Study of Native American Cultures and Beliefs and Being a Christian

I've been reading "The White Man's Gospel" by an Anashinabe (aka
Chippewa, Ojibwa, or Ojibwe) Christian minister.
When making the case that Christianity is really not "The White Man's gospel" or "The White Mans's religion" he points out the comparisons between the Isrealites/Jews and Native Americans. He said Jews were divided into twelve tribes, and when Jesus walked the earth as a man, he was a Jew and lived in the Jews native land, a place that was occupied by a conquering external power. They lived with Rome's laws and some of their own laws, and were surrounded by a mix of Rome's religion and their own... he made some other observations of life in 2nd Temple period Israel. It's very much like what Native Americans deal with today. They feel the same pain and much the same way about the situation though (I personally note that there were Zealots and Herodians, and in betweens, in Jesus' time. Different Jewish people had different ways of dealing with the situation, and they didn't necessarily agree or get along about it, and there was internal political struggles of sorts, and that's the way reservations are, especially Pine Ridge as I understand it....) He gets people to connect Christianity with its Jewish roots, and to relate the ways of the Jews with their own traditional ways where applicable and it is a way that breaks down some of the hostility and barriers.
He also notes something that I myself have noticed:
Salvation came through the Jews, but as far as the giving of the law and basic morals and rules to live by, as well as practices that instill and support those things, MANY - and perhaps even most or all, idk yet - tribes do indeed have a lot in common with ancient Jews. I've been noticing that myself and it is good to hear another Christian confirm that so I know it isn't my imagination or the enemy trying to deceive me...
He says he has been to many tribes and spoken with many medicine men about the Bible, especially the OT. A great many have said, after hearing about or studying the OT, that if somebody put down the history of their core beliefs down, and their stories of how it has developed and was given to them, it would be very much like the OT.
Israel even sometimes got deceived into mixing demonic and animistic practices with the worship of God, as the Bible records in some of the major and minor prophets, and it upset God greatly - as I'm sure the Cherokee and Lakotah and etc do when they do this as well. I think that is pretty much what has happened in many Indian religions, and it seems that this brother thinks so too.
He notices as I do, underneath the animistic and demonic practices (Satan can't create anything, he can only mess up what is), the commands and workings of God that were originally probably given to them by God, who they call "The great spirit" or something close to that. They do not, however, have the indwelling of the Holy spirit or claim to, nor do they profess the same kind of connection to "Ya" that we do. As far as I know, Judaism doesn't profess the same degree of connection and familiarity with God that Christ offers us either, though there might be and I just don't know about it. I have noticed some Lakotah calling Ha Shem the Great-Grandfather, though, but not anything like "Abba."
So when I post or write about the rites and stuff of the Lakotah or any other tribe, that is the stuff I am looking up and trying to bring out. There are things in there that I find helpful and maybe someone else will too. I am aware that there are other forces that are not good that work in these religions, who have brought in a lot of their stuff in that is not worth studying. I do find that if I study hard and dig, I will find stuff like that woven into about everything, sadly. But when people give the gist of it, the core, they primarily talk about the Great Mystery (aka, Ha Shem, I am pretty sure) and the things that they say will primarily be VERY uplifting and good. Its like hearing stuff from the bible explained in a really different way, with nature examples and perhaps hunting/hiking stories involved... If you try and go too deep though, you will hear about the other spirits who are not the Great Mystery, they are totally separate but are equally revered, and all the crap that they have added and continue to add (Mostly in the form of rules and complicated steps that people have to take, and must do just right in order to be right. Sounds familiar, huh? Its the devil) All of that stuff is useless, and does not have the same kind of beauty, or the same respect for women that attracted me to it all in the first place.
What got me into this stuff in the first place is, I was trying to find out what life was like for men in non-patriarchal societies. I just wanted to know. I ended up finding all this other great stuff and wound up extremely passionate about Native American issues and my own native heritage. It's been a journey, and I pray all the time that I will not get sucked into anything awful.
I hope that through sharing some bits of the discoveries along the road I can help somebody else. I keep putting scriptures with it, and if I can't find any scriptures that fit it without serious editing, it is a nice big, red flag for me. Thanks for any prayers going up about it.

