scripture question

Did Christ use the term “touto gignetai” which is “this has become or turned into” or “touto esti” which means represents or stands for in his teachings when he said this is my body and blood? Please help so I can explain to someone!

Give me the book chapter and verse number and I’ll look up the greek…

But, since he had said many times that he was the bread that came down from heaven, it would be more the case that he turned into bread. :thumbsup:

The Greek Orthodox Church, which ought to know what Biblical Greek means, says “touto esti” means “This is”, not “this represents.”

Well I found my answer in Keatings book online. A protestant writer was trying to say Christ said “represents” which is the second choice in english as “is” is the first choice in definition for use in John when he stated this is my body and blood. But Christ said “is” because it IS his body not “becomes” his body. The protestant was trying to say Christ would have had to use “gignetai” if he meant “becomes” but now I understand why Christ uses “esti” instead because he meant ‘is’ and not “becomes”. So the protestant is really thinking backwards in his reasoning I believe.

Interesting statement. If it IS HIS body then when did it become HIS body?? Clearly there had to be a time when it was just bread. Or was the bread always Christ’s body?? If it was bread then it had to at sometime “become” Christ’s body. This is the problem with twisting the meaning of the seder meal. Christ was not using language to insinuate a change in the elements of bread and wine. That’s why HE states the cup is the new covenant in HIS blood. It’s not a cup of HIS blood. The covenant is in HIS blood symbolized by the cup. Christ used the cup of redemption or 3rd cup of wine which is red wine mixed with warm water taken after the seder meal symbolizing the blood of the lambs slain prior to the Exodus. But now as Christ states the cup of redemption is represented by HIS blood which is the final sacrifice for our sins. Hence the inception of the new covenant. There’s no language at all which implies the bread changed. It’s still bread but now it has a new meaning.

PEACE

So in Matthew 26:26-28, when He said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body’, and ‘this is my blood’, He really meant that it is not His body and blood, but that all that is symbolism. Because when Jesus says that something is His body and His blood, I’m inclined to believe Him.

It was bread until Jesus said:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body.

Then the bread was no longer bread but Jesus’ body because that is what Jesus said it was.
Likewise the wine was wine until:

Drink from it, all of you,
for this** is** my blood of the covenant

Then it was no longer wine but what Jesus said it was His blood.

This is the problem with twisting the meaning of the seder meal. Christ was not using language to insinuate a change in the elements of bread and wine.

The language wasn’t insinuation but an outright statement of IT IS.

That’s why HE states the cup is the new covenant in HIS blood. It’s not a cup of HIS blood.

That twist His words for He does say

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

The covenant is in HIS blood symbolized by the cup. Christ used the cup of redemption or 3rd cup of wine which is red wine mixed with warm water taken after the seder meal symbolizing the blood of the lambs slain prior to the Exodus. But now as Christ states the cup of redemption is represented by HIS blood which is the final sacrifice for our sins. Hence the inception of the new covenant. There’s no language at all which implies the bread changed. It’s still bread but now it has a new meaning.

There is no indication in what Jesus said that it was a symbol. He doesn’t say that it represented His blood but that it IS His blood.

Jesus was speaking figuratively and it needs to be kept in context with the passover and seder meal. The Jews use unleavened bread to symbolize the body of the lambs from the Exodus and also red wine with warm water to symbolize the blood. The Apostles being Jews would recognize that in referring to these elements Christ was stating they now represent HIS body and blood and no longer the lambs form the Exodus. That’s why Jesus states that HE will no longer drink this fruit of the vine until HE drinks it new again. Fruit of the vine is a common term for referring to wine. So even after Jesus states this cup is the new covenant in my blood HE still refers to the liquid as fruit of the vine.

So, obviously, when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He was also speaking figuratively too, right? :rolleyes:

Because there is no way the Jesus is a “way.” And He can’t be “truth” if when he said, “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” that was only figurative, so since Jesus spoke figuratively, he’s not really the way or truth or life. :shrug:

Yes I’m aware of what Christ stated. The OP was implying that the use of the Greek term “IS” means the bread was always Christ’s body in an attempt to explain why the term for “becomes” was not used. In saying this “IS” my body you are intimating a meaning into the text that doesn’t exist. The emphasis is not this “IS” but more of “MY” body. So the meaning Jesus is conveying is the bread represents HIS BODY. Not that the bread “IS” HIS body. HE wants the Apostles to see that from now on when they partake in this meal the bread and wine represent HIS body and blood. Not that they become or became HIS body and blood. That’s not the purpose of the meal. It’s a meal of remembrance or “Anamnesis” which is Greek for remembering. Not a meal of consecration.

Then the bread was no longer bread but Jesus’ body because that is what Jesus said it was.
Likewise the wine was wine until:

Then it was no longer wine but what Jesus said it was His blood.

Again Jesus was not using terminology that implies a transformation of the elements. That’s why HE still calls the liquid in the cup “fruit of the vine” which is a common term for wine after you say it became HIS literal blood. The purpose of this statement is to let the Apostles know that there will come a time when we all will share in this meal with Christ. That time is when we are gathered in the Kingdom of GOD.

