The Bible in a Year Podcast

[PaxCordisJesu]

"This reading plan follows The Bible Timeline® Learning System developed by Jeff Cavins. It identifies the 14 narrative books that tell the 'big picture' story of salvation history. Once you understand these 14 central books, everything else in the Bible will fall into context."
"Fr. Mike will be following this Bible Timeline progression throughout the year, so you’ll get to see how all 73 books of the Bible fit into this one central narrative thread!"

Who's doing this with me?!! I'm so excited for this to start! I took a class on Scripture last year, loved it and learned a lot; but I have yet to really delve into the Bible and read it in its entirety. Time for Catholics to take back the Bible! 
 

[Seven77]

I'm doing this… I love that he actually reads the text as well. And of course,   his insights are on point. I also took a class on Scripture recently and I continue to read and ponder as much as possible, so I just had to participate in this.

 it would be great to discuss your thoughts here… 

 

[PaxCordisJesu]

@Seven77, I'm glad to hear that you're doing this as well! I too love that he reads the text out loud, though I like to follow with my Bible instead of just listening. Fr. Mike is a very good reader and he really makes the Bible sound like a story instead of a boring, ancient text! As a bonus, I don't have to worry about mispronouncing the hundreds (or is it thousands?) of unpronounceable words and names!

I don't know if there's enough people on here that are doing the podcast to turn this thread into a discussion, but it would be great if we could! Since I'm already here, I'll try and start by sharing my absolute favorite thing I've learned so far: God wants us to die! This may sound a little crazy, but when I learned this I got so excited over the fact that God loves us so much that He even wants us to die! Fr. Mike explained so well the reason God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life: if they had, they would have lived forever in suffering, sin, and brokenness. Instead, God wanted Adam and Eve to die so that He could raise them up again and restore to them everything they had lost through the Fall. When I realized this, it totally changed my perspective on death! 

[Anastasia13]

Is there a website for the podcast?

[PaxCordisJesu]

@Anastasia13, if you go to http://media.ascensionpress.com and scroll down to the Ascension Podcasts, it'll be there under the name The Bible in a Year. You can listen from there or listen on a podcast app. Also, Ascension Presents has the reading plan that can be downloaded if you sign up for the email list. 

[Seven77]

On 1/8/2021 at 10:42 PM, PaxCordisJesu said:

@Seven77, I'm glad to hear that you're doing this as well! I too love that he reads the text out loud, though I like to follow with my Bible instead of just listening. Fr. Mike is a very good reader and he really makes the Bible sound like a story instead of a boring, ancient text! As a bonus, I don't have to worry about mispronouncing the hundreds (or is it thousands?) of unpronounceable words and names!

I don't know if there's enough people on here that are doing the podcast to turn this thread into a discussion, but it would be great if we could! Since I'm already here, I'll try and start by sharing my absolute favorite thing I've learned so far: God wants us to die! This may sound a little crazy, but when I learned this I got so excited over the fact that God loves us so much that He even wants us to die! Fr. Mike explained so well the reason God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life: if they had, they would have lived forever in suffering, sin, and brokenness. Instead, God wanted Adam and Eve to die so that He could raise them up again and restore to them everything they had lost through the Fall. When I realized this, it totally changed my perspective on death! 

 

That's pretty interesting. If I may, I would like to offer a little tweak on what you said. God is not the author of death and did not originally intend for us to die. Satan insinuated that by committing the sin that led to the Fall, Adam would not die – – but in truth, Adam died immediately because sin is spiritual death. God did not want us to die – – the consequence of sin is death, physical and spiritual. There is also the sense that if Adam chose to obey God, which he obviously should have done, he might risk attack from Satan and physically die – – but that were to happen, God would raise him up. Now, after the fact, God has transformed death, ultimately in the Cross and Resurrection, taking the sting out of it and making it into a doorway to eternal life. It's in this sense that you say God wants us to die [because it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.]

It was always God's plan to have man live forever and partake in his own Life, with supernaturalized bodies with the properties of resurrected bodies (even without having to die first).

All in all, I think it's better to say God wants us to live – – and he wants us to live in abundance, fully, able to be Divinized. Ultimately, God wants us to live forever, with him and according to his will. That's why he blocked off access to the tree of life, which, it seems to me, he was planning to eventually have Adam and Eve partake of (note that he never forbade it). If they ate of the tree of life after the fall, they wouldn't really “live" at all… Imagine living with suffering and death forever and ever, with no resurrection to life. Actually that's kind of hellish – – the unfortunate fate of souls in hell is that they will experience a resurrection unto death—- sealed in brokenness and misery.

In his mercy, God gives us grace upon grace even to the extent that he gives us more than Adam could have even imagined, in and through the Fall – – elevating us and then some, surpassing what he could have hoped for. We wouldn't have had Christ Crucified and Risen, to love. that's why St. Augustine could say, "oh happy fault that gave us such a Redeemer!"

I want to say more about  today's  Scriptures but this post is already too  long…  So I'll leave it here for now but I will definitely try to come back with it ASAP!  I hope we can continue with the discussion here. 

[PaxCordisJesu]

Thank you for your post! You understood exactly what I meant. I hope we can continue this discussion too!

[Seven77]

 Here my thoughts from Day 19, I'm looking forward to hearing other thoughts… 

A few things that jump out at me:

Genesis 37

– Joseph is a little bit of a snitch, as we read that "brought an ill
report of them to their father," which seems to be something that he is
accustomed to doing. Resentment builds in the hearts of the brothers,
when on top of this, Jacob their father gives Joseph the gift of the
robe. Clearly, it seems that he loves him more than all the sons.

– Joseph needs to stop talking about his dreams that surely will provoke his brothers to jealousy.

