Transubstantiation Analogy form OT to NT

[JReducation]

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?

But we already know, through Hebrew history that Manna did fall. We also understand how the Law worked. It would make no sense for the mana not to fall on this day while the Jews were in the dessert and then begin falling again until today. There is no logical reason why this should be. But, if you look at the Jewish understanding of Law, then it makes sense that it did not fall in legal sense. It was not for them. John does not use the mana to suggest that it forshadows Christ’s coming. He uses it to forshadow the sign that Christ will give, his own body and blood.

There is another possibility here that we must consider. The Jews were in the desert for a short time. We know that they were not in the desert for 40 years. They were not dumb, nor is Egypt that far from Palestine. Heck, they bomb each other every other day, but that’s another story.

It is possible that there may have been some kind of extraordinary occurrence when there was a Saturday when the mana did not appear. This can make sense, because even nature has its deviations from its norm. God uses those to speak to man. Let’s say that they were in the desert for several weeks and there was some kind of natural pehnomenon that the mana did not fall on the Saturdays during those weeks, like a dry spell, then the passage in EX can be taken literally. This would explain why there is a difference between what Exodus says and what the Rabbis say. The Rabbis are looking at the big picture and saying, this mana has always been here. They don’t really pay special attention to those few times when it was not there, because it was the Shabbat, even if the mana had been on the ground, they could not pick it, because this was work.

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.

Continued . . .

His work is complete. Agreed. Salvation is achieved through the cross. But the proof of salvation is the resurrection.

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.

I’m going to disagree here. Jesus’ credibility would have suffered had the Father raised him on the Shabbat. It’s not that this day was reserved for Jesus to rest in the tomb, though we know that God must have known this, but that Jesus’ shares his divinity with the Father. This would have been comprimised, especially among the Jews, if he had been raised on the Lord’s day. Try that thought. I think it makes sense.

 

[Catholic_Author]

But, if you look at the Jewish understanding of Law, then it makes sense that it did not fall in legal sense. It was not for them.

I concede that the Hebrew understanding of this wording is as you say. how do you reconcile that with Ex 16:27?

*Still, on the seventh day some of the people went out to gather it, although they did not find any. *

John does not use the manna to suggest that it foreshadows Christ’s coming. He uses it to foreshadow the sign that Christ will give, his own body and blood.

John isn’t making the connection… if it is not too presumptuous, I am inferring it from John when the people murmured that Jesus said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” This is the first coming is it not?

There is another possibility here that we must consider. The Jews were in the desert for a short time. We know that they were not in the desert for 40 years. They were not dumb, nor is Egypt that far from Palestine. Heck, they bomb each other every other day, but that’s another story.

They were not dumb, no… but they were learning to be obedient. They wandered the desert for 40 years but I will concede that the areas they traveled were not always so barren. In any case the number forty is important. it corresponds to the forty days of fasting at lent, the days of Ezekiel’s fasting, Nineveh’s fasting and Jesus fast at the start of His ministry.

It is possible that there may have been some kind of extraordinary occurrence when there was a Saturday when the manna did not appear. This can make sense, because even nature has its deviations from its norm. God uses those to speak to man. Let’s say that they were in the desert for several weeks and there was some kind of natural phenomenon that the manna did not fall on the Saturdays during those weeks, like a dry spell, then the passage in EX can be taken literally. This would explain why there is a difference between what Exodus says and what the Rabbis say. The Rabbis are looking at the big picture and saying, this manna has always been here. They don’t really pay special attention to those few times when it was not there, because it was the Shabbat, even if the manna had been on the ground, they could not pick it, because this was work.

I mean no disrespect with the next question but does Judaism have the same problem as Catholicism where some priests, religious and lay persons alike are want to discredit miracles?

His work is complete. Agreed. Salvation is achieved through the cross. But the proof of salvation is the resurrection.

Yeas, I see what you mean. The resurrection give man hope and assurance that he will participate in conquering death and rising to life.

I’m going to disagree here. Jesus’ credibility would have suffered had the Father raised him on the Shabbat. It’s not that this day was reserved for Jesus to rest in the tomb, though we know that God must have known this, but that Jesus’ shares his divinity with the Father. This would have been compromised, especially among the Jews, if he had been raised on the Lord’s day. Try that thought. I think it makes sense.

