- Status
P
Pax
Guest
No offense taken…I really do need to seek professional help.
J
JReducation
Guest
Pax, this background information may help. The book of Joshua was written over many years. It was originally a collection of stories, writings and oral traditions that the Jewish people passed down by word of mouth about Joshua, Moses’ successor.
It would appear that Joshua can best be divided into 3 books: conquest of Canaan, Division of the Land, and the Return of the Transjordan Tribes. The second circumcision of which the author speaks seems to have taken place in Canaan, not while they were wandering in the dessert. However, it must be understood that they arrived in Canaan, but didn’t get the keys to the city as they entered. They had to fight to get it. In effect, they were invaders. In this regard, Israel is still in the process of being born. This ties in with the Jewish tradition of 40.
God promised them a homeland, but he did not promise that they would be welcome when they arrived. This took years. The entire process is tied into the 40 years in the desert, not as 40 literal years, but as an extended process of rebirth as a nation. Basically, if you don’t have a homeland, even if you’re at the right address, you’re out in the cold. To the Jew of this period, the desert was the symbol of being in a wasteland with nowhere to turn to, but God. What you have here is the geographical area between Egypt and Palestine, but at a deeper level, there is a spiritual desert. You may want to read the writings of Brother Charles de Facould (sp?). He speaks a great deal on the desert experience as a spiritual reality.
You can also tie in the second circumcision as a foreshadowing of the two baptisms, John’s baptism and Jesus baptism. This is just a thought.
Here are some helpful citations from the CCC that may help clarify what Paul is trying to say. Observe how the Church’s theologians connect resurrection and cross.
**1235 The sign of the cross, on the threshold of the celebration, marks with the imprint of Christ the one who is going to belong to him and signifies the grace of the redemption Christ won for us by his cross.
561 “The whole of Christ’s life was a continual teaching: his silences, his miracles, his gestures, his prayer, his love for people, his special affection for the little and the poor, his acceptance of the total sacrifice on the Cross for the redemption of the world, and his Resurrection are the actualization of his word and the fulfillment of Revelation” John Paul II, CT 9).**
Redemption is won for us by the cross. However, the cross and the resurrection are the fulfillment of Revelation. Because without the cross there would have been no sacrifice, nonetheless the prophecy was that he would conquer death. Again, to reveal that Jesus has conquered the death of the soul brought on by sin, he rises from a physical death.
If you look in other parts of the gospels we often hear Jesus say things like, “So that you will believe that the Son of man has the power to forgive sins, standup and walk” or “which is easier to say that your sins are forgiven or take up you bed and walk?”
The resurrection is the sign that all debts are now paid. Jesus’ words have been actualized and revelation has been fulfilled. He came, died and conquered sin.
1015 “The flesh is the hinge of salvation” (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2: PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.
Observe how the Catholic Church treats the resurrection as the fulfillment of creation and redemption. It does not treat it as the redemptive act of Christ but as realization. The resurrection is our insight into the saving act of Christ on the cross.
The resurrection takes place on the 8th day or the 1st day of the week, because the world begins a new era of creation. Creation is brought to perfection through Christ and we are able to witness this saving act through his resurrection. On the cross, Christ destroys our death. Redemption is accomplished in the sense that we are no longer trapped by sin. However, by rising he restores our life, even though we are free of sin by his blood, we have not been changed into a new creation. It’s a process that is in dialogue with itself, kill the effects of sin and start life again.
Besides the book of Joshua, which Christians and Jews agree is an inspired work, we also have Rabbinical writings which were not inspired books, as they are commentaries on the Torah (first five books).
It would appear that Joshua can best be divided into 3 books: conquest of Canaan, Division of the Land, and the Return of the Transjordan Tribes. The second circumcision of which the author speaks seems to have taken place in Canaan, not while they were wandering in the dessert. However, it must be understood that they arrived in Canaan, but didn’t get the keys to the city as they entered. They had to fight to get it. In effect, they were invaders. In this regard, Israel is still in the process of being born. This ties in with the Jewish tradition of 40.