The language wasn’t insinuation but an outright statement of IT IS.

That twist His words for He does say

It’s not an emphasis on it “IS”. The emphasis is on MY Body. Jesus is not saying this “IS” my body because I’m changing the bread into flesh. HE’s saying this is “MY” body. The emphasis is on “MY”. Again it coincides with the seder meal. Instead of the elements of bread and wine symbolizing the body of the lambs from the Exodus they now symbolize Christ as the final sacrificial lamb… Jesus is simply introducing the meal as a meal of remembrance for HIM as opposed to the lambs from the Exodus.

There is no indication in what Jesus said that it was a symbol. He doesn’t say that it represented His blood but that it IS His blood.

There’s every indication it’s figurative when understood in the context of the seder meal. When the meal was complete the Jews would take a cup of red wine and mix warm water with it to symbolize the blood of the lambs. Warm water was added to give the effect of blood since blood is red and warm. This was the 3rd of 4 cups of wine taken during the seder meal and was known as the cup of redemption. Redemption from captivity which as you know involved slaughtering a lamb and marking their doors with its blood. The markings of blood were done at the top and sides of the doorway with a trench at the base to catch the pool of blood that developed after the slaughter. This was clearly a pre-figurement of Christ on the cross.

But now Christ being the final sacrifical lamb means that redemption is no longer through the blood of the lambs from the Exodus nor lambs sacrificed at the temple for sins. It’s through the blood of Christ on the cross. Jesus is simply stating that now there’s a new covenant in HIS blood. And the wine taken in the 3rd cup represents this. That’s why HE states this cup is the new covenant in MY blood. Jesus never states this cup of my blood is the new covenant. Jesus confirms that HE’s speaking symbolically when HE flat out states I will not drink again this fruit of the vine. Fruit of the vine being a common term for wine. So Christ still recognizes the liquid in the cup to be wine and not HIS blood. Clearly this is figurative symbolic language.

I love the roll of the eyes on an irrelevant statement :wink: Jesus also said I am the door. Was HE a literal door?? No HE was speaking figuratively. But Jesus is literally the only way to GOD and Jesus also spoke the truth and is the only way to eternal life. Not sure why that’s such a problem.

Because there is no way the Jesus is a “way.” And He can’t be “truth” if when he said, “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” that was only figurative, so since Jesus spoke figuratively, he’s not really the way or truth or life. :shrug:

Well this is such a poor example. You’re mixing apples and oranges. Are you really implying that Jesus is turning HIMSELF into these elements as well. Of course not but that’s how ridiculous your argument is. It’s no different than someone being lost in the woods and someone else walks up and says I’m your way out of here. Are they turning themselves into something?? No they are implying that they know the way out. This is what Jesus means by saying I am the way. HE knows the way out of this life and to eternal life. HE’s not announcing HE"s becoming something. Same for HIS supper. HE’s not announcing bread and wine become HIM. HE’s saying they are HIM meaning they represent HIM. So from now on when you partake in this meal you proclaim my death. Not from now on when you partake in this meal you eat me.

Speaking figuratively doesn’t negate a purpose.

It’s not an emphasis on it “IS”. The emphasis is on MY Body. Jesus is not saying this “IS” my body because I’m changing the bread into flesh. HE’s saying this is “MY” body. The emphasis is on “MY”. Again it coincides with the seder meal. Instead of the elements of bread and wine symbolizing the body of the lambs from the Exodus they now symbolize Christ as the final sacrificial lamb… Jesus is simply introducing the meal as a meal of remembrance for HIM as opposed to the lambs from the Exodus.

Do you really think this makes it different. Putting the emphasis on My still makes it HIS BODY.

John 6

53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Jesus was not speaking figuratively. He had many leave because the saying was to hard.

What are also failing to recognize is the fact that for over 1500 years, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was understood by all Christians. It was not until the Protestant revolution that it was ever called into question. Do you believe the God would let His people be mislead for 3/4 of Christian history?

Let me ask you this: The Bible that get your information from, how do you know it is really the Word of God? On whose authority do you accept it?

Well, when he said “I am the bread that comes down from heaven” and later said “eat this bread” and “the flesh availeth nothing”, you think these were all not what he meant to say?

Jesus was an authentic worker of miracles. If he intended bread to actually become flesh there would be no question. They would have seen the flesh, but would any of them have eaten human flesh? No they would not…

Yes, He is a door.

Have you passed through the door? Tell me what happened.

You are truly wise. You know more and better than all of the early fathers of the Church from the first century on. You are wiser than Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Benedict, Anslem, Francis, Dominic, Aquinas, Clement, all combined. You stand against them and all the others and contradict their universal teaching of centuries going back to the beginning. Jesus promises that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth and be with her until the end of time must be false. You say so, so confidently. Surely you must be right.

At least he read the scriptures with care omitting nothing…

That makes him right, right? The fathers who are unanimous in their teaching must have been a bunch of lazy illiterate dummies who never read the scriptures or could not understand them to come up with such an error. The Holy Spirit inspires our modern friend, but left them ignorant. No problem!

So you believe that there is no way to know the truth other than to agree with popular oppinion, is that what you mean?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.