Thursday, October 18, 2012

Heroic Witnesses

Sister Maria Stella

Sister Maria Stella, C.J.D., a missionary to Russia, speaks about the history of Catholic priests, sisters and the laity in Russia from 1917 to the present. Sister Maria begins with the persecution and almost total destruction of the Catholic Church under communism when millions were killed or imprisoned in Soviet labor camps, and ends with post-communist era efforts to revive the Catholic Church in the Russian Far East.

....

Taken from: http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/heroic-witnesses

Other Recommended Titles:

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Mystical Marriage Feast of the Lamb

Eucharist: The Marriage Supper of the Lamb

by Mark Shea Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:21 AM Comments (4)

Yesterday, we looked at the fact that the book of Revelation reflects the shape of the Mass. We noted that that it begins with a penitential rite, moves on to the Liturgy of the Word and is filled with thanksgiving. The final thing to note is that it climaxes in exactly the same way that our worship on earth climaxes:

And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.” ‘(Revelation 19:9)

Reality, like the Mass, is consummated with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
It is easy to see the imagery in the book of Revelation originating in cloud cuckoo land. But the reality is that Revelation is thoroughly and complete rooted in what Catholics see going on around them at any ordinary Mass in any sleepy little parish in the world.
They get these ideas from the apostles, who get it from Jesus. It is Jesus, after all, who inaugurates his entire ministry with a miracle performed at, where else?, a wedding. And in case you missed his meaning, all you have to do is turn the page in John’s gospel from chapter 2 to chapter 3 and you are told by no less than John the Baptist who the real Bridegroom is:

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:28-30)

Jesus also explicitly describes the Kingdom of Heaven as a wedding feast. And his apostle take up the thread of thought by seeing every marriage between baptized person as a participation in this mystical marriage between Christ the Bridegroom and his Bride the Church. For instance, Paul tells us:

As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:24-32)

And so the early Fathers of the Church look at John’s language about the mystical Marriage Feast of the Lamb is and see it as a quite obvious reference, not only to the cosmic union of the Bridegroom and Bride at the end of time, but also as a reference to the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is a particiapation in and an anticipation of the mystical Marriage Feast of the Lamb at the Consummation of All Things. That is why Jesus said “The hour is coming and has now come”. The Kingdom of Heaven is already here, but we live in the “now and not yet”. When he comes again in glory the foretastes we have received in this life will blossom into the fullness of life and the Bride and Groom will at last live happily ever after in the eternal marriage supper of the Lamb.

....

Greatest Threat To Civilisation

MARRIAGE may help prevent cancer, is the best chance of fulfillment in life and divorcing parents should get better assistance to reconcile, says the MP who could become Australia's next Families Minister.

Senior Liberal MP Kevin Andrews has rated the breakdown of marriage and the family a greater threat to the Western world than climate change, the financial crisis and radical Islam.
The Opposition families spokesman is today launching his book, Maybe 'I do' - Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, which says more needs to be done to protect and support marriage and family because "stable families are also the bedrock of successful societies".
The book is based on thousands of social science studies that detail the importance of marriage for adults, children and society, and proposes policy responses.

Mr Andrews argues it is the Government's business to promote marriage, which is the "best source of physical and mental health, emotional stability, and prosperity for adults and children. It is also the best bet for attaining happiness and fulfilment".

"Marriage seems to protect from contracting cancer and offers a better chance of survival after diagnosis."

It argues growing up with married parents gives kids the best chance of learning "virtues, based on respect for human life and dignity".

"The recent retreat from marriage that was meant to free individuals from economic and emotional constraints has failed many people."

The ideal of "marital permanence" needs to be entrenched in a national family and marriage policy, affirming marriage as the best environment for raising children, the Catholic MP and married father-of-five writes.

While not advocating people stay in destructive marriages, research shows up to 37 per cent of couples regret divorcing, the book says.

It says studies have found couples who cohabit before marriage appear to have higher risks of divorce.
And it encourages young people to think about what they want in a relationship and the consequences of multiple partners.

"By moving from one relationship to another, many young people may be undermining their understanding of how to live a committed, faithful relationship," Mr Andrews writes.

elissa.doherty@news.com.au

....

