Carnivores in the Garden of Eden

[NotWorthy]

No. Way too complex. Typological word pictures aren’t that sophisticated.

I’ve study hundreds of word pictures in the Bible. They tend to orbit around certain themes.

One is to portray Christ with sin symbols. Again and again and again and again. Paul appears to have noticed the same thing, and so he became the one who proposed the solution – at 2 Corinthians 5:21.

What’s way too complex? I don’t understand. That Absalom can point to the Beast? Or that the Beast parodies the Lamb. I can explain it to you if you like.

 

[grannymh]

One is to portray Christ with sin symbols. Again and again and again and again. Paul appears to have noticed the same thing, and so he became the one who proposed the solution – at 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Portraying Christ with sin symbols is such a sad theme especially considering the great act of salvation which is talked about in* 2 Corinthians 5:21*. I know we are unworthy because we have sinned. But it sounds terribly ungrateful to portray Christ with sin symbols especially how Paul praises the goodness of Christ in* 2 Corinthians 5:21*. Paul must feel terrible to be misunderstood.

 

[StAnastasia]

A quasi-vegetarian pointed out that Adam and Eve weren’t eating the cute little critters in the Garden of Eden. That’s my recollection as well. Did God punish Adam and Eve by making them eat bacon when they were kicked out of the garden? When does the first recorded meal involving meat occur?

Well, both Homo sapiens and their closest relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, are omnivorous. So I’d say meat eating dates at least to when these species diverged six million years ago. And since primates share common ancestry with other carnivorous mammals 75 million years ago, meat eating dates at east from then,. Of course, it’s much earlier than that. And even eating the Passover Lamb dates from deep in Hebrew history. None of this is to say we humans should not live as vegans today; that may be the only way to keep seven billion humans alive when petroleum runs out in a few decades.

StAnastasia

 

[budgie2]

I’ve always eaten meat as Christ ate fish although I don’t know if he ate anything else and Christ was without sin. I’ve read some of your posts. However, I do veg4lent nowadays and tried to give up meat or even dairy for Lent. I only did meat free this year and was useful. We should all be doing veg4lent and it is because the Church’s pastors have gone slack.

This is a campaign run by the Christian Vegetarian Association in Britain but it always used to be practice up to the Renaissance and Middle Ages.
veg4lent.org/

 

[Peter_Dawson]

What we get from Absalom is the need for a good haircut!
The donkey/foal is the symbol of peace.horse is the symbol of war-like four Horseman. In some bizarro alternate world maybe the *** is a type of Jesus but not in the real world.

Hi, Julia.

Types have a logic all their own.

Scripture itself supplies their interpretation.

So, the A** Type, of which donkey, mule, and a colt or foal of such animals are analogs, symbolizes “the Unredeemed One Who must die.” See Exodus 13:13.

Christ is the Unredeemed One Who must die.

 

[juliamajor]

Hi, Julia.

Types have a logic all their own.

Scripture itself supplies their interpretation.

So, the A** Type, of which donkey, mule, and a colt or foal of such animals are analogs, symbolizes “the Unredeemed One Who must die.” See Exodus 13:13.

Christ is the Unredeemed One Who must die.

I know Exodus well-much Christ typolgy- EX 13:13 ain’t one of them

 

[grannymh]

Christ is the Unredeemed One Who must die.

Please note: Catholic teaching is that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer. Very big difference.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi, Julia.

Types have a logic all their own.

Scripture itself supplies their interpretation.

So, the A** Type, of which donkey, mule, and a colt or foal of such animals are analogs, symbolizes “the Unredeemed One Who must die.” See Exodus 13:13.

Christ is the Unredeemed One Who must die.

Let’s see, Exodus 13:13 - Every first-born of an *** you shall redeem with a sheep. If you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck. Every first-born son you must redeem.

I would have thought the **sheep **that redeemed the first-born of an *** would be Christ. Isn’t Christ the redeemer, not the redeemed?

 

[NotWorthy]

For example, why does Christ ride an a** into Jerusalem at the time of His messianic entry?

Answer: Because the a** is the Exodus 13:13 example of the first-born male who must die. Christ is sitting ON the animal because we are being told, “Christ is the same as the a**. He is the first born male who must die.”

Since I first read this, I knew there was something else in the a** representation that I had once read. Finally I found it.

This comes from the Navarre Bible Study:

The Fathers have read a deeper meaning into the episode in Matthew of Jesus riding on the *** with the colt (Matthew 21:6-11). They see the *** as symbolizing Judaism, for so long subject to the yoke of the Law, and the foal, on which no one has ridden, as symbolizing the Gentiles. Jesus leads both Jews and Gentiles into the Church, the New Jerusalem.

Now, my friends, THAT is what I call beautiful!!!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Let’s see, Exodus 13:13 - Every first-born of an *** you shall redeem with a sheep. If you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck. Every first-born son you must redeem.

I would have thought the **sheep **that redeemed the first-born of an *** would be Christ. Isn’t Christ the redeemer, not the redeemed?