Yes, this is profound. It is the Lord’s own rule for a reason. I would also like to look at how this reflects a Sabbath made for man rather than man for the Sabbath. Can you tie the concept of the Sabbath for man in with the rule not to collect Manna on the Sabbath? And then we will concentrate on other areas of Ex 16.

I still haven’t found the time to make my side by side comparison which I had hoped would be a map. I will try to get this done soon.

 

[CentralFLJames]

They were not dumb, no… but they were learning to be obedient. They wandered the desert for 40 years but I will concede that the areas they traveled were not always so barren. In any case the number forty is important. it corresponds to the forty days of fasting at lent, the days of Ezekiel’s fasting, Nineveh’s fasting and Jesus fast at the start of His ministry.

I have often mulled over the significance of “40” days (or periods) of time as it relates to scripture, divine truth and possible human nature or behavior itself. I don’t want to get us on a tangent but I wanted to ask if anyone here has a deeper historical insight into why 40 seems to be so important in scripture?

My natural inclination and intuition tells me that this is a time period required for human beings to affirmatively “repent”, “change” or “verify” that one is living a new pattern of existence and is a new person or creation so to speak. It almost seems like God is saying that ‘one does not walk with me fully unless one holds my hand for at least 40 days’. Is this like some spiritual gestation period or the time necessary to anneal the corporal, intellectual and spiritual natures into one perfectly integrated and balanced being? I am looking at this from a mystical as well as human behavioral aspect.

Any other thoughts?

James

 

[JReducation]

Ancient Hebrew is a theological language, every letter had a number assigned to it. You could read the word literally or you could read it theologically.

Take the number 40. By the mere fact that it appears so often in Judaism (including the Gospels), it stands to reason that the writer wants to draw your attention to its qualitative meaning, not its quantitative meaning.

So what does it mean? Well, 40 makes up the Hebrew word “mem” according to the Kabbalah. Mem is the architype of the maternal creative principle (born of water). Each time we see 40 in the scriptures, the message is that there is going to be birth. Something new and alive is coming.

Another way of understanding Mem is like understanding pregnancy. The child is carried by the mother until it reaches its full term. Like all living things, he sprouts forth from life-giving water.

No, the Jews did not spend 40-years in the desert. The message is that they underwent an extended periiod of gestation before they became a nation.

We see this theme again after Jesus’ resurrection. Some gospels have Jesus returning to the Father the same day as the resurrection. Other writings have him on Earth for 40 days. The quantitative value is irrelevant to a Jew or a Jewish Christian such as the Evangelists. The theological value is the real beauty of it all. The Church went through a period of gestation, during that period, Jesus remained with her. Here again is that matriarchal image of the Church. The groom stays by his bride’s side while she is breeding new life.

Why use 40 and not 25? How long is a normal period of gestation? 40 weeks.

We have no idea how long they ran around in the desert. But to them it felt as if they were waiting for something to be born. It felt like being pregnant. There was the promise of a homeland, the waiting, the discomforts and finally the birth of Israel.

Does this help?

JR

I have often mulled over the significance of “40” days (or periods) of time as it relates to scripture, divine truth and possible human nature or behavior itself. I don’t want to get us on a tangent but I wanted to ask if anyone here has a deeper historical insight into why 40 seems to be so important in scripture?

My natural inclination and intuition tells me that this is a time period required for human beings to affirmatively “repent”, “change” or “verify” that one is living a new pattern of existence and is a new person or creation so to speak. It almost seems like God is saying that ‘one does not walk with me fully unless one holds my hand for at least 40 days’. Is this like some spiritual gestation period or the time necessary to anneal the corporal, intellectual and spiritual natures into one perfectly integrated and balanced being? I am looking at this from a mystical as well as human behavioral aspect.

Any other thoughts?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Ancient Hebrew is a theological language, every letter had a number assigned to it. You could read the word literally or you could read it theologically.

Take the number 40. By the mere fact that it appears so often in Judaism (including the Gospels), it stands to reason that the writer wants to draw your attention to its qualitative meaning, not its quantitative meaning.

So what does it mean? Well, 40 makes up the Hebrew word “mem” according to the Kabbalah. Mem is the architype of the maternal creative principle (born of water). Each time we see 40 in the scriptures, the message is that there is going to be birth. Something new and alive is coming.