Godspeed
~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - The Bible: Things I Wonder About The Book of Sirach

Jesus son of Eleazar son of Sirach, or Yeshua ben El-azar ben Sira in his mother tongue, was a great scholar and Rabbi, and the author of the "Ecclesiasticus" or the book of Sirach. He wrote and taught in Jerusalem prior to 180 B.C. The Septaguint used a Greek translation, written by ben Sira's grandson, of  writings. The grandson wrote an introduction to the Greek rendering. The intro by ben Sira's grandson states that "You are invited to read with good will and attention. and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language."  The Hebrew text was totally lost to the Western world from about 400 to 1900 A.D. We have about two-thirds of the Hebrew text now, recovered from various places around the Middle East. All this I learned in an additional intro to the book by the scholars who wrote commentary in this particular annotated Bible. They also stated that the Jews never, ever considered this particular book to be canonical. Very powerful and valuable, yes. Authoritative scripture? No, never. The early Christians did, though, so depending on how much weight you give to which of those...

The intro to the book of Sirach in my New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV with Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books, says that reading from start to finish is not the best way to approach Sirach. They recommend reading chapters 1 and 24 first, and then the hymn of praise to Isreal's ancestors in 44:1-49:16. The Oxford commentators said Sirach is divided into three major blocks of teaching: chapters 1 - 23, chapters 24:1 - 42:14, and chapters 42:15 - 50:24. This is such a long book, I am going to write a synopsis of at least those three parts rather than doing the whole thing in one shot. This piece is not a synopsis, but a reflection on chapters 1 and 23.

The grandson who did the translating was a teacher and scholar himself. He translated the book while living in Egypt because he felt it would be extremely helpful for "Those living abroad who wish to gain learning and are disposed to live according to the Law." He said that not only his grandfather's book, "but even the Law and the Prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original." I am, like most Westerners from well before Luther's time to the present, reading a translation of a translation because that is what we have to work with. Nevertheless, here goes:

Sirach 1:1 "All wisdom is from the Lord, and with Him it remains forever." This was very striking to me. I was thinking about how Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8 occurs in chapters 1 and 23 in Sirach.

One of the most powerful teachings on Lady Wisdom (Proverbs 8 and 9:1-6) I ever heard explained that she was a type of Christ and/or the Holy Spirit.
Excerpts from Proverbs 8 "Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom. I am understanding, I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me... The Lord possessed me, in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there was no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth. While as yet He has not made the earth, nor the hills, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He set a compass on the face of the depth, when He established the clouds above,when he strengthened the fountains of the deep. When he gave to the sea His decree that the waters should not pass His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the Earth, then I was by Him as one brought up with Him, and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him, rejoicing in the habitable part of His earth, and my delights were with the sons of men... Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors, for whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favor of the Lord. All they that hate me love death."
In chapter 9, it continues, "Wisdom hath builded her house... She hath killed her beasts, she hath mingled her wine, she hath also furnished her table. She hath sent forth her maidens; she crieth upon
the highest places of the city, '... come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled. Forsake the foolish and live, and go in the way of understanding." Sure sounds like Jesus to me.

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 1:30 says that Christ became wisdom from God to us, and in context from v. 20 to 31, especially v. 26, it is mentioning God revealing His wisdom to/through those who lacked it, calling those who were simple and lacked understanding, though it puts it differently. Paul's new testament revelation on the wisdom of God speaks a lot more about of why God chose to call the foolish and simple of the world. Nevertheless, Christ is the Word, who was in the beginning with God (John 1), who was before all things and by whom all things were made (Col. 1:17). Jesus calls us who are unworthy and clueless to the banquet He prepares for us, and the one who is building the spiritual house referred to in Hebrews 3. I do believe Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a type of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit.

Excerpts from Sirach 24 seem to go along with this: " In the presence of the Most High she opens her mouth, and in the presence of his hosts she tells her story, 'I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist. I dwelt in the highest heavens, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. Alone I compassed the vault of heaven and traversed the depths of the abyss, over the waves of the sea, over all the earth, and over every people and nation I have held sway..." Yep, sounds like YHVH, like the Spirit of God and Jesus.

