Transubstantiation Analogy form OT to NT

[Catholic_Author]

There are several ways of understanding the Israelites experience in the desert.

I think you mean several authentically Hebrew ways… yes?
A Christian may look at scripture with predisposition of the Gospel (cf Eph 6:15)

The manna did not stop falling on the Shabbat, what happened was that the Jews were to collect a double ration of it on Friday morning so as not to have to work on the 7th day. This practice is still in effect among Orthodox Jews. They do not cook on the 7th day. Enough food it prepared on the 6th day, before the setting of the Sun, so as to have something to eat the next day. See Ex 16; 5, 21-23.

It did stop falling on the seventh day.

Moses then said, “Eat it today, for today is the sabbath of the LORD. On this day you will not find any of it on the ground.
On the other six days you can gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, none of it will be there.”
Still, on the seventh day some of the people went out to gather it, although they did not find any. Ex 16:25-27

I see this as foreshadowing that the Jesus gift of the bread of life must be preserved during the present Sabbath. What do I mean by present Sabbath? It is Sabbath as long as the bridegroom is taken from us. It is Sabbath as long as Christ has not returned in glory. It is Sabbath as long as we honor the Lords rest, the Lords day. JR we could use you help in applying this concept the the age of the Church as an age of Sabbath rest. I can demonstrate it in millennial days:

Sabbath occurs on the seventh day of the week. there is also a Sabbath year. Every seventh year the land is left fallow. And there is a Sabbath of Sabbath years called a Jubilee. Every seven sets of seven years (49 yrs) the land is left fallow and the property returns to its original owner. We can see this reflected in Ecclesiastes 3, where everything has a season. If you take the 28 pairs of “times” written in Ec 3 and group them by their theme you will end up with seven sets of four. That is there will be two pairs of times grouped together (4 “times” per set) and there will be seven sets (4 X 7 = 28). Ecclesiastes then may be seen to demonstrate a week. It begins with a time to be born which parallels man’s genesis. It ends with a time for peace which parallels the Sabbath. Ecclesiastes is describing a week to us and this week is reflected throughout scripture and especially the law in patterns of seven. Now take a look at how one day to God is as a thousand years to man (Ps 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) If we count millenniums as recorded in the Bible and since Christ ascended… each as being a day, then we have six thousand years. There are four thousand years of Hebraic history up to the first coming of Christ, then there are two thousand years so far of Christian history (4+2=6). That means we are entering a millennial Sabbath now. I explain all this in more detail in my book, Dream of the Great Ship on pgs116-121 (the link is in my signature block).

The point being, that Christ is giving us his body as the bread of life in the Eucharist mystically, while He is with the Father, while we have this type of Sabbath. When He returns, we will have the new week where Christ is visibly with us. Am I making sense?

It is very possible that this manna is the same substance that still falls on the Sinai Peninsula to this day, but in miraculous quantities. There is a substance that is found on the ground early in the morning on the Sinai Peninsula and is eatable.

Yes I am familiar with this from a Bible almanac. Correct me if I am wrong but that substance is not necessarily vegetative is it?

It is true that Jesus referred to it in Jn 6; 32, 49-52 and compares the bread that he will give, his body and blood to the manna in the desert which was simply food that obviously provided for physical hunger and did nothing for the soul.

It prepared the soul for God by obedience.

… to be continued

 

[Catholic_Author]

… continued

Whether the writer of Exodus is attempting to make some kind of prophetic statement about the Eucharist in the NT, it is unlikely. Had this been the case, the Jews would have passed this tradition down with their belief that a Messiah would come and that the sign would be life giving bread. I believe this is what took the Jews by surprise in John’s gospel. When Jesus says that he is the bread of life, he gives manna human attributes and himself divine attributes, as only God can give himself to eat, because only God can change the attributes of any substance. This is why the Jews accused him of heresy. They understood the implication of what Jesus was saying and the consequences for believing it.

Are the two analogous? I doubt it. More than likely John interjects the reference to the manna in the desert to imply a progression in revelation and a progression in the Covenant. God stayed with the Jews and protected them. He made them a nation and gave them food to eat and eventually a homeland. Now, through the Logos, he does more. He becomes the food as a sign of his Covenant. God’s favour is not changing. Man is still his beloved creation. However, God’s presence among man is progressing to a deeper level. He provides for the physical and the spiritual needs of man. He has given the Earth to sustain man’s physical well-being; he gives himself to sustain his soul.

Man’s soul will be redeemed by the cross. But because this is a human soul, not a divine soul, it needs sustenance to remain united to his redeemer. Faith alone is not enough. Js 2; 24 ff.

These passages can foreshadow the Eucharist in the NT in a way that was entirely hidden from the Jews but revealed to the Christians. Look at Ex 16:12…

*“I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them: In the evening twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread, so that you may know that I, the LORD, am your God.”
*

He did this to reveal to them that He is God.

I am still working on an outline but this should be enough meat to chew on for a while.

 

[CentralFLJames]

While the right brain looks at the details, the logic, the language, the sequence, etc, the left brain sees the whole picture and visualizes its symbollic and sensory representation. It also keeps in perspective the beginning and the end of the picture.

Since were are dealing in the world of sign and symbol, you will need both types of people to work with. The left-brained thinker will do well with the signs, where the right-brained thinker does better with symbols. They are not subordinate to each other. Both are necessary for total comprehension. Inside the actual human brain, they interact more than we think. It’s not as if one side of the head goes to sleep while the other works.

God made some of us ambidextrous.