God promised them a homeland, but he did not promise that they would be welcome when they arrived. This took years. The entire process is tied into the 40 years in the desert, not as 40 literal years, but as an extended process of rebirth as a nation. Basically, if you don’t have a homeland, even if you’re at the right address, you’re out in the cold. To the Jew of this period, the desert was the symbol of being in a wasteland with nowhere to turn to, but God. What you have here is the geographical area between Egypt and Palestine, but at a deeper level, there is a spiritual desert. You may want to read the writings of Brother Charles de Facould (sp?). He speaks a great deal on the desert experience as a spiritual reality.
You can also tie in the second circumcision as a foreshadowing of the two baptisms, John’s baptism and Jesus baptism. This is just a thought.
The discourse is about the resurrection, not redemption. Paul argues, like modern Catholic theologians, that without the resurrection, our faith is groundless.
Here are some helpful citations from the CCC that may help clarify what Paul is trying to say. Observe how the Church’s theologians connect resurrection and cross.
**1235 The sign of the cross, on the threshold of the celebration, marks with the imprint of Christ the one who is going to belong to him and signifies the grace of the redemption Christ won for us by his cross.
561 “The whole of Christ’s life was a continual teaching: his silences, his miracles, his gestures, his prayer, his love for people, his special affection for the little and the poor, his acceptance of the total sacrifice on the Cross for the redemption of the world, and his Resurrection are the actualization of his word and the fulfillment of Revelation” John Paul II, CT 9).**
Redemption is won for us by the cross. However, the cross and the resurrection are the fulfillment of Revelation. Because without the cross there would have been no sacrifice, nonetheless the prophecy was that he would conquer death. Again, to reveal that Jesus has conquered the death of the soul brought on by sin, he rises from a physical death.
If you look in other parts of the gospels we often hear Jesus say things like, “So that you will believe that the Son of man has the power to forgive sins, standup and walk” or “which is easier to say that your sins are forgiven or take up you bed and walk?”
The resurrection is the sign that all debts are now paid. Jesus’ words have been actualized and revelation has been fulfilled. He came, died and conquered sin.
1015 “The flesh is the hinge of salvation” (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2: PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.
Observe how the Catholic Church treats the resurrection as the fulfillment of creation and redemption. It does not treat it as the redemptive act of Christ but as realization. The resurrection is our insight into the saving act of Christ on the cross.
The resurrection takes place on the 8th day or the 1st day of the week, because the world begins a new era of creation. Creation is brought to perfection through Christ and we are able to witness this saving act through his resurrection. On the cross, Christ destroys our death. Redemption is accomplished in the sense that we are no longer trapped by sin. However, by rising he restores our life, even though we are free of sin by his blood, we have not been changed into a new creation. It’s a process that is in dialogue with itself, kill the effects of sin and start life again.
J
JReducation
Guest
PAX
Psychiatrist is in.
5cents****
Psychiatrist is in.
5cents****
P
Pax
Guest
I apparently need more couch time…I’ll be sticking around. By the way…your rates are too low. You could charge much more.PAX
Psychiatrist is in.
5cents****
M
maryj
Guest
I had the same reaction, but continued to read on to see if anyone was going to address this. Thanks Pax for pointing out that not everyone is actually “actively” involved in this conversation. Couple things…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.
Anyone ever read Dr. Scott Hahn’s take on the "It is finished’ thing, titled, The fourth cup. Quite interesting.
And second…My sincere thanks to the OP for starting this thread. After the PCM “thing” I was a bit disheartened. I did a lot of contemplating on how that discussion went down, and had some misgivings about ever getting involved in another one of these types of conversations. At my parish, on the Sunday before Ash wed., we were handed a little black book for lent,(forget the bishops name who wrote it) Readings, meditations,etc it provides the framework for you to enjoy one of our oldest forms of prayer “lectio divinia” (sacred readings). First thing it asks you to do is pray about what your lenten plans will be. God is our Guide, and it is to God we must go before we do anything. Now it is time to sketch our plans…after much thought and prayer…my first entry was this…
No arguing, just learning.
JReducation, thank you and all the others who are participating in this discussion. You are helping me tremendously in my lenten plan. God Bless you all. please continue.
J
JReducation
Guest
Maryj, you’re most welcome. I don’t know if I’m really adding anything to this or other discussions, but I try.
My greatest concern in these threads is to keep my sanity and help others keep theirs. To be honest, I become more upset with the Catholics on these threads than with the non-Catholics.