The problems I run into here are with translations. I wish the deuterocananical books had not been tossed out before Dr. Strong wrote his concordance. I cannot check when I see a statement in English in both books to see if the original text uses the same word or was even talking about the same thing. I really wish I could look up the word used in the original text when studying the disputed books, especially this one. The NRSV version of Proverbs 8:22 says "The lord created me in the beginning..." where the KJV I am used to says "The Lord possessed me..." I looked this word up the in the Strong's:
QANAH {kaw-naw'} Strong's Hebrew #07069 Definitions: a primitive root; to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own:--attain, buy(-er), teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy, possess(-or), purchase, recover, redeem, X surely, X verily.
The stuff that comes after "--" in the Strong's expositions on these words are ways this word has been translated in the (Protestant) Bible.

A word that comes from "QANAH" seems, to me, like it might illustrate what was brought to mind for those who spoke and wrote QANAH in Hebrew:
QANEH {kaw-neh'} Strong's Hebrew #07070 
Definitions: from Strong's HEBREW #7069; a reed (as erect); by resemblance a rod (especially for measuring), shaft, tube, stem, the radius (of the arm), beam (of a steelyard):--balance, bone, branch, calamus, cane, reed, X spearman, stalk.

I see this and think of where Jesus was referred to in prophecy as a branch and as a root. He is also symbolized by water, "The water of the word" and when he says he gives us water where we will never thirst again, the Water he gives us is Himself.


I am not yet certain if the deuterocanonical books are inspired and hold the same weight as the books I grew up with, but I will go ahead and read them prayerfully. My problem with Sirach, from the other parts I have read, is that he was (from what we can tell by the translations anyway) a total misogynist, but I will address that when the relevant passages actually come up. I have struggled long and hard with issues of misogyny in church and in the Bible, and if Sirach is to be taken as authoritative, then I may have to start all over.
If anyone has any thoughts on any of this, please feel free to comment below. Also if any questions come up for clarification of anything I have stated,please feel free to let me know.
Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - The Wisdom of Solomon

The Wisdom of Solomon is another book from the Catholic and Orthodox and Coptic Bible I have never been exposed to before. I just finished reading it.
It is a little like Proverbs or Ecclesiastes, and a little like Psalms also.
It starts out discussing the benefits of fearing God and doing right versus being terrible.
Parts of it seem very prophetic. It talks about how people who love and follow God will never really die. They go to peace when they die, death holds no terror for them, but it is a loss to die on bad terms with God. I think the Jews just believed the dead all went to Sheol. I am pretty sure that this concept about righteous souls going to peace and the evil people having a different afterlife was an unusual thing to say in Judaism - and that may be why the Tanakh does not include it. It goes very well with Christianity though. In this book's case, I strongly doubt that the Hebrew Bible not having it is a good reason to throw it out...
It has some things to say about idolatry, similar to what Isaiah had to say. It points out how stupid it is to ask for life from something that is dead, and to ask for strength from something that has no strength, and for guidance from something that can go nowhere - namely, an idol.
The last several chapters discuss God's works when getting the Israelites out of Egypt and into the promised land. This section is addressed to God, and reads like a worship song - a very long one! It mentions the serpent that people looked upon when bitten by snakes, and God would heal them from the snakebites. It says the statue of the snake did not do the healing, but God did the healing.
It does not cover all these things in chronological order, it seems to be like the writers flow of consciousness.

Now, for the controversial parts (for me): It says the offspring of adulterers will not live long, just like it says that adulterers will not. Parts of the Protestant Bible also say negative things about the children of immoral people. A passage in Isaiah calls people coming under judgment "the seed of the adulterer and the whore..." also some sections of the Psalms ask God to bring destruction on enemies, and talks about their kids. There are such things as generational curses, and God even mentioned that when He revealed himself to Moses, when Moses had asked to see God's glory. Therefore, I guess it is not grounds to doubt the inspiration of this book.
Obviously, the punishment going through generations is not God's favorite thing, by any means. That is why Jesus came, to break the curse off the sinner and their generations, and there are indeed curses like that to be broken. So, though I do not like it (clearly God feels the same way), but I think this is indeed sound doctrine, and can be verified by other scripture from several books that no Christian community has ever disputed, and which Jews also revere.