In the Old Testament the Jewish captivity in Egypt is to sin as “journey to the promised land” is to salvation in the New. In the Old getting to the promised land we have a pattern of various struggles, falling away etc., repentance and God’s every abiding help both physically and spiritually (various interventions and providing for nourishment, protection etc. as well as providing leadership, law and teaching through Moses and the development of the priestly traditions).

I see manna from heaven as a profoundly direct prefiguring of God enjoining Himself to Humanity through the Eucharist (To me this is an aspect of “Emmanuel”). We can go back to Genesis to see in Eden the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and man’s disobedient partaking of it leading to our enslavement and misery (to sin). Partaking and eating/drinking are central to the imagery we see in the Old and New Testament. From symmetry of Old to New I draw the analogy of Jesus on the cross becoming the fruit of the Tree of Life (under the metaphor of a new Adam and Eve) that a fallen and enslaved humanity must partake to cure the corruption caused by the forbidden fruit until we are redelivered to the promised land (heaven). The imagery and metaphors present from cover to cover in the bible are diverse, multivariate, nuanced and complex but all lead to Jesus on the cross.

Thus, scripture seems to have a recursive nature that in addition to self ratifying through consistent reinforcement of core principals across widely different temporal contexts it also facilitates progressive discovery and revelation of spiritual truth at any contextual level and point along the path that one finds themselves at.

If my observation is correct then we should be able to see in the Old the suffering of Jesus and His consent to the cross as a co-joined principal with the concept of the salvific nature of the physical Bread of Life (Eucharist). I think in the Old testament we do have this progressive pattern of suffering and consent. We have also the lesson of “acceptable sacrifice” and “unacceptable sacrifice” present in the OT accounts of Cain and Able (and the jealousy and contempt leading to murder of two brothers who both acknowledged the same God). We see God raining down on His people His Word through the Prophets as if rain water on seed. We see Abraham willing to sacrifice his son Isaac and from current NT context can immediately empathize through shared humanity the anguish of Abraham how God intimately binds Himself with humanity through that same anguish in sacrificing His only Son. We have the Jews sacrificing the product of human hands in the grain offerings by returning a portion to God that He provided to us. We have God drawing progressively closer to humanity and making Himself present in the Arc of the Covenant and the Jews dealing with the responsibilities in administering to that.

The only part of the Old Testament message that bothers me is that once the Jews reach the promised land they still fall to sin and corruption and end up killing the man who they waited centuries for. I still need to meditate on this.

I don’t think we can ever get to the certainty of a proof. But the hints are loud and clear to me.

James

 

[Pax]

I’m looking to see where all of this is going to go…keep posting.

 

[JReducation]

Hi, just want to say hello to the thread. I’ve been away for several days as I was hospitalized due to a heart condition which looks like it’s more serious than I thought. I just came home tonight.

Please keep my two children in your prayers. As some of you know, my wife died many years ago and so did my parents. My parents-in-law are also gone. I’m the only parent that my children have, my youngest is 18 and lives with autism. My oldest is 23 and in graduate school. I may not be around much more than a year, unless some new miracle of medical technology emerges.

Thank you for your kindness.

JR

 

[Pax]

Prayers are on the way JR.

 

[JReducation]

Guys! This seems very grand. I agree that philosophy is essential to doing theology. ** I don’t know what Phiosophy of Theology is. **

It points to ways of reconfiguring traditional reason, faith oppositions and those between interpretation, text and language, and experience.

Let’s look at Christology. Christology must rely heavily on metaphysics and ontology in order to understand the meaning of many of Jesus’ sayings about himself or to the claims made by his disciples and evangelists. For example, as we have been discussing in another post, John’s sixth chapter and the concept of transubstantiation, it is true that transubstantiation is not found directly in the scriptures. It is also true that philosophy can bring it to the surface by analyzing what the scriptures are saying. In other words, John or Paul, who wrote explicit comments about eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood need not have ever heard of the term transubstantiation, to represent the reality… There are many mysteries that are named much after the fact, such as the incarnation, the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception and others. This does not mean that they come into existence when they were named. Just because something has not been defined it does not mean that it is not real.

What Philosophy of Theology does is take human religious experience and use reason to explain its meaning and its context. It supports theology by demonstrating that there is something beyond human reason, the transcendent.

Philosophy of theology is necessary in understanding revealed truth in scripture, because everything that is revealed in scripture is experiential at one of the twelve levels of human existence, the first level being historical event and the highest level being a mystical union with the divine.

A philosophical methodology helps us identify what level of experience is happening in a specific setting, discourse, event and so forth. Once we understand the level of experience theologians and exegetes can then interpret it within its proper context. Then it passes on to the hands of the professional catechist or religious educator to develop a pedagogy to transmit the message. People in my field do not get into that arena, as that’s an entirely different discipline.

This has been the Catholic and Jewish system for centuries, unlike the Protestantism which is an attempt to understand God strictly through scripture. The strictly scriptural method is very limiting, because you need to know from what level of spiritual experiential context scripture is speaking. Observe how Dante organizes everyting into contexts or rings. Once you understand the context, you have a spiritual experiential context with which to work. The greatest Catholic minds have done this. They’ve establishe a context.

However, during the rise of Modernism, I’m referring to the real period of philosophical thought called Modernism, some people like Kant and others were very misunderstood as trying to put God under the microscope. What they were tried to do was to say that whatever God was communicating to man, he wanted man to understand at its deepest level. Unfortunately, this dialogue never took place until the 1970s when Karl Rahner tried to get it going; but again, the conservative faction of the Christianity tried to shut him out and return to the scholastic Aquinas.

