Protestant Argument on why ‘Eat Flesh’, Trogo in John 6 is Metaphorical: A Response Matt1618

A Response to Michael Taylor's Argument that Eating Flesh John 6:54-58 is Metaphorical Matt1618

I received an email from a Protestant who saw my article on John 6, which emphasized that when Jesus speaks in John 6:48-58, he is speaking literally, about eating flesh and drinking blood: Here is my writing on the issue: My article on John 6. That points us to the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He disagreed with my assessment and pointed to some quotations from a fellow by the name of Michael Taylor, who argues that in John 6 the word for eating flesh, ‘trogo’, can be used metaphorically. In other words eating flesh just means believing in Jesus, and that is it. Catholic apologists have argued the word Trogo for eating flesh, has a meaning of chewing, a word that is always literal. The Catholic meaning is that word points us to eating his flesh and blood in Communion. I used that argument in that article. That word is used 4 times between John 6:54-58 and the argument is that during that time, both biblical and non-biblical history shows no usage of that word in a figurative sense. The word before, phago, which was used before John 6:54 for eating (6:51-53) can have the meaning both figurative and literal. But not in John 6:54-58, when the term ‘trogo’ is used. This for example is argued by Robert Sungenis here: Robert Sungenis on ‘trogo’ in John 6. In my article I put a challenge for anybody to show ‘trogo’ is used at anytime metaphorically. No one has answered but this is another way of answering that challenge. Here is how his argument proceeds:

Does Trogo Have to Be Used Metaphorically Elsewhere in Order to Be Metaphorical in John 6?

Roman Catholic apologists sometimes argue that because trogo is never unambiguously metaphorical in or outside of scripture, that it therefore cannot be metaphorical in John 6. Rome's argument, however, wrongly assumes that trogo can only be metaphorical in John 6if, and only if, it has already been used metaphorically elsewhere. In other words, Rome's apologists are requiring a precedent, and if there is none, then trogo must be literal rather than metaphorical.

But why should we concede that? By that logic, every proposed metaphorical use of a word would then require a precedent, which, when carried through to its logical conclusion, would require an infinite regress of precedents, which would make a first-time metaphorical use of any word impossible.

Well, it is not that there cannot be a precedent. It is that if this is a precedent, you should find that precedent used elsewhere sometime after that, either biblically or unbiblically, during or immediately after that time. I think it is reasonable to request to find some usage of it somewhere in the fashion that Mr. Taylor uses. The very examples he will give actually prove the Catholic apologist point. There is a huge difference between the examples that he gives as opposed to how it does not fit for ‘trogo’.
Let us apply the same logic to the uncontested metaphor of God as “rock.” We'll work canonically backwards to illustrate our point: In Isaiah 44:8, “rock” can be safely said to be metaphorical because it is already metaphorical in Psalm 18:31. And "rock" can be metaphorical in Psalm 18:31 because it is already metaphorical in 2 Samuel 22:32, which in turn is justified by the precedent we find in Deuteronomy 32:4, where Moses calls God a "Rock" for the first time.

But how could Moses call God "Rock” in the first place unless he already had access to a metaphorical precedent? The answer, of course, is that he does not need a precedent in order to use a word metaphorically, and therefore neither does Jesus or John with respect to trogo. Rome's apologists are being arbitrary here in their requirement for a precedent. They simply do not allow for the possibility that trogo in John 6 may be the first use of this word in a metaphorical sense. In other words, contextual rather than non-contextual usage is the primary criterion for determining whether or not trogo is metaphorical in John 6. The attempt to appeal to outside usage is really a smokescreen—and a poor one at that.

The usage of the term ‘Rome’ indicates that is only the Roman Catholic Church that argues for the reality of the Eucharist. Christians from the beginning believed in the reality of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only reason why he says that it is a metaphor, is because he has to label it as a metaphor in order to explain away the reality of Jesus words.

