The evangelical passages are taken from - The Holy Bible KJV, version of King James I in 1611

Preview of the book "The gospel beyond the words"

An example of psychological analysis of the text applied to the writings of the evangelists. Wedding at Cana - The Importance of Forgiveness Author: Valentina Sciubba We express in our writings some meanings that go beyond the meaning deducible from the vocabulary, syntax and the cultural environment. In fact, the same news will be displayed in different ways by ten journalists. There is therefore a personal imprint in what you write from which are derivable information "other" on content emotional and subconscious of the author, A sort of "Non-verbal language of the Text" that, as the non-verbal language of spoken language (posture, mimicry etc. ). reveals depth of content which may not coincide with the explicit information. The opera "The gospel beyond the words" is an example of psychological analysis of a text on some passages of the evangelists. It is reported in the preview pages on Wedding at Cana and Forgiveness It is possible to buy the book on the site of the publisher Youcanprint or libraries or download it from Scribd or from the site www.valentinasciubba.it The author apologize for the non professional translation of the text from Italian to English.

Canas wedding

Jn. 2, 1-11
..... If life and the figure of Mary are therefore closely and indissolubly linked to the Son, and are still a mystery for various aspects, there is an episode in the Gospel that, if possible, increases even more the importance of this woman and the mystery that surrounds: the episode of the wedding at Cana. Pope John Paul II must having grasped the absolute relevance if it has inserted in the recitation of the Rosary among the mysteries of light. It's worth it restore the piece for whole (Jn. 2,1-11) from the Gospel of John, the disciple inter alia, who became the son acquired of Mary at the foot of the cross.
2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do [it].

2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 2:8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare [it]. 2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now. 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

In this passage they are central the dialogue between Jesus and Maria and the following behavior of Mary. In to turn to Jesus, Maria informs that unexpectedly a problem risks to ruin the marriage: the wine for the table companion is finished; she so implicitly solicits her Child, if he is able, to make something to resolve this problem. The answer of Jesus is detached and almost glacial. Indeed he doesn't call Maria "mother", but "woman", term that refer above all to the footstep of the Genesis 3,15-20, whereas God, turning to the snake, it predicts: "I will set enmity between you and the Donna, between your stock and her stock". Jesus so recognizes the role of Maria for the salvation, but at the same time as a child by now grown, he seems to vindicate his autonomy in choices, in times and ways of his actions. The following sentence "it has not come my time yet" it is probably esplicitabile as "it has not arrived to me some sign for which I must begin to manifest more openly me to the men". The behavioral and verbal answer of Maria it is something extraordinary. What her Child had told her it would just have frozen probably and braked whoever, not her who instead seems not leastly grazed of it. Besides she, ordering to the servants to complete what her Child would have said, shows an unbelievable safety on what would be happened; it is as she is absolutely sure that Jesus would have acted for the good, that would have helped the bridegrooms. Perhaps the most important aspect of the response of Mary is its meaning in reference to the affirmation of Jesus: "My hour has not yet come". With his behavior Maria indirectly tells the son that his time has come, now is the time he begins his mission and manifests itself in the world. It is Mary who pushes his Son into the world and, in doing so, she assumes a role in the family that is usually played by the father. Psychological theories and clinical practice show that usually or more frequently, the mother is the figure that more tends to keep within the family the children, sometimes hampering the physiological "detachment" toward autonomy, economic independence and the adult socio-affective life; the father on the contrary, is usually more ready to encourage and promote the path of the son toward autonomy. The work of Mary also appears that "sign" that Jesus was waiting, a sign for which he would understand that the time of his manifestation was ripe. This also reminds me the

enormous importance that at times the consent of parents regarding the important choices of the children has in their path to independence. It happens not infrequently that this path blocks, with inevitable disastrous consequences, precisely because of the huge desire/need on the part of the son of this consensus denied. This can happen for example if the bond is too narrow and one of the two protagonists abnormally employee affectively on the other. It dont seem the case of Mary and Jesus, considered the "hardness" of the response of the latter to his mother, what denotes a discreet and more than just "distance affective". Jesus on the other hand had presumably left his family : had dwelt forty days in the desert, had called the first disciples and probably lived together with them. In any case, Jesus practically "obeys" to the call of the mother to act, and he is ready to seize the moment, the impulse, the sign of the times. Who was this woman so powerful to know what was to happen and decide on the actual start of the mission of the son in the world? How great her power and her knowledge of the plans of God? For God's plan of salvation were essential a man and a woman, Mary does not appear to be only a tool for the birth of Christ, but a woman with decision-making power and active promoter of the mission of the latter.