In reality, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Catherine, Teresa, Kant, Descartes, Sartre, Unamuno, Rahner and many others have made significant contributions to the understanding of theology and are not always in conflict with each other, while there are some points of tension, which can be debated.

 

[JReducation]

Continuation:

In conclusion, Philosophy of Theology is that branch of philosophy that looks at theological pronouncements and examines and calls into question their reason, not the motive. It calls its logic into question. That’s why philosophy of theology is a part of philosophy of logic. It pushes theology’s back against the wall. Theology has to support its meaning using reason or it has to rest on faith, thereby crossing over to the transcendent or the mystical and using that language, always making sure that the audience is clear what comes to us through mystical experience and what comes through human reason.

For example, in Jn 8:58, Jesus makes an ontological statement, “Before Abraham was I AM. Who do you say that I AM?” Jesus defines borderlands of ontology that require us to rationally think about his nature in order to answer this question.

Then we have the theology of Francis of Assisi or Teresa of Avila regarding detachment as a prerequisite for identification and union with Christ. While the concept of detachment is very clear in the scripture, especially in the Beatitudes, its ultimate truth can only be understood through the eyes and experience of the mystic. Ontology and metaphysics are only the language of reason, but the real understanding occurs at an existential level that is beyond the usual human experience. Philosophy of Theology shows us that such a level of existence is possible even while one is alive, albeit it is reserved for the few and the rest of us must learn vicariously.

In essence, Philoophy of Theology helps us sort out theological truth into their proper contexts by asking questions of the nature of revelation. The better the contextual anchor, the more accurate is our understanding.

In a Catholic Philosophy of Theology, everything must conform to the Magisterium’s final pronouncement. Here is where we had a problem with that other thread on scritpure and transubstantiation. In Catholic Philosophy of Theology all statements must have the full force of the Magisterium or at least be allowed for consideration by the Magisterium. In a Catholic Philosophy of Theology no statement is valid, without “the Church says so.” Philosophy of Theology first establishes that the Church is always right. Therefore, it operates out of a well developed pholosophical understanding of the Church and her absolute claim to all truth and her right to make such a claim unchallenged and without the need to explain herself, for logic needs not explain itself, otherwise it would not be logical.

LOL . . . think like Mr. Spock in Star Trek.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think typology–we are seeing Manna as a “type” of the Eucharist, right–depends on the human author’s intent… Like how the Ark of the Covenant** is **a “type” of Mary, regardless of whether or not the OT writer knew that.

I know little about the concept of typology, it’s a catechetical concept. But if I understand it correctly it’s a way of explaining an analogy. Am I correct?

Tha reference to the Manna in the desert is not an analogy in the strictest sense of logic. Allow me to explain. There are three possible ways of looking at John’s narrative, historical, theological and or christology (which ecompasses both history and theology). I believe it’s the third.

If you look at John’s statement as purely historical, it doesn’t fit his gospel. While John’s gospel is rooted in historical events, he goes to great lengths to take readers to look beyond those historical events at the nature of the protagonist, Jesus. If he were strictly focussing on the historical, then the typology would hold. We could accept that he’s saying that the manna in the desert was a type of Eucharist and now you have this other more perfect Eucharist. I’m trying to keep it simple so as to fit it into one post.

If you were to take the theological approach, then the statement would be about the nature of the manna and the nature of the Eucharist, it is the bread of life that comes from God, yadda, yadda, yadda. This also would have been inconsistent with John’s gospel and his other writings.

There is a common thread in John’s Gospel, letters and the Book of Revelation. The focus is the nature of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel, Jesus is Divine and the entire bread of life doctrine flows from this statement which is really a statement about Jesus’ ontology. It’s not that Jesus represents the Divine, HE IS DIVINE.

In his letters, Jesus is love, again he’s speaking ontologicaly. JESUS IS LOVE, not a sign of love.

In Revelation, Jesus is King, more ontology. Again, Jesus will return as a REAL KING.

Observe that he writes three books and there is a logic to them. In each he makes a statement about the nature of Christ and builds everything around that statement. In the end, JESUS IS DIVINE LOVE WHICH RULES THROUGH ALL ETERNITY, before time as the Prologue states and after time, as the Book of Revelation states. In between those two are the Alpha and the Omega, where Jesus is present in the Eucharist. So that there is never a moment, before time, within time, or after time, when Jesus is not. Can you see this beautiful logic?

Each of his books begins with a prologue, much like a topic sentence in an essay. Definitely, John’s writings are Christological. He speaks about a historical person, uses historical events from OT and NT, as well as his own personal mystical experiences, which are nonetheless historical and he gleams a reality about Christ. To accept that reality, we must first ask outselves some serious questions about the meaning of the events.

In this regard, we can say that the manna in the desert was a forshadowing of the Eucharist, but not a prophecy. Therefore, it’s meaning would not have been obvious to the Jews and not transmitted as part of the prophecies regarding the Messiah.

hmmm. The crowd brings up Manna, and Jesus then uses Manna as a bridge to the Bread of Life Discourse: 30* So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? 31* **Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” **

This is important. You’re using logic here. This is what I tried to show in the other thread. The crowd asks for a sign. John is very specific in the words that he has Jesus speak. Jesus offers them a sign. The crowd is asking for a proof. Jesus says that he will give them a proof. This is what philosophy of theology calls progression.