I understand why the non-Catholics hold the positions that they do. But I often feel worried and a little stressed out when I see Catholics become “hardliners”. It is one thing to be faithful or orthodox, it’s another to preach fire and brimstone. Being Jewish, I saw enough of this nonsense with the fundamentalists Jews who refuse to cut anyone who is not a Jew any slack. While other Jews were trying to work with the world community to achieve peace and protect their right to be Jewish, the fundamentalists sabbotaged every effort by criticizing, offending and refusing to dialogue. They don’t understand the difference between conceding and dialogue. Unfortunately, the hardliner believes that dialogue is conceding, rather than listening.
As I have often said, what brought me into Cathollicism was the kindness and clarity of the Capuchin-Franciscan Friars. They always explained and answered my questions without being condescending. Of course, there was another side. I was a good student.
I asked questions and asked for clarifications when I diddn’t understand. I really wanted to know. I was not in the conversation for the sake of a battle or to prove that I was right and they were wrong.
When I describe this process I always use the same analogy. If you’re going some place and you ask for directions, you don’t tell the person who’s helping you that he or she is wrong, unless you’ve already been down that road.
A condescending fundamentalist Catholic and a combative inquirer are a bad recipe. This is what went wrong in the other thread. There were too many clashes of this kind.
I’ll put this out there for consideration. When John Paul II convoked the religions of the world to gather in Assisi to pray for peace he gathered people of all faiths and philosophies. We already know how he felt about different faiths, if you read Crossing the Threshold of Hope. However, he found a common ground, peace.
What we have to do on these threads is to find the common ground and build on that.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Yes, I have read The Fourth Cup by Dr, Scott Hahn. It was very enlightening.
My pleasure and welcome… let’s think about whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, gracious, excelent and worhty of praise. (cf Phil 4:8)
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
About the completion of Christ’s work on the cross:
Let me review here quickly. I was trying to draw a parallel between the Sabbath as the seventh day of creation and the Sabbath as the day that Christ lay in the tomb. When I said that Christ’s work was complete, I meant it in this context; that it is as complete as creation was on the seventh day… that His death is a done deal… he spent all His life, all His blood. At the start of John’s gospel he says Jesus is the word that was with God at the beginning. This is a clear reference to Genesis. Jesus is the same God who created the Earth. His work on creation was done on the seventh day of creation. His passion was complete on the seventh day of the week. That’s all I am saying. I am not saying that salvation is complete without Easter but I would like to take this a bit further. Jesus’ death is the fulfillment of God’s words that in the day that man eats of the fruit of the forbidden tree he will die. Certainly Adam died but his death was not atonement for all have sinned in Adam. Where Adam was disobedient in the garden of Eden Jesus was obedient in the garden of Gethsemane. Where Adam takes from the tree of life Jesus gives his life a tree (cf Acts 5:30). As for the resurrection, which is entirely necessary for salvation, it occurs on the morning of the first day of the new week. This new week is a new beginning that is the antithesis of the banishing of Adam and Eve from the garden. This new beginning welcomes man back into the presence of God as God brings Himself to man. Dying he destroyed our death and rising He restored our life.
When I posted that his work was done on the cross, admittedly I only gave you the half of it, the dying part, because I expect as Catholic Christians you know the rising part and so you can finish the thought on your own. Maybe I should have given the rising also but I was only talking about the Sabbath as rest which I saw as proper since Genesis says:
*Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken. So God blessed the **seventh *day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation. ~ Gen 2:2-3
The Sabbath is mentioned in Ex 16 where we were exploring the relationship to Jn 6, but the new week is not mentioned. There is no pointing to the resurrection in Ex 16 that I readily see so I did not mention it.
From this parallel between the Sabbath of creation and the Sabbath of the passion, I gain the understanding that Jesus’ death (and resurrection) is a work of re-creation, of renewing, of new life. Re-creation (Christ’s work in dying and rising) is everything that creation was only now man’s part is righted in Christ.
I am still working on the side-by-side comparison of Ex 16 and Jn 6… soon, I promise.