Now, I’ll deal with his example of Rock being a metaphor, and why did Moses use Rock as a metaphor, since Moses did, so can Jesus, in his theory. The problem with that is the rest of the Bible, the author goes to quoting God as Rock elsewhere. Sure there can be a precedent, and it can even be expanded. Those other quotes in the Psalms and second Samuel exactly prove the point. In fact it is even expanded in Isaiah, for example where the Rock is used of Abraham and Sarah, where Isaiah says ’look to the Rock’ he expands it to Abraham and Sarah, Isa 51:1-2. Paul uses the Rock metaphor in 1 Cor. 10:4 as pointing to God as well, or Jesus. That Old Testament usage lays the precedent for Jesus naming Peter ‘Rock’, Kephas in Aramaic. And it is known through Rabbinic literature in addition to the Bible that God is a rock. However, no such thing applies to ‘Trogo’. Rock is used elsewhere metaphorically. Trogo is never used metaphorically anywhere else in the Bible. Or anywhere else outside the Bible. After Moses uses the word Rock, it is verified through usage immediately after him and elsewhere. In reference to ‘trogo’ which is specifically about chewing, eating, it was about really physically eating. Now, in the New Testament the other uses of ‘trogo’ are Jn 13:18, and Matthew 24:38. The author ignores the fact that the people in Noah’s day were eating not metaphorically up to the point of the flood in Matthew 24:38. Judas really ate, ’trogo’ at the meal, (Jn 13:18) not figuratively. All the literature at the time, even outside the Bible, used Trogo in a literal sense. Then he disingenuously ignores the fact that eating flesh and drinking blood when taken figuratively always means the exact opposite of believing, but fighting as an enemy. Here is the way ‘eating flesh’ is used in the Old Testament:

Psalm 27:2 When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell.

Micah 3:1-4 - 1 and I said: hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice? 2 you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people, and their flesh from off their bones; 3 who eat the flesh of my people , and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. 4 then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil.

Isaiah 9:18-20 - 18 for wickedness burns like a fire, it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upward in a column of smoke. 19 through the wrath of the lord of hosts the land is burned, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no man spares his brother. 20 they snatch on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours his neighbor's flesh

How can one ignore the way that it is used? The biblical usage of that term ‘eating’ flesh, has the exact opposite meaning of believing. Treat the person as an enemy. Devouring flesh, eating up enemies obviously is not the way that we attain eternal life, according to Jesus, but that is the normal way of talking about eating flesh would apply metaphorically. Why would we ignore that?
There is no doubt that figurative “eating flesh” is used negatively, but the conclusion that it can never be used in a positive sense is absurd. Depending on the context, the same figure is often used to express opposites. For things that signify now one thing and now another…They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad…Bread is used in a good sense, ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven;’ in a bad, ‘Bread eaten in secret is pleasant.’ And so in a great many other case” We know that eating flesh could mean a physical injury or a false accusation by looking at the context in which it is used. Similarly, if we examine the context of John 6, it is hard to miss Jesus’ explanation that eating flesh and drinking blood should be understood spiritually as coming and believing on Him.
Yes, he talked earlier in John 6, and believing but starting in v. 48 he goes on to another issue. He is not just repeating what he said earlier. The problem is that when Jesus speaks, the context is not figurative, and is not understood figuratively.
John 6: 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'naum
You see he says it in John 6:51 his statement that the bread is his flesh. The Jews said for sure he is talking literally, and take him literally, when they said how can this man give us his flesh to eat? This was the perfect time to correct them taking him literally. They know what he means. He explicates it further by driving home the point by then using the word ‘Trogo’. The word Phago which he had used previously (51-53) can be taken both ways, literally and metaphorically, he does not, use any further. He explains to them that he is talking unambiguously physically. If it was a metaphor he would have explained it right away. It is disingenuous to ignore the fact that eating flesh and drinking metaphorically is bad. And says ‘well, he means it metaphorically now’. The only reason he is making that argument is he’ll use anything to deprive Jesus’ words of their meaning. Jesus is making it plain as day. Unlike Rock which is used as a metaphor for God both within and outside the Bible. Sure, the Rock that Moses wrote about had no precedent, but that precedent led to many other uses of it as a metaphor for God after that time. And Rock was never meant a metaphor for Satan, which is the exact opposite meaning. There is no parallel to the Rock because ‘trogo’ was not used metaphorically either within the New Testament or outside the New Testament. The Rock was used metaphorically for God. Then Jesus said unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life. So, Jesus had his chance to say he is talking figuratively. He did not. He could have said ` I am just repeating what I said earlier ‘(vs. 35-47 where he talks about the importance of believing in him)’. He did not. Mr. Taylor does not take into account in his theory that the Jews who were questioning him gave Jesus the opportunity to say he was speaking metaphorically but Jesus did not take that option.

He explicates it even more when he repeats the usage of the word ‘trogo’. Later, when he says ‘this is My Body,’ this is when this teaching becomes a reality. But you will also note that John is the only gospel writer who even though Jesus does a lot of teaching in the upper room, in John 13-17, he is the only gospel writer who does not record the institution of the sacrament of giving his flesh and blood. Why not? Because John knew that the explication on the Eucharist has already been given in John 6.

Let’s go back to the discourse of John 6:51-58. He says again my flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed (or true food and true drink in v. 55). He is driving hard the point that he’s talking about the reality of it. Again, besides driving home the point that this is literal, he’s making it as plain as one can. Then he points back to the manna that had been given in the Old Testament. God gave the people of Israel physical manna, not metaphorical manna. Again, he had the perfect time to say he’s speaking metaphorically but he speaks of the manna which was physical indeed. It was literal manna, not metaphorical manna. Now, look at what follows: John 6:60-67

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?”
Notice that they murmured after this teaching a little like the Israelites who murmured about the manna God had given in the Old Testament. He asks do you take offense at it? The problem with the aforementioned Protestant idea is that Jesus always explained to the disciples what he meant. In fact, right after explaining that some are hardened of heart in his sayings (Mt. 13:13-15) he says to his disciples: Matthew 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear." Jesus always explained to the disciples what he meant. Mark 4:34 "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." Nowhere in John 6 did Jesus say, "don't take me literally, folks". Speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and people understanding him literally, the disciples took him literally as well (v. 60). According to the Bible Jesus always explained to the disciples the meaning of his teachings. The context of John 6:51-67 shows that not only the Jews, but the disciples took him literally, and they left because of this understanding. In fact Jesus knew how they understood, did not correct their understanding, and let them leave him. This shows the literalness of his teaching that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood. There is no parallel elsewhere where Jesus let his disciples leave him without explaining what he really meant.

What about the fact that later Jesus says my words are spirit and life? Does that not mean symbolic? In fact there is not one time in the bible where spirit means symbolic. God is Spirit, he obviously is real and not symbolic. Surrounding vv. 6:61-65, Jesus says that the Son of Man will ascend into heaven (vs. 62). This is right before the words "My words are Spirit and Life". Do those Protestants who reject the Real Presence hold that Jesus symbolically or figuratively rose to heaven after his death? Or do they believe, with Catholics, that he literally bodily rose from the dead, not only by his power, (Jn 2:18), but by the power of the Spirit was made alive (1 Peter 3:18). How many bible believing Protestants believe that Jesus did not literally ascend into heaven? So they seem to take that part of the saying literally and the next verse make a symbol, just to avoid the overtones of Jesus' actual words. Honest exegesis requires consistency.

Notice back in vv. 51-52, it talks of him giving his flesh for the life of the world. This bread that he gives is flesh. If one understands his flesh to be symbolic, he does away with that idea by saying that the same flesh will be given up on the cross. How many Protestants do not believe that Jesus literally gave his flesh on the cross? This flesh will be given to eat. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a "figurative way" or "spiritually speaking", then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or they are both figurative. This metaphorical meaning destroys many more Christian doctrines than just the Eucharist.

Let’s go back to Mr. Taylor’s theory. We must remember Jesus is speaking specifically to people who are not privy to Mr. Taylor’s theory that eating flesh is figurative. John heard Jesus’ words and when he wrote it in Greek, he decided to write vs. 54-58, knowing that when he writes ‘trogo ’ it has always meant literal. But the hearers of these words out of Jesus’ mouth, since these were the ones who were to sort those words out, were not privy to Mr. Taylor’s academic theory. To hold to Taylor’s theory, they must think ‘hey I know Jesus is saying something which always means literal, and the way that he emphasizes everything after we asked him about it, he again emphasizes the literalness, and I know that people left him after him saying it was literal, but hey, there is this theory that Jesus means it in a figurative sense. It in fact doesn’t matter that no one ever used this language this way in a positive manner, before, during, or after this time, but he must be using it in a figurative way here.’ There is no way that any of the hearers of Jesus words, or the late first century, early second century readers of this gospel, would have been privy to Mr. Taylor’s theory. This is a nice academic theory, but that theory has no basis where anybody would have understood it that way. Why should we presume this theory when everything surrounding that context speaks against it?

Finally, another way to find out, is someone who studied under John. His name is Ignatius of Antioch. John lived approximately to 99 AD or so. Ignatius of Antioch was one of his disciples. He went to his death for his faith in Jesus Christ in 110 AD or so. What did he say in reference to the Eucharist? Is it merely symbolic, doesn’t really do much, this is merely bread and wine (or grape juice nowadays, btw making a mockery of what Jesus did)? Nope, Ignatius of Antioch writes the following:

Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." -"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D
Notice the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Catholic indeed. It is as though he knows how to interpret John 6 the Catholic way. The Eucharist is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.

John 6:53-55

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
The Eucharist helps one to live forever. He gives grace through that sacrament that he promised in John 6. The food is true drink, not symbolic drink. It gives us grace to help us attain eternal life.

Next, let us look at St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book five, sections two and three, 175 AD to 185 AD.

2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins. Colossians 1:14 And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? — even as the blessed Pauldeclares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones— that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a grain of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, 1 Corinthians 15:53 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, 2 Corinthians 12:3 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves? Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, chapters II & III

You may ask why I’m quoting Ireneaus when he doesn’t quote John 6 directly? And why do I quote so much of this passage? Well, I quote Ireneaus because he was a disciple under the martyr Polycarp, who also knew the apostle John. He is also an early Greek Church Father who understood the Early Church teachings on the Eucharist. So he was not far removed from the apostle John, and his explaining of Jesus’ teachings. Also, because Catholics are often accused of quoting Irenaeus out of context in this passage, I give the whole context. So you can see what he means. Also, because the interpretation of John 6, where it is the Eucharist and it is life-giving, provides grace to those who partake of that Eucharist, is directly reflected in St. Ireneaus’ teaching. When we first look in chapter 2, he does quote 1 Cor. 10:16 which shows he believes that communion, is His Body, and His Blood. He takes it literally without further explanation. He is battling the Gnostics who deny the incarnation. Jesus did really come in the flesh and the best way to show the incarnation is in our participation in his real Body, and his real Blood. It is heretical to deny his incarnation and his real Body and Blood. Notice in the end of chapter two, he says ‘it gives increase to our bodies’. This exactly highlights that grace is given to our bodies through that participation in his Body and Blood. This exactly reflects that the grace of the Eucharist is life giving that Jesus himself talks about in John 6:51-58.

Then in chapter 3 he says manufactured bread with the Word of God (i.e. consecration, a recitation of ‘This is My Body’), becomes in that prayer the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the meaning of transubstantiation. We become nourished by his Body and Blood of Christ. I.E. we are given grace through the reception of his Body and Blood. And the effect of eating this flesh and blood is eternal life. This exactly reflects that eating this Body & Blood is grace providing.

In sum, the only reasonable way that John 6 can be understood, the eating of Jesus’ flesh, is the way that the Catholic Church interprets. Jesus changes language beginning in v. 48 where he goes to speak in a literal fashion about being the bread of life. He goes on to say that as bread of life he gives us his flesh to eat. The Jews understood him as saying how can he give us his flesh to eat. He goes on starting in v. 54 through v. 58, to use a word that ‘eat’ ‘trogo’ has always been understood to be literal. John has Jesus talking in language that has historically meant chewing, a real physical eating. Mr. Taylor’s theory is that it is ok that ‘trogo’ has never meant to be taken metaphorically. His showing that Rock was an equivalent to ‘trogo’ was shown to be false because the example of ‘Rock’ has plenty of usage elsewhere after Moses set a precedent. Rock represents God in both biblical and non-biblical usage. However, not only was ‘trogo’ never used before Jesus used the term in a way that was metaphorically positive, nowhere else after that was it used in such a way. One cannot disregard the fact that the way ‘eat flesh’ was used metaphorically is negative. It cannot reasonably be interpreted in a way that is metaphorical. John, in his relaying of Jesus words in John 6:54-58 obviously was aware that Jesus answer to his questioners was literal. Jesus reiterated the literalness in an even stronger fashion that he was giving his real flesh and blood. It is true food. To make the point even further he uses a word of literally chewing (trogo). Not metaphorically eating flesh and blood. Even in vs. 57 & 58 he talks about how much better it was than the manna that God gave the Israelites, which was physical. He uses language which reiterates that he was speaking physically. As we showed from Scripture Jesus always explained to the disciples if there was any misunderstanding. And no disciple said ‘now I get it, he’s being metaphorical now.’ If they didn’t believe the literalness of it, Jesus had no problem in letting them go. Peter had trouble understanding it, but he said ’you are the Holy One to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.‘ This teaching was tough but Peter and the other apostles who stayed there accepted the teaching. Because Jesus laid out the Eucharistic teaching here, that is why there was no recording of any questioning in the other gospels when Jesus proclaimed ‘This is My Body.’ The only way that anybody can come to the conclusion that it is not literal, is if one comes with a preset tradition against the Catholic teaching, that denies the validity of Jesus’ own words. This is a life-giving grace, which helps believers to attain eternal life

Besides that, St. Ignatius of Antioch, who studied under St. John the apostle, sees the Eucharist as flesh and blood, and is an antidote to death. The Eucharist is portrayed not only as true flesh and true blood, but as a life-giving grace that helps one to attain eternal life, just as Jesus himself says that his flesh and blood would do. St. Ireneaus, who knew Polycarp who also knew St. John, reiterates the realness of Christ flesh and blood, and how the Eucharist is life and grace giving. He says what starts off as bread, by the ‘word of God’, or the saying of ‘This is My Body’, it becomes his Body. Transubstantiation in germ form, though St. Justin Martyr, earlier said pretty much the same thing. ( To see Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 click here. St. Justin uses the word ‘transmutation’ (in this translation) where the bread and wine becomes the body and blood.) To both, they were facing Gnostics who denied the incarnation, both Ignatius and Ireneaus not only emphasized the realness of the incarnation, but pointed to the Eucharist as a perfect example of how the incarnation is exemplified. Jesus meant what he said in John 6:51-58, especially 54-58, that his flesh was true food and blood true drink. No amount of sophistry from Mr. Taylor or anybody else can deprive those words from their meaning.

To all visitors Grace of Christ to you!

Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618


Return to Eucharist Page


Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page

Protestant Argument on why Trogo in John 6 is Metaphorical: A Response Matt1618 ... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

Work completed on Sunday, December 6, 2015