The crowd tells Jesus that Moses had given them a sign of God’s favour by giving them manna in the desert. Jesus says that he will give them his body and blood as food. This was to be the sign, that he who allegedly came from Heaven will remain as food. There are some parallels that were necessary for the crowd to understand. The manna came from the heavens and it was meant as food. Jesus comes from heaven and is also to be received as food. It would make little sense to say that the manna and Jesus come from heaven, but the manna is food and Jesus is symbol. This is where I so much wanted to inroduce my philosophy of theology in the other thread. But because of the its limitations by the OP, I couldn’t.

If you look at this, to maintain the parallel, you have to connect the dots. Both come from Heaven and both are food. So why isnt’ this an analogy. Because John adds one more piece. This is the food that gives eternal life. Once you add that piece, you have taken it to another level. This is called progress or progression. The analogy stopped at heaven and food, a new dimension is added.

The new Bread is like the old bread, but more so.

I hope this is clearer than how I said it before.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Me too. I’m a convert and I ran ito the same problem you did with catchism but I got a better teacher on the second try.

I had no problem with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, other than its notes. The content is marvelous.

I have nothing but the highest respect for catechetics as a discipline. For those who are professional religious educators, trained in Catethetics, my hat’s off to them.

Where I bailed out was at the RCIA and I pulled my son out of religious education when he was preparing for Confirmation. I thought that if I heard “Love your nieghbor” one more time I would puke. I fail to understand why Catholics are so arrogant as to believe that they discovered this great commandment. This is the second Mitzvah of Judaism and it goes beyond what Catholic religious educators teach. There is an entire philosophy behind it, an anthropology, and an eschatalogical message. It was very well laid out by my anscestors in DT 6. In the clases that my son and I attended, neither religious educator was ever able to explain the philosophy, anthropology and eschatology of Dt 6 and why the early Christian theologian and evangelists felt it was so important to reiterate it. I became enfuriated at their ignorance. It was the most anti-semitic presentation of Love that I have ever heard. Because it sounded as if Christians had discovered this.

That’s why I told my pastor that I would become a Catholic if he dispensed my son and me from the torture of religious education classes, unless he could provide me with religious educators who could give me answers that used reason, instead of preaching or Christian sociology. Which fortunately, he agreed to do himself. (Off thread, but another reason why I love the Capuchin-Franciscan Brothers).

What I would like to try in mapping this out is to deconstruct the CCC.

But I see no need to map out the Catechism. The Catechism actually does connect the dots between the NT teachings and the OT.

I am also wondering what minutes were taken at the councils where the doctrine of transubstantiation were defined. Please give me the weekend to outline this first draft.

Go for it. However, I believe that you will find that you will need more than a weekend. At the actual term was first used after many councils. Even then, there is a disparity between the Eastern and Western understanding of the term, their understanding of the change in essence is the same.

 

[JReducation]

I hope that we have someone, perhaps JReducation, that can help us through the Jewish understandings and even Hebrew vocabulary with root meanings and derivations that might play into the typology, analogy, and possible parallels.

I will try the best I can.

I see scripture as a supernatural tapestry put into inspired words. Every thread, color, and hue has meaning and connections in the Divine picture of salvation.

Welcome to Semitic theology. This is exaclty how it works. Jews did not see scripture as one piece of work, but as a tapestry of many threads. For this reason, they found it so easy to blend poetry, history, law, symbol, myth, and even mathematics into the scripture. Because each was a thread that would represent the entire picture of salvation history. I believe that we in the 21st century are more hung up every detail, where as Jews are more fucussed on the big picture.

If you ever attend a seder observe the messae is always the same, regardless of the holy day. “Someone tried to screw us over. G-d took care of us. We won, they lost. Now let’s eat.”

I am open to possibilities, but I am also cautious about having solid connections to support typologies. If I challenge or question things as we go along, I hope it is accepted in the spirit in which it is presented. I’m here to learn, appreciate, and understand. I hope this is okay.

This is where a good philosophy of theology comes in as a handy tool, because it relies heavily on philosophy of logic. Actually, it simply applies logic to theology. When you apply logic to theology, your connects are much more solid, because they are based on human reason or divine reason; but reason nonetheless.

 

[JReducation]

I think you mean several authentically Hebrew ways… yes?
A Christian may look at scripture with predisposition of the Gospel (cf Eph 6:15)

I was thinking more along the lines of looking at scripture using literary criticism so that you’re not looking just at the words, which is one way. You are also looking at the meaning, which is epistomology. You are also looking at the context, which is anthropology and history. You are looking at intent of the author, which is semiotic, you can look at them as dogmatic, as in meaning to teach a revealed truth (including a moral truth), or as praise, which would put it on the level of mysticism and its content as the product of some kind of union and intimate communication between God and the authors of the different books. All of these have validity and can yield great richness.

It did stop falling on the seventh day.

You are correct and I stand corrected. I was thinking of the current phenomemon which still happens on a daily bais on the Sanai, which does not stop in the Shabbat. But I read further the citation and realized that it does say that it was not there on the seventh day.

There may be another reason why it would say that. This is just a hypothesis on my part, based on my knowledge of my people. It cold well have been on the ground, But he language used in Ex was a way of communicating to future generations the sacredness of the Shabbat. It’s as if you were saying, “it’s not there, so don’t even bother looking for it.” To get a little dramatic, I’ll just throw this out there for consideration. When two people have a serious rupture between them and one of them says, “As far as I’m concerned, you’re dead.”

