Montalban said:
It is not ignoring it Rev. It is why Jesus DID state it is really His flesh. He re-emphasises it to make it know that this really is the case.He says it explicitly"For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink." He is thus giving you a signal that we can’t look at this as allegory. What other way do you think He means it when he is saying in effect “This really truly is this…” ?
Rev said:
The Greek word that is translated "flesh" here allows for both literal and figurative understandings.
The KJV translates this a bit differently in saying, "My flesh is meat indeed..." In otherwords, Jesus was saying he was a real live person, not an apperition.
Indeed He’s not an apparition, however He’s not just saying “My flesh is real flesh”, He’s saying “My flesh is real food”
Montalban said:
Where does your word ‘his’ come from? It is the English translation of the Greek, for scholars understand that it refers to Jesus’ flesh because Jesus said “Truly you must do this”.
Rev said:
Translators stuck it in to make the sentence make sense to them. But Greek has a word for "his" and it certainly seems someone would use it if they meant it. Otherwise, the text reads literally, 'How can he give us the flesh to eat."
But that is how it reads. The Jews ask Him, and instead of calling them up for misunderstanding Him, he re-emphasises the literal nature
Montalban said:
You are mostly correct. A literal interpretation of eat and chew does cause us to take it literally! Jesus is saying you must eat/chew/take Him into us. He is saying it really is food. You use a slight trick (sorry!) to evoke a different image; bubble gum, which we spit out; however it too is chewed. You have made no point other to re-emphasise that Jesus is asking us to take Him into us.
Rev said:
Then you missed my point which was more about the tensing. "Chew" as used is a continuous action. "Eat" has a beginning and end. "Chew" is meaning "to chew loudly without stopping." Jesus intentionally used that word "chew" to describe the continuousness of the relationship between himself and his followers. And I used the image of bubblegum to show how vulger it would be to literally chew the wafer like that (which here Christ would be commanding if you are arguing for the presence of Christ in the Eucherist). Thus, I'm saying since Jesus would NOT ask people to chew continually his flesh without ceasing, THEREFORE, it should be understood in an an allegorical sense.
He doesn’t just ask people to chew, He also asks them to ‘eat’. I think you are concentrating on this too much. He’s asking us to do both, so in the context of both He is asking us to feed on Him, which makes sense because He categorically says He is real food and drink
Montalban said:
My understanding is that the word is trogein“If we look at the Greek, the word phagein is used in verses 51,and 53, which means, "to eat". In verses 54, 56, and 58, the word trogein is use, which means, "to chew". These two word would only be used in reference to actual food. When Jesus said these things, he was addressing the same crowd that he had fed with five barley loaves and two fish the day before, about five thousand (John 6:10).”
http://grigaitis.net/?media=screen&...answ/rites.htmlAnd this is the point you’ve missed, regardless of wether we masticate, chew, gnaw, eat, bite etc, we are still taking Him into us, which is what He is asking us to do.
Rev said:
Yes, literally. You have concentrated for the most part on two instances of the use of the word ‘chew’, which seems also to ignore ‘eat’; which not only occurs there, but at the Last Supper and in St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians where he says it’s not just a ‘meal’. He says if you want to take part in a meal, go to your homes. When He says “Eat
Montalban said:
This is false. The death that is physical death is just an end to the body, but not the spirit, which has also it’s own spiritual birth; baptism, and does not die at the time the body dies. We do live forever in Christ.
Rev said:
But you were requiring a literal reading. The literal flesh of Jesus must be consumed. Therefore, in keeping with your requirements, we must also understand that literal flesh eating must result in literal eternal life. Where does that verse say "Spiritual life?"
We do not die, our souls continue on, we continue to exist. Jesus says that we still physically die when He says John 6:54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. We will have eternal life with Him… in heaven. We will be raised up (from the dead). He is not talking about ‘immorality’ here on earth, but immoratliy in heaven (where, by the way, we will be with our real corporeal bodies). Our bodies will be raised up, just as Jesus had a physical body after the resurrection, and was no spectre/fantom.
Rev said:
Another theologically nasty alternative for a literal reading is that eating the flesh of Christ results in spiritial eternal life. Throws grace and faith right out the window. That verges on heresy, friend!
How so? To partake in God’s grace you must be an active participant. This does involve doing something. For you, this is a declaration of faith. For us Orthodox, it is living as Christ, to take Him onto us and be like Him.
Montalban said:
This is a verse from a different ‘lesson’. He is now talking about His spirit ascending into heaven which is the truth of what will happen.
Rev said:
It was the same chapter and Jesus was debriefing the disciples after the three discourses. My point remains.
I was mistaken on this point. He doesn’t here say “My flesh means nothing” He says “The flesh means nothing”, here He is not referring to His own self, (because earlier when He talks about Himself He says “My flesh”, here He is talking about us. Our flesh means nothing. We must take Him onto us.
Montalban said:
Jesus emphasises this act AFTER some ask Him are they to truly do this. He says yes, He is really to be consumed. Aside from you interpreting Jesus’ own words telling you it really is food and drink, you’ve also ignored the other evidence I cited from the early church that continues on with that understanding… you did ‘write-off’ them with a unproven and sweeping statement.
Rev said:
Your arguement stands on five points--John, The Last Supper, Paul to Corinth, and the Early Church Fathers, and Luther. I am planning to rebut them individually and systematically. So please don't think I've ignored you other stuff...I will address it.
They are not ‘separate issues’. But if you wish to deal with them that way, for the sake of convenience, then so be it.
I take them ‘altogether’. There are a great many parts of the Bible that
can be interpreted many ways; it is why we look to how the church itself operated… how the early Christians took these things… this is because we know that not everything Jesus said or did was contained in the Bible (the last verse of the Gospel of John says this).
Further, in Acts we see an Ethiopian puzzling over the texts and says that he needs to be taught in order to understand them.