Christ is both. He is the unredeemed a**, and the sheep which is sacrificed.

In the typological word picture of Cain and Abel, Abel is Christ the Shepherd. The firstling from his flock offered in sacrifice is Christ the Paschal Lamb. So, when Abel offers the firstling to God, that is Christ appearing in the same verse twice!

The same thing happens in Exodus 13:13, because Christ is the unredeemed Redeemer. His is both the *** which must have its neck broken, as well as the Paschal Lamb.

You can see the same dual role in another story – the story of Jacob’s Deception.

In the Bible, “hands” = “Christ.” So, in Genesis 27, when Jacob goes to Isaac with kid-skin hands carrying kid meat to give to Isaac for Isaac’s blessing, that is a picture of Christ the Pashal La,mb offer His Own “sacrificed meat” to His Own Father for the “blessing” of grace.

However, note well: Jacob ALSO has kid skin on his NECK. Why? To hearken back to Exodus 13:13, to let us know, “This one is the unredeemed one who must have his neck broken.”

 

[grannymh]

Peter_Dawson:
Please consider the fact that the Catholic Church retains its position that Jesus is truly God. As God, as well as true man, Jesus is the Redeemer. An unredeemed person or unredeemed symbol is an improper reference to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

 

[grannymh]

"

Please consider the fact that the Catholic Church retains its position that Jesus is truly God. As God, as well as true man, Jesus is the Redeemer. An unredeemed person or unredeemed symbol is an improper reference to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Please consider the fact that the Catholic Church retains its position that Jesus is truly God. As God, as well as true man, Jesus is the Redeemer. An unredeemed person or unredeemed symbol is an improper reference to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

So are sin symbols, granny. But the Holy Spirit does it anyway to make a point, I think because we humans are thick-headed, and the Holy Spirit is being a kind of “shock jock” to wake us stupid people up.

The Holy Spirit, through Paul,. even does the same thing at the NON-symbolic level. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, the Holy Spirit says that God “made Him,” Christ, “to BE sin”!!!

 

[grannymh]

sin"!!!

In my humble opinion, your disclaimer is needed since you are putting your own spin on the teaching that Jesus Christ is true God and true man and because of this Jesus, as our Redeemer, brought about our Salvation.

It seems that there is confusion about what a sin offering or taking “on” sin means in order “that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Many Catholic bibles have footnotes which help explain St. Paul’s method of teaching. In addition, it would be helpful to read John 3: 16-17

 

[Peter_Dawson]

In my humble opinion, your disclaimer is needed since you are putting your own spin on the teaching that Jesus Christ is true God and true man and because of this Jesus, as our Redeemer, brought about our Salvation.

It seems that there is confusion about what a sin offering or taking “on” sin means in order “that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Many Catholic bibles have footnotes which help explain St. Paul’s method of teaching. In addition, it would be helpful to read John 3: 16-17

Hi, granny.

Philosophically, it’s not possible for someone in this website to not put their spin on their statements.

I use my disclaimer more than anyone here, including you.

I believe what I believe, because I believe that that makes me “Catholic.” Interestingly, in my mind, when you oppose some of the typological interps I describe, here, in my mind your are opposing Catholicism and the Holy Spirit.

In my mind, dear friend, you should be using the disclaimer more than me.

You are not the only one I think this about.

When many here in this website concluded in one of the threads on the Assumption, that they and everyone else are free to believe that Mary did not die, in my opinion they were denying doctrine and simply disobeying the divinely inspired Magisterium.

Please, assume that my disclaimer is ALWAYS present.

But, in my opinion, ALL here, including the theologians, should be using it.

 

[cephas161619]

You are not the only one I think this about.

When many here in this website concluded in one of the threads on the Assumption, that they and everyone else are free to believe that Mary did not die, in my opinion they were denying doctrine and simply disobeying the divinely inspired Magisterium.

It has always been Church teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. It has however always been left open whether or not she actually died before being assumed into heaven. I’m sorry I don’t have references, but I have consistently heard this from solid Catholic sources.

I think that the business about eating meat in the book of Genesis is a foreshadowing of “eating meat” – eating the flesh of Jesus – in the Eucharist. The “Old Testament Church,” Judaism, only had foreshadowings, but no Eucharist. In the New Testament Church, the Roman Catholic Church, we eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood.

This sounds misleading. It must be a personal opinion. It seems to ignore that Jesus Christ is present under the sacred signs of bread and wine. It certainly falls far short than the true meaning of the Catholic Eucharist

In the Catholic Eucharist, we receive the Divine Risen Body of Jesus, true God and true man. Jesus Christ, Who loves us with all His being, is sacramentally, substantially present.

I’m not sure why it’s misleading to say that we eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Yes, the appearances of bread and wine both are wholly his body, blood, soul, and divinity, but why is it misleading to say that we eat his flesh and drink his blood? Nobody is saying we’re eating bread and wine. We’re saying flesh and blood here!!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

“It has always been Church teaching that the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. It has however always been left open whether or not she actually died before being assumed into heaven. I’m sorry I don’t have references, but I have consistently heard this from solid Catholic sources.”