It is possible that the author wanted to convey to the future generations that they regarded the Shabbat so special, that it was as if the manna were not there. So that the focus here is on both the gift that God gave them and their gratitude as shown through the observance of the Lord’s day. This is just another hypothesis, not a biblical fact. But I put it out there, because we know that this manna is still there today. We need to find some reasonable explanation as to why they would say that it was not when we knwo that it happens every morning.

I see this as foreshadowing that the Jesus gift of the bread of life must be preserved during the present Sabbath. What do I mean by present Sabbath? It is Sabbath as long as the bridegroom is taken from us. It is Sabbath as long as Christ has not returned in glory. It is Sabbath as long as we honor the Lords rest, the Lords day. JR we could use you help in applying this concept the the age of the Church as an age of Sabbath rest. I can demonstrate it in millennial days:

The problem that you have above is that the Shabbat is actually the day of the Lord, not a day without the Lord. In Catholic tradition, the Day of the Lord is the day of his Resurrection. Cardinal Sean O’Malley gave a wonderful explanation of this on a Shabbat that he preached at a Jewish temple in Boston. He was very clear that both the Jewish Shabbat and the Christian Sunday were days when we stop everythin to contemplate the Lord’s presence, not his absence. The bridegroom being taken away from us would not apply. In addition, in Jewish tradition, the Shabbat is the Lord’s day. It is a day to detach from everything so that nothing impairs our view of his presence in our lives. It has never been the Jewis tradition to honour the Lord’s rest. The Shabbat comes from the Commandments, to keep Holy the Lord’s day. The reason that the 7th day was selected, was because in the Creation Myth, G-d creates a 7th day for himself. However, we know why that had to be done. To leave creation in 6 days would have been a big boo-boo in Semitic Theology, because of the meaning of the number 6. So the author of Gn inserts a 7th day in which G-d honours himself as Creator.

Which, if we believe that God exists in community, then it makes sense that the community within the God-head would celebrate its work. The Jews picked up on the 7th day and decided to make the Lord’s day prescribed by the commandments, the 7th day.

Sabbath occurs on the seventh day of the week. there is also a Sabbath year. Every seventh year the land is left fallow. And there is a Sabbath of Sabbath years called a Jubilee. Every seven sets of seven years (49 yrs) the land is left fallow and the property returns to its original owner. We can see this reflected in Ecclesiastes 3, where everything has a season.

Don’t forget that seasons were very important to the Jews. Seasons not only told them the time of year, but they also served as reminders that nothing under heaven is without a purpose. In other words, there is not such thing as idle time. You can see this in contemporary Judeo stereotypes. Gentiles will often see us as very materialistic and some of our people are. These are cultural Jews. The devout Jew works very hard and sees prosperity as a sign of fulfilling God’s will. NO GOD DOES NOT WANT EVERY JEW TO BE A DENTIST, DOCTOR OR LAWYER. LOL. The idea of idle time or wasted gifts is anathema to a devout Jew. Seasons were a way of taking inventory of their lives. At the end of each season they would look at their accomplishments as a way of examining their conscience to see if they had made good and proper use of the time that God had given them.

continued

 

[JReducation]

continuat

If you take the 28 pairs of “times” written in Ec 3 and group them by their theme you will end up with seven sets of four. That is there will be two pairs of times grouped together (4 “times” per set) and there will be seven sets (4 X 7 = 28). Ecclesiastes then may be seen to demonstrate a week. It begins with a time to be born which parallels man’s genesis. It ends with a time for peace which parallels the Sabbath. Ecclesiastes is describing a week to us and this week is reflected throughout scripture and especially the law in patterns of seven. Now take a look at how one day to God is as a thousand years to man (Ps 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) If we count millenniums as recorded in the Bible and since Christ ascended… each as being a day, then we have six thousand years. There are four thousand years of Hebraic history up to the first coming of Christ, then there are two thousand years so far of Christian history (4+2=6). That means we are entering a millennial Sabbath now. I explain all this in more detail in my book, Dream of the Great Ship on pgs116-121 (the link is in my signature block).

Keep in mind that there are more than 6000 years in Semitic history. A semitic year is not 365 of our days. The Jewish calendar is based on three astronomical phenomena: the rotation of the Earth about its axis (a day); the revolution of the moon about the Earth (a month); and the revolution of the Earth about the sun (a year). These three phenomena are independent of each other, so there is no direct correlation between them. On average, the moon revolves around the Earth in about 29½ days. The Earth revolves around the sun in about 365¼ days, that is, about 12.4 lunar months. The Jewish calendar can have 12 or 13 months to compensate for the three phenomena.

Also, the Shabbat is only the first Satuday of the lunar month. The other Saturdays are Shevah, not Shabbat.

The point being, that Christ is giving us his body as the bread of life in the Eucharist mystically, while He is with the Father, while we have this type of Sabbath. When He returns, we will have the new week where Christ is visibly with us. Am I making sense?

I can see where you’re going, but it does not coincide with the Jewish calendar. So, it would be better to approach it from another angle. Christ gives his body literally, not mystically. Mystically implies that which is beyond the reach of the physical realm and only possible through Divine action. Look at the teachings of the great doctor of the Church, Teresa of Avila. She very clearly defines the mystical, as does John of the Cross, as that which only God can do and which man is a passive participant. In the Eucharist, an is an essential participant. You cannot have Eucharist withouth the the words of consecration which must be uttered by a man, not by God and which must be initiated by a man. This is why it was necessary for Christ to celebrate the Eucharist before his death. It had to be proven and established that the Eucharist is a cooperative act between God and man. If the first Eucharist had taken place after the resurrection, it would have begged the question as to whether or not mortals could carry on the rememberence. Here is where the words, “Do this in memory of me enter the picture.”. It was possible for the Apostles to do this in memory of Christ, because he was a mortal, unglorified man at the time of the last supper, just as they were. It was not a mystical event, It was a divine event, even miraculous, but one in which man’s role is efficacious. In a mystical event, man’t role is passive. God does all of the work.