Another way of understanding Mem is like understanding pregnancy. The child is carried by the mother until it reaches its full term. Like all living things, he sprouts forth from life-giving water.

No, the Jews did not spend 40-years in the desert. The message is that they underwent an extended periiod of gestation before they became a nation.

We see this theme again after Jesus’ resurrection. Some gospels have Jesus returning to the Father the same day as the resurrection. Other writings have him on Earth for 40 days. The quantitative value is irrelevant to a Jew or a Jewish Christian such as the Evangelists. The theological value is the real beauty of it all. The Church went through a period of gestation, during that period, Jesus remained with her. Here again is that matriarchal image of the Church. The groom stays by his bride’s side while she is breeding new life.

Why use 40 and not 25? How long is a normal period of gestation? 40 weeks.

We have no idea how long they ran around in the desert. But to them it felt as if they were waiting for something to be born. It felt like being pregnant. There was the promise of a homeland, the waiting, the discomforts and finally the birth of Israel.

Does this help?

JR

OMG JR thanks! You are a treasure house of information! What a resource. So my intuition was dead on it seems. I am starting to have more and more confidence that God will write his precepts on our hearts.

James

 

[JReducation]

OMG JR thanks! You are a treasure house of information! What a resource. So my intuition was dead on it seems. I am starting to have more and more confidence that God will write his precepts on our hearts.

James

Hey! I’m not just another pretty face.

 

[Catholic_Author]

I have often mulled over the significance of “40” days (or periods) of time as it relates to scripture, divine truth and possible human nature or behavior itself. I don’t want to get us on a tangent but I wanted to ask if anyone here has a deeper historical insight into why 40 seems to be so important in scripture?

It’s no tangent. Both the question and the answer belong in this thread. You see, what is being put together. The gift of manna, bread from heaven prepared them for new life in the promised land the same way that the Eucharist as the bread of life prepares us for resurrection and the new Heaven and the new Earth.

*The Israelites ate this manna for forty years, until they came to settled land; they ate manna until they reached the borders of Canaan. ~ Ex 16:35

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. Jn 6:54*

I have also heard it said that the number 40 in years represents one generation, so in that sense the new life concept is folded in upon itself the way the sevens were when we looked at the Sabbath.

 

[JReducation]

It’s no tangent. Both the question and the answer belong in this thread. You see, what is being put together. The gift of manna, bread from heaven prepared them for new life in the promised land the same way that the Eucharist as the bread of life prepares us for resurrection and the new Heaven and the new Earth.

*The Israelites ate this manna for forty years, until they came to settled land; they ate manna until they reached the borders of Canaan. ~ Ex 16:35

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. Jn 6:54*

I have also heard it said that the number 40 in years represents one generation, so in that sense the new life concept is folded in upon itself the way the sevens were when we looked at the Sabbath.

Hebrew does not have numbers, only letters, very much like Braille. When you see a number written in acient Hebrew it has either a qualitative meaning or a quantitative one.

For example, the letters used to write 40 spell out the word “mem” which has to do with matriarchal reproduction, not generations. It is about life coming forth from life giving water.

You have a weakness in your Eucharistic theology. You may want to work on it. The Eucharist does not prepare us for the resurrection, New Heaven and New Earth. That is a Lutheran perspective. The Catholic perspective is that the Eucharist is an actual participation in the the Paschal Mystery, because it is the continuation of the mystery. We participate in Christ’s resurrection and his divine life when we celebrate the Eucharist.

It is true that we remember his death and proclaim his resurrection until he comes in glory. This is built into the liturgy for a reason. Through the Eucharist we participate in Christ’s death and resurrection, we also proclaim it to the world until he comes in glory.

The best way to prove to the world that something is true is to do it. If we believe that Christ literally died and rose and that he allows us to participate in this event, then we do so as a sign of our faith. This is why the liturgy calls it the mystery of faith.

As to the mana and the 40 years in the desert, I see what Tim is trying to build here, but it’s too literal. It was not meant to be taken literally. The lamb at the Pasch foreshadowed Jesus, the new lamb, not the mana. The mana would probably forshadow the Eucharist, with the limitation that it does not give grace and the Eucharist does. John makes this very clear. The mana was purely physical sustenance and the Eucharist gives grace, because it gives eternal life. It is only able to give eternal life, because it is eternal life. We go back to the pre-existent Logos in the prologue.

