Please feel free to show me a single case where "estin" is used to mean represents, is symbolic of, or a metaphor for.
Second; Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative, means that it is in the active present tense. Eimi is the passive.
Third in context; " touto estin to swma mou" literally translates to "The body which/that is me" He is not saying "this is my car.", as a possession clearly in context He is saying it is literally Him.
No, it is not I who pins his entire theology of the Eucharist on the meaning of “is.” That would be you. Indeed, it is I who critique your unwarranted reliance on a single generic verb of being. It is irresponsible translation.
I am not relying on a singular generic anything. I am relying on the literal meaning of the words in context.
If you can find a single time that "estin" is used in the sense you think/ believe it does, you get back to me.
Sorry, now you’re just making stuff up (though I am willing to believe your motives are pure). Eimi is indicative, not passive:
http://www.tms.edu/FacultyDocuments/09%20Greek%20Irregular%20Verbs%20-%20EIMI.pdf
For a slightly more advanced discussion, please see here:
For the casual reader, the above link merely states that eimi is a copulative verb; it establishes a link between subject and predicate. It states a condition of being, not an action. Therefore it cannot be either active or passive.
The essential point for the present discussion is that eimi and estin really are exactly the same verb, only in forms conjugated to express number, tense, and person. That is all.
However, if you are disposed to share it, I would be curious to know where you got the notion it was passive. Just for my own edification.
As for your request for an example, try Matthew 13:38:
“The field (’agros’) is (’estin’) the world (’kosmos’); the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;”
This is a particularly good case, because it is impossible to take the subject of the analogy as literal; it is a parable, by definition establishing a figurative or symbolic relationship between the analogue and the underlying reality it describes.
To put a finer point on it, Jesus cannot here be teaching that one literal farmer’s field really is the entirety of the world. The farm field can only be a representation because it lacks all the literal the attributes of the kosmos as a whole. It is merely a tool used to teach the disciples about the spiritual dimension to Gospel evangelism. Jesus selected a part of the kosmos to represent the whole, and said part was chosen for it’s ability to teach, not because it had some Dr. Who Tardis-like capacity to fully contain the reality of the kosmos.
I'm caught up short by SR's saying "magic" and "Aristotelian" because I do think that WHAT a thing IS is only an easy question if you don't think about it. But once you ask "What is a thing?" and that whole family of questions, well, SOMEBODY is going to start doing metaphysics. It seems unavoidable to me.
So if/when IHS says
τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου... Τουτο εστιν το αιμα μου της διαθηκης...
How does one understand that simply?
One thing we bring to the conversation is that we think his word makes it so. So thinking that, we think a change happens as he speaks. But it still has the appearances, the sensible qualities of bread or wine. So what changed? Nothing 'material,' evidently.
And then when a convert says, "What do you mean, what did he mean?" how do you answer -- simply? SOMEBODY's going to bring something to the table whether he says a change happened or no change happened.
Verga: I don't see how ειμι could be passive - or deponent. Did you mean, maybe, intransitive?
My quote is from Mark, BTW.
Generally, other languages (Spanish, Italian, maybe Latin and Greek) have a funny thing going on with words that, at root, mean "stand" and words which pertain more simply to being. We say, "How ARE you?" but Spanish asks "Como estas?" where estas is a 'stand' (or "state" verb. And unless we have to, that's why I don't want to go running into that maze.
No, that is not literally what the words translated would be. The correct exact translation is: "This is continually the body of me."
We could say "This is always being my body" and not be wrong in interpretation.
In English, translating as "This is my body" is not quite full enough of what the Koine says to the first century Greek speaker's mind. The present tense in Koine necessarily implies that the "being" part is a persistent quality.
However, you yourself are quite missing the point that the context demands that this is a declaration in a figurative-literal vein. It is not and cannot be simple concrete literal language, as the Romanists would have it.