The Good of Forgiveness Mc. 11,20-25

11:20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 11:21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]. 11:25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

This small piece has an antecedent in the verses of Matthew 11.11 -14. They tell us that Jesus, in order to go to Jerusalem in the vicinity of the Easter that would have marked his passion, looked for some fruit in a tree of figs, although not the season to find them. When he did not find them sended to the tree a sort of curse telling it: "Nobody can never eat

your fruit". The behavior of Jesus it seems incomprehensible: had tried in fact that it was practically impossible to find and had sent a curse that his disciples had heard. A possible explanation for this behavior is that a nature that is not in the service of God (and the fig tree had not offered fruits to the Son of God), does not deserve to live. Is the fact that the day after the fig tree was completely dried and the disciples marveled at such a miracle, so it was a miracle "negative"; never they had probably seen their Teacher to do acts or miracles that were "negative". Peter, the most audacious or the more extroverted expresses their astonishment. In its reply Jesus in verses 22-24 reiterates the omnipotence of God: everything is possible with God and his beloved Son and not only that; whatever men would ask, provided that it is right and good, will be granted. As if to believe in a future of good and asking will lead to its realization. Indeed, God cannot be against the Good and therefore He will grant. The Good is essential in these convictions/requests of men as confirmed by the subsequent verse 25. In fact, it invites us to be in harmony with the Father and therefore to be good, to desire for the good in all its forms and to do no wrong even in thought, even with sentiment. Jesus invites us to eliminate every thought bad "against" someone, any resentment and to be "Good" ourselves; then the Father will give his grace and power. The term "resentment" comes from the latin "rancorem" i.e. "rancid" and then refer to something gone bad, deteriorated, inedible. A negative feeling that, for its nature, with every probability harms who tests more of the subject against which is directed. In addition to the lack of peace and serenity in fact, it must be borne in mind that it is illusory to believe that we shall be able to separate completely the thoughts of the works: we have a whole and if we have something "against" someone is very likely or certain that, at the first opportunity, we will translate, perhaps inadvertently and unconsciously, the sentiment in negative action with all the disastrous consequences for us and the other to do evil to the neighbour; In fact the evil done to neighbour inevitably also damages the social environment surrounding and therefore, often first and foremost, the author of initial damage, with a series of negative repercussions.. There is a risk of triggering a downward spiral that would seem opposite to that described by logical Elster and of which we have spoken about the "healthy selfishness" (v. passage Mt 20.1 -16).

The Forgiveness Lc. 17,1-4

17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come! 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

This small piece appears dense with meanings that revolve around the presence of evil and/or of sin in the world. At the beginning Jesus seems to say that it is impossible to separate the good from evil in this world and therefore eliminate the evil or avoid it; it is a disaster for those who practice it favouring its diffusion in society. In verse 3 Jesus urged not to err ( "take heed to yourselves") and subsequently indicates, however, the remedy for the inevitable errors: a remedy interactive of repentance and forgiveness. The repair of the error (sin) appears as the restoration of the lost unity, clearly a harmony, unity of purpose or love, as you want to call them, between those who have done wrong and who was the victim of the error. In fact the first command that Jesus gives in case anyone commit a fault, it is not that of tolerance, but to rebuke him (vers.3 ). This means that anyone who has suffered damage has the first duty to communicate to other the entity and the quality of the error (many times not noticed, it could add) and the aim of this action is not only clearly to inform, but to do so with a view to the restoration of the unity, a relationship interrupted. If the other is eager to re-establish this unity and, through repentance, test displeasure for the damage done and the desire to repair the latter, then the victim of the error must agree to re-establish the unity. And this is true even if the damage is considerable (seven times a day); if the other is sorry for what he has committed, wants to repair and rebuild the unit, then we have to try and accept to restore it. The combination of this passage and the previous on Forgiveness shows that gospel forgiveness must also be "of heart", as it is said elsewhere (Mt, 21-35 " ... if you do not forgive of heart ... ). In fact only a forgiveness of this nature will serve to reconstitute a unit, a harmony. The gospel therefore goes beyond a criterion utilitarian and selfish of forgiveness which I explained in the final part of the earlier comment. We can also ask ourselves why Jesus was able to pray to the Father for his own torturers and therefore not keep resentment even on that occasion extreme. Probably because he had never wrong or, said in another way, commit a sin. If we have nothing to reproach ourselves then everything slips more easily and probably we do not hate. This should make us reflect on how in the states of rancor we project on the other part of our responsibilities in the wrong received, as we fail to recognize our mistakes and probably forgive them to ourselves. Then a prerequisite to forgive wuold be to accept responsibility for our mistakes and probably forgive them; we will never know with certainty whether others have wrong with the awareness of mistakes or less, while we know our conscience. According to this conception, in the hatred we attach to others also that part of responsibility for the error that falls to us; in the forgiveness, recognizing and forgivening to ourselves, we are able to forgive the possible (is not fully knowable the conscience of others) errors of others".