Jesus is eternal life. When he gives of himself, he gives of that life. We’re not talking about a future coming. We’re talking here about an event that is happening through all time. The paschal mystery transcends time.

Is there a second coming? Well, logic would say that everything comes to an end. How that will happen is pure mystery. We have to be very careful, because there is a tendency in many Catholics to start doing what fundamentalists Protestants do, to focus on the end times instead of on conversion of manners as St. Benedict would say.

The problem when you focus on the end times is that you begin to live in two time zones. This is neither healthy nor logical. “Man cannot serve to masters.” Some guy named Jesus said that.

It is too easy to focus on the end times and not fulfill our duties today. The fundamentalists justify this, because they believe in predestination and salvation by faith alone. If you have already been predestined for Heaven or Hell, there isn’t much to do except wait for it to happen. This is in conflict with the entire Judeo-Christian tradition.

If we look at this OP, the Jews had to do their part to get out of slavery. Salvation from slavery or from sin is a cooperative project between God and man.

 

[Catholic_Author]

You have a weakness in your Eucharistic theology. You may want to work on it. The Eucharist does not prepare us for the resurrection, New Heaven and New Earth. That is a Lutheran perspective. The Catholic perspective is that the Eucharist is an actual participation in the the Paschal Mystery, because it is the continuation of the mystery. We participate in Christ’s resurrection and his divine life when we celebrate the Eucharist.

It can be considered a preperation when it is viaticum.
In addition to the Anointing of the Sick, the Church offers those who are about to leave this life the Eucharist as viaticum. Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of “passing over” to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” The sacrament of Christ once dead and now risen, the Eucharist is here the sacrament of passing over from death to life, from this world to the Father.~ CCC 1524

Thus, just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist form a unity called “the sacraments of Christian initiation,” so too it can be said that Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life “the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland” or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage. ~ CCC 1525
*

Emphasis is mine.

 

[JReducation]

It can be considered a preperation when it is viaticum.
In addition to the Anointing of the Sick, the Church offers those who are about to leave this life the Eucharist as viaticum. Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of “passing over” to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” The sacrament of Christ once dead and now risen, the Eucharist is here the sacrament of passing over from death to life, from this world to the Father*.~ CCC 1524

Thus, just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist form a unity called “the sacraments of Christian initiation,” so too it can be said that Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life “the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland” or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage. ~ CCC 1525

Emphasis is mine.

This focus is different from the idea of a coming Kingdom. The focus here is the soul’s journey toward Heaven. The way that I understood your previous post was that he Eucharist was apocalyptic.

The theology of the Church is that the Eucharist is eschatological. It bridges the now with the eschaton.

 

[Catholic_Author]

This focus is different from the idea of a coming Kingdom. The focus here is the soul’s journey toward Heaven. The way that I understood your previous post was that he Eucharist was apocalyptic.

The theology of the Church is that the Eucharist is eschatological. It bridges the now with the eschaton.

The apocalypse is eschatological. If the Eucharist is one then it is the other as well.

The Eucharist can be both a preparation for the soul’s journey to the Father and a preparation for the consummation of all things. The “last things” for each of us are in a sense a preparation for the last of all things for all of us. This does not detract from the fact that the Eucharist transcends time and space and makes us partakers with eternal life. It makes us partakers with eternal life right now in the present and will do it at our death and will go on doing it at the resurrection. Since it is all one event it cannot be separated from what is and what will be.

Those who eat and drink His flesh and blood have life… actually have eternal life now… and will be raised on the last day, such that the eternal life that we have now is also the promise of life at the resurrection.

*Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood **has **eternal life, and I **will *raise him on the last day. ~ Jn 6:54

Is the promise of continued life at resurrection not a preparation? Does the Eucharist not change us and make us Christ like?
If we have life now because of the Eucharist and that Eucharist prepares us at our death for life with the Father, and the Father and Jesus are one, then it also prepares us for life with Christ wherever He is, including at the resurrection. It is all one life in the one living God and although there are theological divisions of times and I refer to one of them in particular, it does not detract from the others.

In the negative:
I do not think it is wrong to say that the Eucharist prepares us for life at the resurrection, as long as we do not make the claim that it does this exclusively.