Let me review here quickly. I was trying to draw a parallel between the Sabbath as the seventh day of creation and the Sabbath as the day that Christ lay in the tomb. When I said that Christ’s work was complete, I meant it in this context; that it is as complete as creation was on the seventh day… that His death is a done deal… he spent all His life, all His blood. At the start of John’s gospel he says Jesus is the word that was with God at the beginning. This is a clear reference to Genesis. Jesus is the same God who created the Earth. His work on creation was done on the seventh day of creation. His passion was complete on the seventh day of the week. That’s all I am saying. I am not saying that salvation is complete without Easter but I would like to take this a bit further. Jesus’ death is the fulfillment of God’s words that in the day that man eats of the fruit of the forbidden tree he will die. Certainly Adam died but his death was not atonement for all have sinned in Adam. Where Adam was disobedient in the garden of Eden Jesus was obedient in the garden of Gethsemane. Where Adam takes from the tree of life Jesus gives his life a tree (cf Acts 5:30). As for the resurrection, which is entirely necessary for salvation, it occurs on the morning of the first day of the new week. This new week is a new beginning that is the antithesis of the banishing of Adam and Eve from the garden. This new beginning welcomes man back into the presence of God as God brings Himself to man. Dying he destroyed our death and rising He restored our life.
When I posted that his work was done on the cross, admittedly I only gave you the half of it, the dying part, because I expect as Catholic Christians you know the rising part and so you can finish the thought on your own. Maybe I should have given the rising also but I was only talking about the Sabbath as rest which I saw as proper since Genesis says:
*Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken. So God blessed the **seventh *day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation. ~ Gen 2:2-3
The Sabbath is mentioned in Ex 16 where we were exploring the relationship to Jn 6, but the new week is not mentioned. There is no pointing to the resurrection in Ex 16 that I readily see so I did not mention it.
From this parallel between the Sabbath of creation and the Sabbath of the passion, I gain the understanding that Jesus’ death (and resurrection) is a work of re-creation, of renewing, of new life. Re-creation (Christ’s work in dying and rising) is everything that creation was only now man’s part is righted in Christ.
I am still working on the side-by-side comparison of Ex 16 and Jn 6… soon, I promise.
J
JReducation
Guest
While there are some real parallels between Genesis and the Easter Triduum, there is one significant difference that has to be explained. In Gn God rests on the 7th day. In the Gospels, Jesus is dead on the 7th day.
If we say that he is at rest, it begs the question as to whether or not he can actually die. On the other hand, if he is truly dead, then is he resting?
You need to explain how Jesus can be dead and resting, as dead people are not resting. They are 100% dead. Jesus must die or there is no salvation. I realize that we use this metaphor when someone dies. We say that they’re resting. But contextually, this does not work. The dead are dead. When I sit or sleep I rest. Only someone who is alive can rest.
The 7th day was a day of rest for the Jews, but was it for Jesus? There has to be another connection, but it eludes me right now.
If we say that he is at rest, it begs the question as to whether or not he can actually die. On the other hand, if he is truly dead, then is he resting?
You need to explain how Jesus can be dead and resting, as dead people are not resting. They are 100% dead. Jesus must die or there is no salvation. I realize that we use this metaphor when someone dies. We say that they’re resting. But contextually, this does not work. The dead are dead. When I sit or sleep I rest. Only someone who is alive can rest.
The 7th day was a day of rest for the Jews, but was it for Jesus? There has to be another connection, but it eludes me right now.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Well, was the rest on the Sabbath at the genesis of creation really rest for God? I think you already presented that the rest is really for man to be with God, to think about God continuously, it is a communion. This is a parallel and we are looking for progression so the two are similar but not identical. Could we add to the question? Instead of asking how death can be like rest, a point which we can derive from Christ’s own words when he raised the 12 year old girl and Lazarus, we might ask, “how can God rest and is Jesus’ death at all like it?” First we define the original Sabbath rest then we look to see if Jesus’ death fits that understanding. If the original Sabbath was for man then Jesus’ death must be for man also. The disciples must have pondered their hearts out trying to reconcile Jesus’ death with their expectations and they must have longed to have Him back. This was their Sabbath, confusing, bewildering, painful and yet it was ordained for them, for many, that Christ should die.
Look at Genesis again and see that it is only called rest because the work is finished, not because God ever gets tired. It is in this sense that I apply its meaning to Christ on the Sabbath of His passion. He is not resting as a man does when his body is exhausted but living. He is resting in the ultimate sense as only a body can do when it has exhausted all its strength, and all its blood, and all its life. Jesus’ death is a perfect rest because the prefect life was perfectly exhausted. Jesus’ death is a rest because his work (the passion) was finished the way it was in the beginning of creation. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.
Lest there be issues again about the resurrection being a necessary work of redemption… when I say finished, I am not talking about the entire act of redemption just the passion and death. Christ Himself used this terminology, it can’t be wrong to call His death a completion. If it wasn’t complete then He didn’t die, so it is the prefect completion because it is the perfect sacrifice and death.
J
JReducation
Guest
Something doesn’t feel right, but I can’t put my finger on it. Let me think about this.
JR
JR
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
I have taken your concern to heart and made another examination of the concept of the work in the passion paralleling the work of creation. I remembered reading in The Spirit of the Liturgy (by then Joseh Cardinal Ratzinger) a section comparing Moses’ work on the tabernacle tent with Gods work of creation. On page 26 and 27 he explains that because it says in Exodus seven times that the Moses did as the Lord commanded him, that these words “suggest that the seven-day work on the tabernacle replicates the seven day work on creation.” After the tabernacle was complete the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Ratzinger goes on to explain that “creation looks toward the covenant, but the covenant completes creation and does not simply exist along with it.” What covenant are we talking about? I would like to take this one step further and say that is is the new covenant of Christ’s blood that indeed completes creation.
J
JReducation
Guest
I remember this commentary that Ratzinger wrote. Even though it was not intended to be binding dogma, Ratzinger is a very good theologian and he draws from many excellent sources. You can trust that what he wrote as a theologian, if it’s not dogma, it’s in tune with dogma.
That being said, let’s examine his commentary.
CREATION LOOKS TOWARD THE COVENANT
Humanity was created to live in a loving relationship with the Creator. Man was created to love God and be loved by God. In other words, man was created to share God’s divine life from the moment he comes into existence, whenver that is.
MOSES COMLIES WITH GOD SEVEN TIMES
Man is created in God’s image and likeness. Just as God is creator, man is also gifted with the same gift. While God creates an ark for man, the universe, man creates an ark for the Lord. There is a mutuality of love in this relationship. Man is not a passive participant. Adam (who is really a metaphor for mankind) is naturally egocentric. He takes, but gives little or nothing in return. If we look at the sin of Adam, it’s not eating the forbidden fruit, but failure to accept responsibility for his actions. Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent. If we look at a newborn, his or her behaviour is equally self-centered. The newborn gives nothing in return. He takes and demands. The only satisfaction that the parents get from a newborn is the love and joy of having a child. There is no reciprocity. Reciprocity comes with the dawning of responsibility in human consciousness.
Moses, on the other hand, receives from God, but he also reciprocates. He does his part. Whatever the Lord commands he does, even when he feels inadequate. Remember that he wanted to send his brother to Pharaoh because he had a speech impairment. We see original sin (passing the buck) showing it’s ugly head. However, when God commands, Moses trusts and responds. There is that movement toward a covenant (marriage) between God and man. Which will later be represented in the metaphor of Christ the groom and the Church as bride. Moses foreshadows the union between Christ and the Church, which is a marriage with reciprocity.
THE COVENANT COMPLETES CREATION
This can be explained through reason (logic). If man is created to live in a marital relationship with the Divine, then the goal of creation is fulfilled when the bond is established. This bond is established once and for all on the cross. God offers the perfect wedding gift, his own life. Man has nothing to bring to the wedding bed that is equal in dignity or value to what God brings. But if God becomes incarnate, his humanity is of equal value and dignity. Therefore, God in his mercy gives his humanity.
But since there is only one humanity, because God did not create many humanities, Christ’s humanity is also our humanity. In this way, we are brothers and sisters to the the firstborn Son of God. In giving his humanity on the cross, all humanity is crucified. All humanity is sacrificed. All humanity is presented at the wedding feast. The weddding is now consumated. This was the wedding that was in the mind of God from the creation of human life.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Humanity is glorified, hence the resurrection. The bride (the Church) is invited to eat and drink of the wedding feast (the Eucharist) that her spouse has set for her. Here you have the tie-in between Genesis, the selection of Israel, tne old covenant and its final fulfillment in the new covenant.
Ratzinger is correct. The covenant is not a parallel, but it is the crowing event. This is where many Christians incorrectly dismiss the OT covenant. You cannot do so, because it is the foundation of the NT covenant. That’s why Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it.
The only laws that are abolished are those that are no longer necessary, because they served their purpose, to prepare for the Christ event. Once the Christ even happens, the preparation laws are no longer needed.
It’s like a wedding. Once the wedding is over you no longer need the wedding planner, marriage license and the details that are part of the wedding. However, all of the other laws that regulate marriage must still be observed. Not all of the old laws are dispensed with.
I think this makes sense. What do you folks think?
[/quote]
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
JR, very interesting insights. Let me toss out a few comments here.
The thing that has always disturbed me as being counter intuitive to natural expectation is God choosing to operate through only one nation and one people - Israel. We have in the transition from Old to New a “wedding feast” where suddenly the bitter exclusivity (as seen from us jealously wishing that we all were Jewish) seen in Israel as “favored” becoming joy as we others are all universally invited to the wedding. Those not wearing the proper clothes (recollecting Adams nakedness in the Garden) or those indifferent to the invitation and remaining ungrateful are left outside in the cold to wail and gnash their teeth when they see and hear just how wonderful the revelry inside the wedding feast is.
All through Old and New there is this same notion of a sieve or separating: Abel verses Cain, Issaic verses Ishmael, Abraham verses an ambiguous proxy for an indifferent or unthankful humanity, David’s lineage verses the 11 other Judaic tribes, Jesus vs Anti-Christ, God verses Satan, Goats vs. Sheep, Saved vs. Fallen. There seems to be a mixed message in the transition from Old to New in that we go from a concept of Exclusivity to one of Universality. Would you care to offer insights here since this seems to suggest that God can change His mind or a God who elects to bind the notion of exclusivity to humanity’s choice (empowers Humanity) through free will. I like to use here the metaphor of Eden where humanity tries to grasp equality with God in taking and eating the forbidden fruit (in the negative of disobedience) but is now invited in the positive sense to again trust what God tells us is true about the fruit on the Tree of Life (Eucharist) to eat it and in fact be like God. I “feel” that there is a profound and integrated message yet to be digested here but there are so many sparkling metaphorical facets here that I can’t see the jewel for the dancing light of the sparkle.
Also, intuitively suffering as a metaphor for a gift to God (the most any human can give is their life and their life struggles) should become mute by the infinite merits of a divine Jesus suffering and giving His life as a proxy for our life (or is it a universal pattern of gift giving for humanity to emulate?). The natural hope would be that God no longer has need of human suffering and sacrifice since He now has the wedding Gift. It should be time for the consummation of humanity with God and a new life. The only thing that works for me is seeing a suffering humanity as new kind of suffering - suffering as a woman in labor as its baby grows and struggles to push itself out of the womb. Humanity seems to be struggling with rebirth and on the whole not doing so well at the moment. It seems that only a terribly suffering Church (back to exclusivity through the plurality of a collection) is the one that is fighting hard in the womb of predestiny to emerge reborn as a Holy Nation (God’s People) and a people set apart for God. Either God has changed the parameters of gestation (40 weeks) or we have a very difficult birth that in the face of things is by no means “out of the water” so to speak.
I know this is a knot of ideas and thoughts but if you can unravel some of this or offer insight I’d be appreciative.
James
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
Thank you JR for saying that the covenant is a marriage covenant.
Jesus used this language when he said “it is consummated.” It is entirely in the context of the marriage covenant/promise. There is a great free talk by John Martinoni on this topic of the Eucharist and Marriage. Here is the direct link to the download but you need to register first. You can find all his downloads here: biblechristiansociety.com/download
Thank you CFLJ for saying that there is something left to be consummated since we are not ““out of the water” so to speak”. (And BTW, I liked all your word-plays.)