Yes I am familiar with this from a Bible almanac. Correct me if I am wrong but that substance is not necessarily vegetative is it?

If your question is whether this substance is vegetable, the best answer that I can give you is that is has some of the same attributes as a muschroom. If I recall my biology, I don’t believe mushrooms are vegetables. They’re in the fungi family, are they not?

It prepared the soul for God by obedience.

Obedience is always the fertile ground upon which God plants.

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

It’s as if you were saying, “it’s not there, so don’t even bother looking for it.” To get a little dramatic, I’ll just throw this out there for consideration. When two people have a serious rupture between them and one of them says, “As far as I’m concerned, you’re dead.”

I understand what you are saying about the intent of the author and Colloquialisms and it certainly sounds fair yet I don’t think this instance is one of them. I think that scripture is saying that some went looking and found none, just as the women and desciples went to the tomb and did not find Jesus (although the days are off for this analogy). I find that it is an important point that the bread did not fall on the Sabbath and that if we look around we will find one of those progressions. Why in Jn 6 does Jesus ask the desciples to collect the remander? So that it will not be wasted, Jesus says. Why is it important not to waste it? We understand this when we understand the Eucharist as Christ. Where else in the OT do we see not to waste? Isn’t it in the passover? They are to eat all of the lamb right?

…we know that this manna is still there today. We need to find some reasonable explanation as to why they would say that it was not when we knwo that it happens every morning.

That it happens every morning in the present is no guarantee that it was always this way. And if it is usual for it to fall every day then it is miraculous for it to not fall on the Sabbath. That is, it is by divine intervention that there was none on those days.

The problem that you have above is that the Shabbat is actually the day of the Lord, not a day without the Lord. In Catholic tradition, the Day of the Lord is the day of his Resurrection.

Indeed, but Christ lay in the tomb on the Sabbath. The Sabbath forever takes on a new meaning because of it. God’s work on creation was complete on the sixth day and the seveth day of rest was hallowed. Jesus’ work was complete on the sixth day and the seventh hallowed day is the day of His rest in the tomb. We can forget the part about a millenial week if you want but there remains a parallel in the Sabbath and the completion of the Lord’s work.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley gave a wonderful explanation of this on a Shabbat that he preached at a Jewish temple in Boston. He was very clear that both the Jewish Shabbat and the Christian Sunday were days when we stop everythin to contemplate the Lord’s presence, not his absence.

I’ld like to read/hear the Cardinal’s explanation. For now lets look at how the Lord is with us on the Sabbath and how that relates to His presence in the Eucharist.

 

[Catholic_Author]

Originally Posted by Catholic Author
Me too. I’m a convert and I ran ito the same problem you did with catchism but I got a better teacher on the second try.

I used a little “c”. I was refering to the teaching I received from the instructors. I don’t think they were teaching it right.

Where I bailed out was at the RCIA and I pulled my son out of religious education when he was preparing for Confirmation. I thought that if I heard “Love your nieghbor” one more time I would puke.

I sympathize entierly. I bailed on the chance to be involved in RCIA becuase of the warm fuzzy approach they had.

But I see no need to map out the Catechism. The Catechism actually does connect the dots between the NT teachings and the OT.

OK. I just meant I would use it for reference.
For now i think it is enough to make a side by side comparison of Ex 16 and Jn 6 and the Last Supper discourses.

 

[JReducation]

I understand what you are saying about the intent of the author and Colloquialisms and it certainly sounds fair yet I don’t think this instance is one of them. I think that scripture is saying that some went looking and found none, just as the women and desciples went to the tomb and did not find Jesus (although the days are off for this analogy). I find that it is an important point that the bread did not fall on the Sabbath and that if we look around we will find one of those progressions. Why in Jn 6 does Jesus ask the desciples to collect the remander?

On a lighter note, keep in mind that we’re Jewish; we’re cheap!

On a more serious note, gathering the left overs was a very Jewish tradition at seders. Here is something that is interesting and you may be on to something. If you recall, the command that Moses received from the Lord was to kill a lamb for each household and those families that could not consume an entire lamb should share one. This was the first seder.

That being said, it is interesting that Jesus orders them to collect the leftovers. I wonder what would happen if you thought of it this way. Jesus is treating the feeding of the multitude like a new exodus. The large amount of food represents the abundance of grace (spiritual food) that comes from Jesus. Which works, as he builds from here his discourse on his body and blood being true food and drink. If you think of grace and waste, they don’t belong together.

Just as Israel is led out of slavery from Egypt by the first paschal lamb, humanity is led out of the slavery of sin through the second paschal lamb who gives an abundance of grace to liberate us from sin. Of course, we know that this new lamb is Jesus.

That it happens every morning in the present is no guarantee that it was always this way.

I believe that this is unlikely. This phenomenon has been happening in Palestine four thousands of years. This does not mean that there never was some kind of miracle, but it would seem, from Judaic and Rabbinical writings from other sources that the Jews saw only what the Law allowed them to see. In the Talmud the story is different.