In the positive:
It is appropriate to say that the Eucharist prepares us for life at the resurrection with the understanding that it also gives us life now.

Because I mentioned that the Eucharist is a preparation for the resurrection does not mean that it isn’t a participation in eternal life now. Does that make sense?

 

[JReducation]

The apocalypse is eschatological. If the Eucharist is one then it is the other as well.

The Eucharist can be both a preparation for the soul’s journey to the Father and a preparation for the consummation of all things. The “last things” for each of us are in a sense a preparation for the last of all things for all of us. This does not detract from the fact that the Eucharist transcends time and space and makes us partakers with eternal life. It makes us partakers with eternal life right now in the present and will do it at our death and will go on doing it at the resurrection. Since it is all one event it cannot be separated from what is and what will be.

Those who eat and drink His flesh and blood have life… actually have eternal life now… and will be raised on the last day, such that the eternal life that we have now is also the promise of life at the resurrection.

*Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood **has ***eternal life, and I **will **raise him on the last day. ~ Jn 6:54

Is the promise of continued life at resurrection not a preparation? Does the Eucharist not change us and make us Christ like?
If we have life now because of the Eucharist and that Eucharist prepares us at our death for life with the Father, and the Father and Jesus are one, then it also prepares us for life with Christ wherever He is, including at the resurrection. It is all one life in the one living God and although there are theological divisions of times and I refer to one of them in particular, it does not detract from the others.

In the negative:
I do not think it is wrong to say that the Eucharist prepares us for life at the resurrection, as long as we do not make the claim that it does this exclusively.

In the positive:
It is appropriate to say that the Eucharist prepares us for life at the resurrection with the understanding that it also gives us life now.

Because I mentioned that the Eucharist is a preparation for the resurrection does not mean that it isn’t a participation in eternal life now. Does that make sense?

This is clearer. I just wanted to make sure that you did not fall into the fundamentalist trap of an Apocalyptic sacramentology, because we really have no idea what the Apocalypse is, other than the belief that Christ will return. The Protestant notion is that there is going to be some big event and that Christ will float down on some cloud to take us away, etc.

This is not the view espoused by the Church or the interpretation that the Church gives to the second coming. The Church actually leaves this very open-ended and places the focus on the present moment.

We have to be careful in using terms such as the coming of the kingdom or the Lord’s return, because it can sound as if everything that we do is in preparation for this climactic event, minimizing the present. There has to be a balance.

We believe that there will be a second coming. However, metaphysics suggests that the Second Coming may very well be at the time of our death. Because once we step past death’s door, time ceases. That which we anticipate as a future event, may well be a done deal after our death.

Have you noticed how rarely the Church uses the Book of Revelations in liturgy? There is a reason for that. It is to avoid an apocalyptic spirituality. There was a movement in this direction in the early Church. Everyone sat arond waiting for the Lord’s return until Paul said that he who does not work should not eat.

This movement resurfaces during the Protestant Reformation with the Calvinists and the Lutherans to some extent, but more so with the Calvinist tradition.

The Catholic focus is more eschatalogical. All sacraments draw us into the mystery of salvation. This does not mean that we do not believe in a second coming. It simply means that it’s not going to make much difference unless we are already united with Christ’s saving act. The focus is to bring people into communion with Christ’s work.

We have been speaking much about the Eucharist and Exodus. What we have not addressed are the two other liturgies which are essential to this picture. We have the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Hours.

If we look at how the Church worships, we will come to a better understanding of what she believes. We are drawn together into Christ’s saving work through the Liturgy of the Word, because he is the Word. We are also drawn into his work through the Liturgy of the Hours, because he is the the Church. In fact, Christ draws us into his divine life through Word, Sign and Church.

Whatever comes in the future will not change this reality. One is either in or out.

If you apply a little pholsophy of theology, this actually makes sense. God embraces man at every level of existence. Man needs the experience of God, so the Word becomes incarnate and we celebrate the Incarnate Word in the liturgy of the Word. The experience of God makes man more hungry for God, so God feeds man with his own Body and Blood, the Eucharist. Man is not an island. Because we partake of the same food, we are united as one Body, so we raise our voice to God as one Church, the Liturgy of the Hours and we use his own Words to praise him. It comes full circle back to the incarnate Word and so forth. It’s almost like a loop.