– Jacob should know what's going on – – he should pay attention to the relationship of his children to each other. He should know that hatred is building and is coming to the breaking point. Why send Joseph all by himself to check up on his brothers? What if they try something? Doesn't he remember Cain and Abel?

Speaking of Cain and Abel, there's something similar yet different in the story of Joseph: Cain and Joseph's brothers don't trust in their father's love for them. In the case of the former, that's not at all true at all – – God is not playing favorites here (he's looking at the heart). However, in the case of Joseph and his brothers, there is some injustice going on here – – Jacob is exhibiting love for his son Joseph, but not so much for his other sons. They are right to be upset, and their feelings of resentment are understandable as Father Mike pointed out. However, their resentment has mutated into hatred, so much so that the very sight of Joseph makes them want to kill him. I think that Jacob could have done his part to mitigate this.

On another note, they should cut him some slack – – after all, he did lose his mother when he was very young.

– Interestingly, the brothers say "we shall see what will become of his dreams," when plotting Joseph's murder. Because of their actions, his dreams do come true! What irony. And they do see his dreams come true.

Job 28 – 29

Job recognizes that ultimately the wicked will not prosper. He has been maintaining his innocence and is now saying in effect, why would I choose wickedness when I know the fate of wicked?

In chapter 28, Job continues by saying that wisdom and understanding are with God (and therefore the answers lie with him). Finally, he combines his thoughts from both of the chapters we read by pointing out God's words addressed to man, "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding." And on that note, we pray that our new president and we all may heed these words and act upon them.

[PaxCordisJesu]

I'm caught up! Yes!

Just a few points I'd like to make. In Leviticus, there's a phrase that keeps coming up concerning the sacrifices: "the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven." This really clarified a major role of priests to me. The 4 ends of the Mass are adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and reparation. The priest plays a specific role of atoning for sin, and he does so by offering the Mass.

[PaxCordisJesu]

Sorry, had to stop in the middle of my post to do something else. 

This role of atonement made me understand that priests who are contemplative religious still serve a purpose. I used to think "What's the point of being a contemplative priest? If you don't have a parish, then you're not administering the sacraments ( except for communion and occasionally confession) so why bother becoming a priest?" What I didn't realize is that contemplative priests still do serve the Church (though not in such an obvious way as diocesan priests) by offering the Mass.

My second thought concerns this passage concerning, again, the sacrifices: "all who are clean may eat flesh, but the person who eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the Lord's peace offerings while an uncleanness is on him, that person shall be cut off from his people."

I learned in a theology class once that the Eucharist is a peace offering. Thus, those in a state of uncleanness (mortal sin) may not receive the Eucharist. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by PaxCordisJesu

[PaxCordisJesu]

In today's reading from Leviticus, I noticed a common theme concerning diseases. The person who had the white spot, burn, itch, etc. would go to the priest for an examination. The priest would determine if the person had leprosy or not, and would then pronounce the person to be clean or unclean. I read somewhere that in the Old Testament leprosy was a figure (prototype, symbol? Word fail!) of sin, and thus the lepers going to the priest is like Catholics going to Confession. This brings to mind several thoughts: just like a person in the Old Testament would go to the priest to determine if they had leprosy, so we can go to a priest if we have doubts as to whether or not something we have done is a sin. And secondly, it is the priest's duty to pronounce cleanness or not. Now someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a priest is incapable of absolving a person from their sins if that person doesn't have at least imperfect contrition? If this is the case, then priests can actually determine if a person can be absolved from their sins or not (just like the Old Testament priests could determine if a person was clean or unclean).

P.S. I'm not saying that a priest should refuse absolution to someone, and I'm not sure it's allowed. Unless a priest cross-examines the person in the confessional, he couldn't know if someone is penitent or not. I've been taught that priests aren't allowed to question people in the confessional, just offer advice and ask for clarification. Is this correct?

Edited February 7, 2021 by PaxCordisJesu

[SicutColumba]

2 minutes ago, PaxCordisJesu said:

Now someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a priest is incapable of absolving a person from their sins if that person doesn't have at least imperfect contrition?

You’re right. The priest cannot give absolution to a person who is not contrite and willing to make up for their sins. I’m not really sure that how a priest would cross-examine a penitent, but the priest, like you said, can ask for clarification, can ask how many times a sin was committed, under what circumstances (ie if it was commuted under duress or absentmindedly). The priest has to know whether the penitent is a. telling the whole truth and b. sorry for their sins. By telling the whole truth I mean not concealing any grave sins or circumstances, or being too vague. For example, if you confess that you were disrespectful towards your elderly neighbor when in reality you punched them in anger and sent them to the hospital, you conceal a pretty grave sin and the priest there would have the right to ask you to clarify what you mean by « disrespect ». If instead he accepted your account and then gave you absolution, you’ve arguably committed sacrilege and would need to confess both attacking your neighbor and concealing a sin. 
 

Basically the priest can ask you questions if your statements are too vague or if they require more information (confessing, for instance, « I had sex » can mean a lot of different things in a lot of different circumstances), if he believes you have the intention to commit the same sin again or not to do your penance. He can refuse absolution if you are not contrite (at least to the point of not wanting to go to hell for what you’ve done), or if the sin is so grave that a bishop is required to lift a laetae sententiae excommunication that you’ve incurred. I don’t know if that’s at all clear or answering your question. 

Another reason to refuse absolution would be if you stole a bunch of money and confess the theft without the intention to return it, stuff like that. There are a lot of scenarios in which a person could (and should) be denied absolution. 

[Ice_nine]

I am still behind. I just finished Genesis and Job.

I was almost scandalized at how crooked and screwed up God's chosen ones were. I then held a mirror to my life and understood that I probably shouldn't be passing any judgement!