I think that the important issue is not whether it fell on the Shabbat, but the fact that God fed his people.

Indeed, but Christ lay in the tomb on the Sabbath. The Sabbath forever takes on a new meaning because of it. God’s work on creation was complete on the sixth day and the seveth day of rest was hallowed. Jesus’ work was complete on the sixth day and the seventh hallowed day is the day of His rest in the tomb.

You have to factor in several things here. Semetic theology tells us that the reason why the Creation story was written this way was to bring emphasis to two realities, one that God creates the unviverse out of nothing. Second, the author deliberately breaks it down into six stages so as to place proper emphasis on the the Lord’s Day and the sacredness of that day. This is where you may run into a problem. The Jewish focus has always been on the Lord.

In Jewish tradition, especially the Orthodox tradition, the Shabbat is a day of recollection which one devotes to prayer and listening to God’s voice. No work is done on this day so as to protect the inner silence where the spirit of God speaks to us in the soul. This is one reason why Jews wear the Kippah all day long, to remind us that God must be on our mind. That’s how sacred this day is.

To say that Jesus rested on this day because his work was done is a stretch, because his work is complete at the resurrection. Had he remained dead, there would have been no paschal mystery. It would have made no sense for him to stay dead. Also, observe that the gospels move past this day without much fanfare. They jump from the death on Friday to the resurrection on Sunday.

In fact, if you follow the liturgical calendar and the Jewish calendar, Holy Saturday is not a signficant day. But it does have one curious feature. If you stop and think that a day begins at sunset, then the liturgy that the Church celebrates on Holy Saturday evening is really an Easter Sunday liturgy, including the Easter Vigil. This makes Holy Saturday the only day of the year in which the church does not celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy. The logic here seems to be not that this is the day of the Lord’s rest, as much as this is a day of mourning. There is nothing to celebrate. Also, we need to remember that Jesus is truly dead on Saturday. He is not resting in the literal sense. I’m not really sure how you would make the connection between Holy Saturday and the Shabbat, except if we approach it from this other angle.

What if, this is just a hypothesis, Jesus deliberately remained dead that day, because to raise him on that day would have been a violation of the Shabbat? Logically, that could work. God does not work on the 7th day, therefore he does not raise his son on the 7th day. I feel more comfortable with this idea and it sounds more logical than to say that he had completed his work on the sixth day.

We know that he died before sunset, because they were in a hurry to burry him so they could get ready for the Shabbat. The connection here is the sacredness of the Shabbat. The Lord’s day is so sacred that God does not die or raise his only Son on that day.

This is the connection between the creation in Genesis and the new creation through the New Adam. What do you think?

I’ld like to read/hear the Cardinal’s explanation. For now lets look at how the Lord is with us on the Sabbath and how that relates to His presence in the Eucharist.

His comments on the Shabbat are short, but he does a good job at linking the several Jewish and Catholic elements, especially the Shabbat and the Eucharist.

cardinalseansblog.org/?m=200703

Enjoy it!

JR

 

[Pax]

Did I just get the short course or the long one…wow!

I do have a question. Interspersed in the posts is a reference to the seventh day and God’s rest. I have read and heard references to the 7th day of creation as a day of covenant. Apparently, the word covenant in Hebrew literally meant to “seven” yourself. Any comments and connections?

 

[JReducation]

Did I just get the short course or the long one…wow!

I do have a question. Interspersed in the posts is a reference to the seventh day and God’s rest. I have read and heard references to the 7th day of creation as a day of covenant. Apparently, the word covenant in Hebrew literally meant to “seven” yourself. Any comments and connections?

LOL Pax

I’m not sure which course you’re referring to or what time you arrived in class. You’re just too funny.

As to the answer to your question, you the second half of your sentence is inverted. Seven is a sign of covenant. If you seven yourself, you covenant yourself.

It’s not longer used in Jewish practice today. It’s a very ancient practice that dates back to the time when our numbers were really metaphors for different realities.

We did this because our people were not very literate, but they knew about numbers. Numbers helped them understand complex concepts.

I hope this helps.

JR

 

[Catholic_Author]

Just as Israel is led out of slavery from Egypt by the first paschal lamb, humanity is led out of the slavery of sin through the second paschal lamb who gives an abundance of grace to liberate us from sin. Of course, we know that this new lamb is Jesus.

This is very good and I agree whole heartedly.

I think that the important issue is not whether it fell on the Shabbat, but the fact that God fed his people.

Respectfully, I still think there is something there. It’s like the Easter Tiduum saturday where there is no sacrifce made in liturgy to honor His death. I think i need to examin the transition from Sabbath to Sunday. With a better understanding on my part I may be able to make sense of it. But I am willing to meditate on it for quite some time before hoping for an answer.

Second, the author deliberately breaks it down into six stages so as to place proper emphasis on the the Lord’s Day and the sacredness of that day. This is where you may run into a problem. The Jewish focus has always been on the Lord.

In Jewish tradition, especially the Orthodox tradition, the Shabbat is a day of recollection which one devotes to prayer and listening to God’s voice. No work is done on this day so as to protect the inner silence where the spirit of God speaks to us in the soul. This is one reason why Jews wear the Kippah all day long, to remind us that God must be on our mind. That’s how sacred this day is.

I see your point that focus is rightly on the Lord on the seventh day but I don’t see how the preservation of the Manna on the Sabbath and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist are not connected. To me this present Christian age is both filled with the miraculous presence of Christ in the Eucharist and short of His glorious presance and second comming at the same time. I also find it important that the Manna did not fall on this day. If the falling of the Manna is analogus to Christs first coming this begins to make sense. Do you see what I mean?