Taken from: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/liberal-mp-kevin-andrews-book-says-marriage-best-for-you-and-the-kids/story-e6frf7kx-1226487704486

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Relationship Between Genesis and Revelation

Thoughts and Selections from Tim Martin’s “Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Biblical Origins Debate”

By Walt Hibbard

Many preterists have come to assume that the acceptance of the traditional understanding of the extent of the Flood of Noah’s day requires a global-encompassing deluge that covered every continent and rose to the highest mountains of the world. This view teaches that every human being and land animal on the face of the earth was wiped out, and that only Noah’s family of eight people survived that monumental catastrophe.

Timothy P. Martin, coming from a dispensational background and embracing of the popular Creation Science movement, has found through diligent study that there is much more involved in studying this doctrine than a mere “surface reading” of the texts of Genesis. There is an urgent need to examine the language to determine how key words are used elsewhere in the Bible. This has brought Mr. Martin to the conclusion that the Genesis account is describing a great Flood which was regional but not worldwide.

He views the preterist movement as a good working out of the grammatico-historical hermeneutic in passages such as our Lord’s Olivet Discourse, II Peter 3, and the Book of Revelation. However, he has been disappointed to find that many preterists still cling to interpretative ideas in other passages that are inconsistent with the careful and studied work that they have done in the prophetic areas. Mr. Martin believes that the early chapters in Genesis need to be re-studied with the same care as the prophetic material.

I consider this new book, which Mr. Martin began to write prior to 2001, to be an important and eye-opening study that preterists need to examine carefully. The Creation Science people are already quite happy with their hyper-literal system and this prevents many of them from embracing preterism; they are consistent! But preterists who accept the global flood are betraying the hermeneutic principles that brought them initially into the preterist movement; namely, recognizing the covenantal manner in which God deals with his people, choosing them out of the great masses of worldwide humanity.

Now, here are several clips from Tim Martin’s book – his own words in this debate:

(Taken from Pg. 5 and 6 of the Necessary Introduction)

This book is a critique of the main Creation Science presupposition from the perspective of covenant thinking. I hope to demonstrate a methodological, theological and historical correlation between the rise of Creation Science ideology and the prevalence of dispensational theology in America during the 20^th century. I hope to convince those who have already abandoned dispensational futurist eschatology in favor of preterism (regardless of any particular brand) of the need to completely re-examine the Creation Science paradigm. As preterism grows to eclipse dispensational futurism in American Christianity, I believe this re-examination will lead naturally to the wholesale abandonment of Creation Science ideas.

This critique of the Creation Science movement is a call to consistency. My argument is simple. It is time for those committed to a general preterist understanding of Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation to think through the logical implications of their beliefs as they relate to the rest of the Bible.

(From Pg. 11 & 12 of Covenantal Exegesis of Genesis 7)

The flood may be global if these same constructs support that conclusion as used elsewhere in Scripture. It is also possible the flood may not be global in physical detail if these same constructs are used elsewhere in cases we know were regional. In other words, if we are self-consciously covenantal, we will not first ask, “What is the literal meaning of this text?” nor “What does science say about a global flood?” We will first say, “Let’s examine these same constructs as used elsewhere in the Bible and interpret this Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture.”

There are three textual keys to understanding the language of this passage (Gen. 7:17-23

). First of all, the term “earth.” Secondly, the phrase “all the high mountains under the entire heavens” must be understood. Thirdly, the related phrases “Every living thing that moved on earth perished” and ”Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out” must be compared to similar use in Scripture. Let’s look at how all three are used elsewhere in the Bible.

(From Pg. 47 & 48 of the Recent Rise of New Flood Geology)

How many Christian conservatives would have looked at The Genesis Flood a little more carefully if they were aware up front of its Adventist roots? How many preterists will re-examine Creation Science once they discover it is the direct product of radical, modern futurism? Most Creation Scientists today remain completely unfamiliar with George McCready Price. Given the choice between Josephus and his regional flood comments going back millennia and George McCready Price and his global flood geology formulated in the early 20^th century, the choice is easy for any reasonable preterist. The time has come to move beyond Creation Science.