At the end, there is a part that says God can reverse the whole setup of creation, and make birds fly through water and fish swim through air if he should choose. The wording, in English at least, is confusing at that part, but I think he may be saying that this actually happened when the Red Sea was parted. I do not know af any other passage that says this was the case, but I can see it happening. The water might have been standing up pretty high, and birds could have run into it and been guided right through it and back to the air on the other side by God, The fish may well have fallen out of the water and been carried along in the wind to the other side where they were in water again,  as safely as the children of Israel were being taken across the sea bed. Now that I have actually written all that out, it even seems likely. Therefore, I see no particular issue with this. It could also be interpreted as a poetic device, painting an image of the situation with more vivid, though perhaps imagined, detail.
Psalm 18 describes God riding on angels, which I think God is way bigger than and is far too big to ride them. That is a poetic device used in a worship song, as could be this imagery of swimming birds and flying fish in this worshipful poetry.

So with that, I find prophetic statements in here that are not part of the religion that the book was connected to, but are central to Christianity, such as the afterlife, and how friends of God never die, but pass from this life to new peace in a new life. That concept was alien to Jews, but as Christians, this is our Blessed hope. Therefore, I firmly believe this book is inspired, if no other disputed book is. I based my conclusion about the other ones on how I felt and thought about them and on whatever measure of discernment I have;  I admit this is no more infallible than Martin Luther doing the same thing. This book is different though, this one is without a doubt sacred, because there is no other way a Jew in Greece could have said some of what was said in here.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - The Second/Greek Book of Esther

From my Bible. It says, "Esther, The Greek Version Containing the Additional Chapters"

This one is kind of cool to me because I was named for this woman, and this story.
The differences between the book of Esther in the Protestant canon and the Greek translation used for older/other Bible canons are usually not that striking. At the end, the short discourse on the history and translation (into Greek) of either the whole manuscript or just Mordecai's letter about Purim (I can't be sure which, but probably the latter), is very striking if you're used to the other version, but it still does not change the meaning of the story. No synopsis is required here, as a synopsis could read exactly the same as a synopsis of the Protestant Canon's Hebrew book of Esther.

There are segments in the Greek version that are not in the Hebrew version. For example, the Hebrew version says prayers were made, cries were uttered, and etc. but does not say what exactly was said. The Greek version includes some prayers and some detailed descriptions of what people wore, what position they were in, where they were, the words they said, and so forth. It also at least claims to present the actual decrees when Haman's edict against the Jews and Mordecai and Esther's decree for the Jews. In short, it is more detailed. There also appears to be more direct teaching in this version.

One of the additions includes Mordecai's declaration of the feast of Purim, and in this section it also adds "because lots were cast, and that word means 'lot' in their language." That is something the translators added to clarify the subject of the text for Greek Jewish readers. I think it is useful for us because we are also reading a translated version, even if not in Greek. The fact is usually noted in footnotes, but not everyone reads those.

We do not have, as far as I know, the manuscript this was translated from, so we do not know how old it was. The translators either made some little errors, or something else is a bit funny here and there with the manuscript - either the original they translated from, or the Hebrew versions we are using now. The translators may have dropped the word "not" in a couple of places, for example.  None of the differences change the actual the story though, they change details.

The readers of this version would have been living among gentiles, and had to fight hard to keep to their roots and their faith. Much of the Septuagint books that were not added to the Hebrew Tanakh are very concerned with people holding on to their Jewish ways amid social and cultural pressure to adopt gentile ways. Most of the additional sections in this book do apply very much to that kind of situation; there are parts that read a lot like spiritual teaching on that topic. Esther and Mordecai also faced that situation, though. The Jews were targeted, in both versions of the story, because Mordecai the Jew bowed to no one but YHVH, while the king commanded everyone to bow to Haman. