Then, why don't YOU explain the context??
Explain to me WHY the people walked away from Christ when He told them in NO uncertain terms that they must eat (trogo, not phago) his flesh (sarx) and drink His blood (hah'-ee-mah) to have life within them.
They are satisfied with rationalistic explanations.
John 6:23-53 – a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the objectors of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “
trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to
literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application
, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So disbelievers cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, t
he Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.”
“Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh.
It is always literal.
Explain to me WHY He told them that His flesh was "true food" (al-ay-thace' bro'-sis) and His blood was "true drink"(al-ay-thace' pos'-is), if He really didn't mean it.
John 6:55 – further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
Explain WHY he didn't explain to the Apostles that He was speaking "metaphorically" and simply asked them if they ALSO wanted to leave. Jesus ALWAYS explained His teachings to His inner circle.
John 6:60 – as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 – Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words. Anti-Catholics don't have supernatural faith, just
rationalism. Worse, they resist supernatural faith at every turn.
I eagerly await your "contextual" explanation . . .
Especially contextual explanations for "sarx" and "trogo". They don't have any.