I’m not sure if I’m helping here or not. Please let me know if I’m not and I’ll shut up.

 

[Catholic_Author]

I think we can look at the other liturgies but I don’t think Exodus 16 and Jn 6 are the best pages of scripture for that study. For Liturgy of the word in connection with liturgy of the Eucharist I recommend the road to Emmaus Lk 24. I have wanted to bring it up all through the other thread that PCM started. In Lk 24 we see Jesus hidden to the disciples but filling their hearts with His words till they burned within them. They do not see that it is Jesus until He breaks the bread. Here Jesus’ words prepare for His banquet. What do you think?

I am open to suggestions about readings for the liturgy of the hours.

As regards Revelation, it actually belongs in this topic about the Eucharist because much of Revelation is liturgical… but then again it is properly related to the lamb rather than manna. The Lamb is worthy to open the scroll, and then the angels fall prostrate and praise God saying “Holy, Holy, Holy.” This is the Mass and the Protestants lack of understanding about the Catholic Mass prevents them from making the connection. This is why their interpretation of Revelation is out of context.

PS
I apprecieate your keeping me from falling in to the Fundamenalist ditch. Now I know that if I did you wouldn’t wait till after the Sabbath to pull me out. Lets move forward… and I appreciate all that you have shared so please continue sharing. It seems you have some thought since the begining which have not found thier proper place and time in this thread yet. Lets just open things up some more and jump into it shall we?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m not sure if I’m helping here or not. Please let me know if I’m not and I’ll shut up.

This is all good spiritual insight JR and I appreciate your manner of structured thinking. I had not discerned the concept of the liturgy of the hours before - so this is a new idea to me.

I concur 100% that so so many Christians are extremely preoccupied in an apocalyptic mindset and spirituality that they stunt their spiritual growth and live almost in a fatalistic self-resignation that everyone is just marking time to their own doom except those waiting to be raptured away. I too got caught up in this mindset many years ago at an impressionable age when I innocently picked up a Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda comic (Jack Chic !! ) while in college. I scared myself to death. Thank God that He was able to work that poison out of my system! Through study of Catholic Prophecy I am convinced that we are many centuries from “end times”. But frankly I could care less it it comes tomorrow or not since we are already told to be prepared at all times.

I too have meditated on the concept that the 2nd coming could be a personal second coming (in addition to a universal physical second coming). I see scripture similar to you with respect to its cyclic nature (“loopiness” as you say). But I see it as more multi-dimensional in that it constructs a perfect circle (or a continuous helix or spiral really) through a principal or mechanism of recursion. Thus it appears that scripture regresses endlessly into itself (upon the eternal primal “Word” or the eternal “I Am Who I Am” or “I Am”). It is as if scripture comes alive in the reading (and teaching) to self assert its own infinity. It seems to replace the notion of time that is traditionally found in the periodicity of one’s own hear-beat of perception with layers and patterns of recurring truth. Thus Truth itself defeats or renders mute the notion of time since it is self evident and nothing can “unmake” or defeat it.

To me the patterns seen in scripture (old and new) implies a layered concept of growth and revelation. It’s similar to the way that a tree grows toward heaven as it expands its circumference. That is, there is a clear dimension of humanity intimately and cooperatively being bound to God as if humanity is being progressed through the experience of seasons. Each new phase and revelation in life and in scripture builds upon the embodied nourishment and experiences captured within each of its adjacent annual rings (life experiences and lessons). I don’t want to take this analogy so far that we get into Pantheism though. But it is ironic to me that from a macro perspective I can see the metaphor of a tree in scripture. It is first rooted in Eden (Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, The Tree of Life) and then carried forward (with hard labor ) to bridge the Old with the New through the wood of the cross at Calvary. Common to each is that there are fruits that hang on the trees (the latter being salvific or an antidote to the poison of the prior). It becomes almost disturbing to contemplate too deeply if there is any further significance to the coincidence-in-fact that Jesus was the son of a carpenter - a person who no doubt made an early living through laboring with wood.

Thanks for your insights,
Jim

 

[Pax]

I’ve been off thread and forums for a day or so, but I’ve caught up and want to compliment you all for the insights and analysis. I do have a couple of problems that I would like to address. They are tangential to the discussion, but I think that they are important to consider.