Preterism refutes a global flood and therefore discredits the entire Creation Science movement. It negates Creation Science ideology by textual and theological analysis of the biblical language. Historical investigation reveals its ignoble background in hyper-futurism. A large factor in the future success or demise of the Creation Science movement will be the growth of preterism. Wide acceptance of preterism among American Christians will inevitably prove fatal to the Creation Science paradigm. The popularity of Creation Science in the 20^th century will likely guarantee its grave will be marked for future generations as one more example of counter-productive cul-de-sac thinking related to dispensationalism.

Conclusion

This brief review of Timothy P. Martin’s book is intended to whet the appetite of Christians, especially preterists, to take a closer look at what many, including this reviewer, believed was the only acceptable interpretation of the early chapters of the Book of Genesis. Compare the language of Genesis with the language of the Olivet Discourse, 2 Peter 3 and the Book of Revelation, and then strive for a more consistent, and thereby, a more accurate understanding of those early historical accounts. And be sure to keep in mind that it is always wise to constantly be taking a closer look at those time-honored conclusions of traditional Christianity, since a true and biblical understanding has nothing to fear from honest exegetical investigation!

THE END

How Does the Regional Flood Impact the Origins Debate?

By Walt Hibbard

_________________________

As we have already seen from the material in Timothy P. Martin’s book reviewed above, the hyper-literal interpretation of the biblical Flood is untenable. And if so, what can we say about the implications as they relate to the first two chapters of Genesis? I wish to quote Mr. Martin’s book further, this time on pg. 66-67:

The Creation Science movement was a result of sincere Christians desiring to defend the credibility of the Bible in the face of modern skepticism and unbelief. That motive is one that should be evident in all Christians who name Jesus Christ as Lord of all and wish to see the Kingdom of God expand in our day. The problem in this case is not the sincerity or spiritual goals of those within the movement. Nor is the problem their dedication to the cause. The problem is that the movement has backfired on its proponents.

Reading the Bible according to the methods of Creation Science ideology will convince those who read the Bible carefully of the fallibility of the Bible. It leads logical people to unbelief and ultimately to atheism.

Just a few pages ahead, on pg. 72, he writes:

At this time, I do not believe it is possible to replace Creation Science ideology with any particular old-earth creationist view in some simplistic, cut and paste process. What I would like to offer the thoughtful reader is an introduction on how to pursue the mammoth origins issue in light of the paradigm shift to preterism.

Then on pg. 111 of his book, and with support from the 19^th century interpretative genius, Milton S. Terry, and his book, “Biblical Apocalyptics,” Mr. Martin offers the following:

The key Milton Terry offers in his work on apocalyptics is that our textual understanding of Revelation and Genesis are mutually dependent and related to each other … And this is where I believe preterism has so much to offer to the biblical origins debate. If preterism represents an advance in biblical understanding of Christian eschatology, particularly the apocalyptic genre of Scripture, then that advance will have tremendous implications in our understanding of Genesis. Put simply, as we understand the covenantal redemptive focus and Hebraic nature of biblical prophecy better, we will naturally acquire the theological tools to better understand the creation account in Genesis. The key to unraveling the origins debate in the modern church is eschatology …Just as biblical prophecy communicates through the big picture of Hebraic apocalyptic poetry, so the creation account in Genesis follows the same form and structure. (Emphasis his)

Quoting Milton Terry from pg.43 of his book, we read:

But if these opening chapters of the Bible are a revelation of God’s creative relation to the world, may they not be apocalyptical in character? Is it not fitting that the canon of Scripture should open as well as close with an apocalypse?

Then on pg. 113, Mr. Martin makes this interesting comparison:

Let us begin our textual comparison with the seven-fold pattern of the creation days. This pattern is repeated seemingly endlessly through the book of Revelation. All the apocalyptic events in Revelation are categorized in this same seven-fold structure and what’s more, they mirror the creation order.

Following this theme, we read on pg. 117 of Mr. Martin’s book:

Another evidence of the apocalyptic nature of the creation account is its prominent use of repetition and recapitulation. Many have pointed out the repeated examples of repetition and recapitulation in John’s Apocalypse. In fact, it is common in all biblical apocalyptic. The book of Revelation constantly repeats events of great covenantal significance and with each repetition enlarges on the redemptive historical work of Jesus Christ.

Lest the reader fears that reading the book of Genesis from this viewpoint will remove the element of real history from the biblical account, Mr. Martin writes on pg. 122:

The concern that this relegates the Genesis record to anti-historical myth is unfounded for another important reason. There is a common misconception fostered by literalists regarding the nature of apocalyptic language. Literalists often complain that all non-literal methods rule out historical events. But the fact that a text is apocalyptic in nature does not in anyway prohibit historical events to underlie it.

Drawing to the conclusion of his book, we read Mr. Martin’s words concerning the purpose of the creation account as understood from an analytical and textual

perspective, on pg. 122-125:

The creation of the universe is obviously a historical event, as is the creation of Adam and Eve. They are real, historical humans who were created innocent, yet they sinned and broke the covenant relationship between God and man. While this is perfectly compatible with apocalyptic, it is equally clear that a plain, historical record is simply not the purpose of the creation account. That it all happened according to the wisdom and benevolence of God is the point. How it all happened in scientific detail and physical phenomena is not in the priority of apocalyptic communication … Put simply, the apocalypse of creation is about worship and covenant relationship, not science. Understood this way, it is just as relevant to God’s people today as it was in Moses’ day as Israel was leaving Egypt with all its pantheistic idolatry of the creation … We are so used to reading Genesis in terms of the intramural origins debate among Christians or the creation-evolution debate that we have totally missed the reality that the apocalypse of creation is a powerful unveiling of the meaning, essence and goal of covenant life between God and man … Christians desperately need to change their focus from the supposed scientific implications of creation and instead feed off the apocalyptic vision of creation which demands covenant faithfulness in all aspects of life and dimension of God’s world.

And there we find the challenge to our erstwhile literal interpretation of Genesis. Tim Martin has done an immeasurable service to the Christian community by offering this book for study and consideration. It is the hope of this reviewer that none of us will shrink from our responsibilities as Christians to test these teachings in the light of the preterist-biblical hermeneutic. And then perhaps we can come up with a fuller and more accurate view of God’s plan for His people as recorded in His Word, both in the beginning as set forth in Genesis, as well as in the book of Revelation. Both are inspired revelations of His old and new creational work that only apocalyptic language could ever adequately give expression and meaning to.

....

Taken from: http://www.preteristviewpoint.com/id61.html

Jesus Did Not Make False Prophecies

The account of Jesus being wrong about his prophecies was actually misinterpreted to mean what it literally meant but he actually meant the Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. By the Romans.

by HFHS

Jesus and the end times by Dr. Brant Pitre

In the Bible Jesus says:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days… they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heavenwith power and great glory… Amen I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.(Matthew 24:30, 34)

Many believed Jesus to be wrong in saying that and because of that they thought that Jesus in the words of Albert Schweitzer “A false Apocalyptic prophet”. Also C.S. Lewis believed it to be “the most embarrassing verse in the Bible”. They believed this because of the way David describe a false prophet (see Deut 18:19-22)

Earlier Jesus says to the disciples after they point out the temple,

“You see all these, do you not? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone uponanother, that will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying,“Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” (Matthew 24:1-3) The account of Jesus being wrong about his prophecies was actually misinterpreted to mean what it literally meant but he actually meant the Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. By the Romans.

....

Taken from: http://blog.euphemos.com/2012/04/25/jesus-and-the-end-times-by-dr-brant-pitre/

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Other Recommended Titles:

Contraception: Cracking the Myths

The Healing Power of Confession

The Lamb's Supper

Discovering the Biblical Significance of Mary

How to Get the Most Out of Mass

Seven Deadly Sins - Seven Lively Virtues

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist

Abraham Revealing the Historical Roots of our Faith

The Virgin Mary Revealed Through Scripture

Becoming The-Best-Version-of-Yourself

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Eucharist: The Marriage Supper of the Lamb

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The account of Jesus being wrong about his prophecies was actually misinterpreted to mean what it literally meant but he actually meant the Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. By the Romans.

by HFHS