Hi, friend.

In my opinion, Paragraph 20 of Munificentisssimus Deus, the Encyclical declaring Mary’s Assumption to be doctrine, when it refers to Mary’s “dead body” not corrupting before her assumption, requires us to believe that Mary was “dead.” I think that statements claiming that that Paragraph is somehow ambiguous, on the question of whether or not Mary was “dead,” are wrong, and I think that therefore we are NOT free to believe that Mary wasn’t “dead.”

All here in this website who state the opposite are in my opinion clearly and unambiguously wrong.

Thank you for your words about referring to the Eucharist as Jesus’ “flesh and blood.” There is nothing wrong with what I say, in that regard. Granny is wrong every time she makes that objection.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure why it’s misleading to say that we eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Yes, the appearances of bread and wine both are wholly his body, blood, soul, and divinity, but why is it misleading to say that we eat his flesh and drink his blood? Nobody is saying we’re eating bread and wine. We’re saying flesh and blood here!!

It is not misleading to say that we eat the body of Jesus and drink His blood because He is sacramentally, substantially present under the signs of bread and wine.

However, the original comment was pointed at eating meat, flesh of animals, in the book of Genesis by the carnivores. My point was that it would be a bit of a stretch to go from these carnivores and their dinner to people reverently receiving God.

Furthermore, when a reference falls short of complete meaning, some people will become confused about eating the body of Christ. There needs to be an understanding of what sensory appearances are.

The appearances of bread and wine are not the same as body, blood, soul, and divinity. For example, the appearances of the Sacred Host are its color white; shape round; texture firm; and taste which sometimes varies. We are eating bread according to our sensory experience.

But what truly goes beyond the realm of sensory experience is that Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity is now present before us. The inner being, the substance which makes bread to be bread, has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus , true God and true man. The normal appearances of bread remain the same. This is the meaning of Transubstantiation.

 

[cephas161619]

It is not misleading to say that we eat the body of Jesus and drink His blood because He is sacramentally, substantially present under the signs of bread and wine.

However, the original comment was pointed at eating meat, flesh of animals, in the book of Genesis by the carnivores. My point was that it would be a bit of a stretch to go from these carnivores and their dinner to people reverently receiving God.

Furthermore, when a reference falls short of complete meaning, some people will become confused about eating the body of Christ. There needs to be an understanding of what sensory appearances are.

The appearances of bread and wine are not the same as body, blood, soul, and divinity. For example, the appearances of the Sacred Host are its color white; shape round; texture firm; and taste which sometimes varies. We are eating bread according to our sensory experience. But what truly goes beyond the realm of sensory experience is that Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity is now present before us. The inner being, the substance which makes bread to be bread, has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus , true God and true man. The normal appearances of bread remain the same. This is the meaning of Transubstantiation.

Nobody’s talking about eating bread here, Granny! It is most certainly not bread after it becomes Jesus at the Transubstantiation. It sounds as though you’re ascribing arguments to us that nobody is saying.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

It is not misleading to say that we eat the body of Jesus and drink His blood because He is sacramentally, substantially present under the signs of bread and wine.

However, the original comment was pointed at eating meat, flesh of animals, in the book of Genesis by the carnivores. My point was that it would be a bit of a stretch to go from these carnivores and their dinner to people reverently receiving God.

Furthermore, when a reference falls short of complete meaning, some people will become confused about eating the body of Christ. There needs to be an understanding of what sensory appearances are.

The appearances of bread and wine are not the same as body, blood, soul, and divinity. For example, the appearances of the Sacred Host are its color white; shape round; texture firm; and taste which sometimes varies. We are eating bread according to our sensory experience. But what truly goes beyond the realm of sensory experience is that Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity is now present before us. The inner being, the substance which makes bread to be bread, has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus , true God and true man. The normal appearances of bread remain the same. This is the meaning of Transubstantiation.

Granny is omitting my mention above of cases of Identification by Juxtaposition, where the Sacred Author portrays Real Presence theology by portraying the meat of an animal as the meat offered in sacrifice to God – what she objects to here as a “stretch” – accompanied by bread and wine, to tell us, “HEY! DO YOU SEE THAT MEAT OF THE SACRIFICED ONE? WELL, IT’S THE SAME AS THE BREAD AND WINE.” This occurs a few times in Scripture.

E.g., there is the story of Abraham’s Visitors, in Genesis 18, where bread id served with the flesh of a choice killed steer.

We see it in the story of Jacob’s Deception, in Genesis 27, where bread and wine are served with choice kid meat.

We see it in the Passover meal, where the Paschal Lamb is eaten with unleavened bread.

We see it in the Sinai Desert, where meat (quail) feeds the people in the evening (when Jesus was crucified) and “bread” in the form of manna in the morning (when Jesus rose!). Exodus 16.

This juxtaposition, to tell us A = B, occurs at many, many other places.