To say that Jesus rested on this day because his work was done is a stretch, because his work is complete at the resurrection. Had he remained dead, there would have been no paschal mystery. It would have made no sense for him to stay dead. Also, observe that the gospels move past this day without much fanfare. They jump from the death on Friday to the resurrection on Sunday.

Jesus Himself said on the cross “it is consumated” sometimes translated “it is finished”. It is in this sense that I consider His work complete at death. In death he has held back nothing, He has spent everything. His body must be preserved in the tomb, no bones broken. The Mana must be preserved over this day and the lamb’s bones must not be broken. Jesus commends His spirit to the Fahter and the perfect work is completed, the perfect offering made. When Christ is risen it is the first day of the new week and all creation is renewed.

In fact, if you follow the liturgical calendar and the Jewish calendar, Holy Saturday is not a signficant day. But it does have one curious feature. If you stop and think that a day begins at sunset, then the liturgy that the Church celebrates on Holy Saturday evening is really an Easter Sunday liturgy, including the Easter Vigil. This makes Holy Saturday the only day of the year in which the church does not celebrate the Eucharistic liturgy.
The logic here seems to be not that this is the day of the Lord’s rest, as much as this is a day of mourning. There is nothing to celebrate. Also, we need to remember that Jesus is truly dead on Saturday. He is not resting in the literal sense. I’m not really sure how you would make the connection between Holy Saturday and the Shabbat, except if we approach it from this other angle.

What if, this is just a hypothesis, Jesus deliberately remained dead that day, because to raise him on that day would have been a violation of the Shabbat? Logically, that could work. God does not work on the 7th day, therefore he does not raise his son on the 7th day. I feel more comfortable with this idea and it sounds more logical than to say that he had completed his work on the sixth day.

OK, but looking at this in a providential sense, I rather think its inverted. It is not that that the Father does not work on the seventh day and so he doesn’t resurect Jesus… Its that the day is holy for all time from the begining because the Father knew from all time that this would be the day His son was dead. Same thing, just cause and effect reversed I think.

We know that he died before sunset, because they were in a hurry to burry him so they could get ready for the Shabbat. The connection here is the sacredness of the Shabbat. The Lord’s day is so sacred that God does not die or raise his only Son on that day.

This is the connection between the creation in Genesis and the new creation through the New Adam. What do you think?

Yes, it works very well.

 

[JReducation]

Respectfully, I still think there is something there. It’s like the Easter Tiduum saturday where there is no sacrifce made in liturgy to honor His death. I think i need to examin the transition from Sabbath to Sunday. With a better understanding on my part I may be able to make sense of it. But I am willing to meditate on it for quite some time before hoping for an answer.

Try this approach, I believe it’s more rational. In Genesis, God creates Adam and Adam sins. Now, we know that it is no coincidence that the writer of the canticle of creation is playing with numerology. I think it’s pretty well agreed the Catholic Church that this is not an historical account of Creation and Rabbinical literature and scholars support this.

Let’s look at it this way. The Creation Canticle was written to tell several stories at the same time. God creates the universe out of nothing. God creates within a covenant of love, therefore the seven days, 7 being the sign of the covenant. There are two covenants at play here. The covenant within the God-head and the covenant between God and man. Both are told in this story through the simple metaphoric 7. The authors of Genesis also knew that man was sinful, so they put his creation on the 6th day. Six is the numeric symbol for sin.

Now, let’s flip this around. There is no logic for the new Adam to rise on the sixth day. This would connect him to sin. Logically, the Father would not “work” on the 7th day as that day is reserved for the Creator, as the other six days have been given over to the creation. That eliminates the possibility of raising Jesus on the 7th day.

What would happen if you went to John’s Christology and examine his words carefully? You will notice that Jesus is the Pre-existent Word of God. All creation comes into existence through him and for him. He IS before Adam was. In other words, he is the First son of God. I use this term because John puts the following words into Jesus’ mouth, “I’m going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God,” (Jn 20, 17). Jesus proclaims our brotherhood by referring to a common Father.

We have already seen why Jesus could not rise on the 6th and 7th days. We have the problem, when should he rise? Well, if he is the first son of the Father, it would make sense that he be one with the Father. The number one was a metaphor for the unity in the God-head.

Jesus is the first son, he existed before the first Adam, he rises on the first day of the week. There is a consistent pattern here. Logically, it makes sense that Lord’s day be the first day of the week, because everything inthe nature of Jesus points to his primacy. Hence, you have the transition from the Shabbat on the 7th day to the Day of the Lord on the first day.

If you recall, the early Christians never changed the Shabbat. They celebrated it and the Resurrection on the first day of the week. The second generation Christians stopped observing the Shabbat, not the original Jewish Christians. What we see is a gradual transition from the Shabbat to the Resurrection of the first son, of a God who is one, on the first day. If I look at this from a purely philosophical perspective, it makes sense, because everything points to the ONENESS of God, the oneness of the sacrifice, the oneness of redemption, the oneness of the Church.

I see your point that focus is rightly on the Lord on the seventh day but I don’t see how the preservation of the Manna on the Sabbath and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist are not connected.

They are connected. John makes the connection for you. The mana was the sign of God’s predilection and protection. The Eucharist is the sign of God’s predilection and protection, but it goes to that next step that I call progression. God no only chooses and protects, but he becomes one with his creation through the Eucharist. There you go again, with that number 1.