When Christ returns He brings with Him the consummation of all things. The Church uses this word Consummation on purpose. But how can that be if Christ consummated Himself what can their be left to consummate? For this I direct your attention to the book of Tobit where we will find another set of sevens. Tobias was wed to a woman who seven times lost her groom in the bridal chambers. Tobias did not want to end up like the seven brothers so St. Raphael had a remedy for him. Part of that remedy involved three days of prayer, after which the demon who had been plaguing the woman was gone and the marriage was consummated. Looking at the archetypes, the woman is the church and Tobias is Christ. Is this, our present time with Christ in the Eucharist, like the three days of prayer for us? I say that it is and that the fulfillment of the covenant consummation will be at His return.
Now we have the whole story. Now we see the entire parallel/progression.
Jesus used this language when he said “it is consummated.” It is entirely in the context of the marriage covenant/promise. There is a great free talk by John Martinoni on this topic of the Eucharist and Marriage. Here is the direct link to the download but you need to register first. You can find all his downloads here: biblechristiansociety.com/download
Thank you CFLJ for saying that there is something left to be consummated since we are not ““out of the water” so to speak”. (And BTW, I liked all your word-plays.)
When Christ returns He brings with Him the consummation of all things. The Church uses this word Consummation on purpose. But how can that be if Christ consummated Himself what can their be left to consummate? For this I direct your attention to the book of Tobit where we will find another set of sevens. Tobias was wed to a woman who seven times lost her groom in the bridal chambers. Tobias did not want to end up like the seven brothers so St. Raphael had a remedy for him. Part of that remedy involved three days of prayer, after which the demon who had been plaguing the woman was gone and the marriage was consummated. Looking at the archetypes, the woman is the church and Tobias is Christ. Is this, our present time with Christ in the Eucharist, like the three days of prayer for us? I say that it is and that the fulfillment of the covenant consummation will be at His return.
Now we have the whole story. Now we see the entire parallel/progression.
M
maryj
Guest
James, Our pastor used this exact same message in his homily today. We have original sin because “Adam and Eve” being given everything that was good, no death, no suffering etc. still chose to sin by wanting to be God. We give up everything that God can give us by wanting to be Him, by sinning. Let us first recognize that which is our sin, anger, envy etc, know that we are not God and then dump it into the confessional. Than in doing that we can eat from the tree of life(Eucharist) and become indeed one with God. Because after all we are created in His image, but we retain those fragments of original sin, that we must fight against, so that we may become like Him. I hugged him at the end of Mass and told him that for a woman of my age, I had never quite heard original sin explained in that manner. Oh something is deffinately happening here. Praise God. Maryj
T
Tim_in_MI
Guest
I’m on the same page on this, Mary. After going through the readings at Mass today, this thread kept coming to my mind. The creation story from Genesis, with the parallel from Romans 5:12-19, Psalm 51, and the gospel from Matt 4:1-11. Adam & Eve ate of the tree, and transitioned from sinless to sinful - we eat of the tree (the Cross), and transition from sinful to righteous (Romans 5:19). If it weren’t for this thread, I wouldn’t have gotten as deep into this. I’ve read on typology, and the parallels between Adam & Jesus, but not in this light.
Also, the Gospel further brought out for me the fact that Jesus’ first temptation was to satisfy his hunger by turning rocks into bread. Jesus’ reply was also bringing me back to the topic of this thread - “One does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God”. It isn’t “bread alone” that is presented at Mass - it is the Word made flesh.
JR, CA, others - I hope I’m putting this together right - I’m just an engineer, but I find this topic fascinating… Thanks again for all the excellent posts.
C
Catholic_Author
Guest
A very good insight Tim. There is a good section on the tmeptation to turn stones into bread in Benedict XVI’s first book as Pope, Jesus of Nazareth. He writes that the goods of man must be ordered to God before they can be of good use. He explains that both the Marxist principal and the aid of the west prove this. The Marxisits said that the desert would become bread but it turned out to be empty promises that was not concerned with justice or human suffering. The western world provided purely technical and material based aid that not only has left God out of the picture but has turned people away rom God. Jesus does the oposite. He says that man needs bread to survive but more imprtantly this bread is the very word of God. By ordering the goods of the earth toward God the bread that He gives becomes an inexhaustable food for the world.
- “Jesus Himself has become the grain of wheat that died and brought forth much fruit (cf Jn 12:24). He Himself has become bread for us and this multiplication of the loaves endures till the end of time, without ever being depeleted.” Jesus of Nazareth pgs 32/33*
- Status