Such was the great god-man Osiris: human like us, and thus able to take upon himself all our sorrows, but also divine, and therefore able to confer divinity upon us. He brought the divine bread from heaven for mankind; he taught justice and practiced mercy; he died, was buried, and rose from the grave;
he gave to all who became members of his mystical body his flesh to eat and his blood to drink so that this divine sacrament might then transfigure them into celestial gods; he went before to prepare mansions for his initiates in Elysium; and he was to be the just and merciful judge before whom men and women must appear beyond the grave."
http://members.aol.com/porchnus/memorial/osiris.htm
The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma (A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible) by Pope Innocent III.
The historian Tertullian tells us that when this doctrine first began to be taught in the Middle Ages, that the priests took great care that no crumb should fall lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning! (The Other Side of Rome, p. 21) (By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people, and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants.)
http://users.ev1.net/~damonm/catholic-c ... hron1.html
At 9:46 AM -0600 2/23/99, james m smith wrote:
>On 02/07/99, ""Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>" wrote:
>> At 4:34 PM -0600 2/6/99, William B. Steidtmann wrote:
>> >In "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" by E.W. Bullinger (Baker Book
>> >House, Grand Rapids, Michigan) a disscussion of the phrase "this is my
>> >body" from Matthew 26:26 is taken up (pp. 738-739) as it relates to a
>> >"simple law of figurative language". The argument is as follows: the
>> >pronoun "this" in the Greek is TOUTO and the gender is neuter. If the
>> >statement "this is my body" were meant to be taken in a literal sense the
>> >pronoun would have taken the gender of the noun it replaces which in this
>> >case is "bread", in the Greek ARTOS, and is masculine. But the pronoun
>> >TOUTO is not masculine, rather it has taken the neuter gender of the noun
>> >"body" (SOMA) to which the meaning is "carried across" the verb. This "at
>> >once shows us that a figure is employed" and is not meant to be taken
>> >literally; it is a metaphor.
>> > Being a person who is but a "Little Greek" can anyone cite
>> >references/examples that would confirm/deny this law?
>>
>> I'd like to see evidence for such a law, too? I really doubt seriously
>> there is any such "law" --or that the reader is given any sort of
>> self-explanatory code to determine where the sense is literal and where it
>> is metaphorical.
>
>Is it reasonable to assume that no such "law" exists? Would it not be more
>profitable to exhibit obvious cases that would show its failure? Many
>clear examples can be given to support this "law" but clear examples to
>disprove it are elusive. Can anyone debunk this "law" citing unambiguous
>cases? Please.
I would have thought that the burden of proof lies on one who asserts the
existence of such a law. Nevertheless, it's occurred to me to ask how, on
the basis of the above description of the "law," one is supposed to judge
Jesus' self-identification as the "bread of life" in John 6:51 as
figurative?
EGW EIMI hO ARTOS hO ZWN hO EK TOU OURANOU KATABAS: EAN TIS FAGHi EK TOUTOU
TOU ARTOU ZHSEI EIS TON AIWNA, KAI hO ARTOS DE hON EGW DWSW hH SARX MOU
ESTIN hUPER THS TOU KOSMOU ZWHS. I think it is safe to say that all the
modifiers and pronouns referring to ARTOS in this verse are masculine
singular. To be sure, this ARTOS is identified with Jesus' SARX that must
be eaten if one is to have life.
Does the "simple rule" cited above help to
demonstrate that this is a metaphor rather than a real identification?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us
WWW:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Metaphors in Greek