…
…

The Jews were in the desert for a short time. We know that they were not in the desert for 40 years. They were not dumb, nor is Egypt that far from Palestine. Heck, they bomb each other every other day, but that’s another story.

…
…

I would disagree with this statement based upon other things that scripture has to say. In the book of Joshua we a told the following:

Joshua 5:2-
“At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the people of Israel again the second time.” So Joshua made flint knives, and circumcised the people of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt. Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people that were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised. For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the nation, the men of war that came forth out of Egypt, perished, because they did not hearken to the voice of the Lord; to them the Lord swore that he would not let them see the land which the Lord had sworn to their fathers to give us, a land flowing with milk and honey. So it was their children, whom he raised up in their stead, that Joshua circumcised; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.”

This passage would seem to indicate that the Israelites wandered in the desert for a very long time. I suspect that the delays were due to powerful enemies and other obstacles that God placed in their path as part of the “preparation” that you spoke of.

That having been said, I would, nevertheless, agree with the interpretation of the numerical sign associated with the number forty.

…
…
His work is complete. Agreed. Salvation is achieved through the cross. But the proof of salvation is the resurrection.
…
…

I find this a little disturbing because salvation is not merely proved by the resurrection. When Jesus says “it is finished” while on the cross he is referring to the paschal sacrifice. Salvation is not at that point fully secured. The resurrection is one of the key components of salvation. This is made clear by the apostle Paul when he says:

1 Cor 15:12-22
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

I hope this doesn’t throw the discussion off track, but I did think that these two points needed to be mentioned.

Keep up the great work.

 

[Pax]

CentralFLJames,

I really liked your last post. The way you articulated your view was intellectually and spiritually lofty, but not beyond my modest comprehension.

I’m a turkey attempting to soar with eagles.

 

[Pax]

…
…
I too have meditated on the concept that the 2nd coming could be a personal second coming (in addition to a universal physical second coming). I see scripture similar to you with respect to its cyclic nature (“loopiness” as you say). But I see it as more multi-dimensional in that it constructs a perfect circle (or a continuous helix or spiral really) through a principal or mechanism of recursion. Thus it appears that scripture regresses endlessly into itself (upon the eternal primal “Word” or the eternal “I Am Who I Am” or “I Am”). It is as if scripture comes alive in the reading (and teaching) to self assert its own infinity.
…
Thanks for your insights,
Jim

Does the “infinity symbol” float your boat?

 

[Catholic_Author]

Pax;3295633:

Originally Posted by JReducation
…
His work is complete. Agreed. Salvation is achieved through the cross. But the proof of salvation is the resurrection.
…

I would disagree with this statement based upon other things that scripture has to say.

We are just brainstorming. No one here is saying death without resurrection, or resurrection without death. All we are acknowledging is that certain passages of the OT seem to point to the NT or Catholic teaching. I am very much interested in making lucid connections in this thread. Some will be of little or no value. Some will be nothing more than interesting. Others may offer something worth investigating. One thing I do know, if we don’t begin to trust the other’s formation a little more we will not get anywhere. It is not that these are tangents that keeps us from progress it is that we are all too quick to sniff out heresy. Can we just trust eachother and accept the idea that no one here is stearing the thread away from doctrine? This is not the PCM thread… OK?

Sorry if its a rant… its not intended. I just want to get back to the tapestry and I hope all of you continue to contribute to this thread (pun intended). Thanks.

 

[Pax]

I didn’t think there was a genuine problem, but many people read these threads including non-catholics that might get the wrong impression. It doesn’t hurt to have clarifications.

I’m cool with you guys…I do not suspect a heretic among any of you. Nevertheless, I am as I confessed early on, a meat and potatoes sort of nuts and bolts apologist.

It’s a knee jerk reaction…I just can’t help myself…I know I need counseling.

 

[CentralFLJames]

CentralFLJames,

I really liked your last post. The way you articulated your view was intellectually and spiritually lofty, but not beyond my modest comprehension.

I’m a turkey attempting to soar with eagles.

Thanks Pax - I try to contribute what I can. But I am not coming from the formalism of orthodox training like others are and kind of just instinctively spread what wings I have been given and let the winds blow me where they may.

BTW: Yes the infinity symbol is axiomatic and speaks for itself.

James