perhaps 50 years after Jesus spoke, in Aramaic. If, as I think you do, you use it as a support rather than as the centerpiece of your interpretation, then I think its fine.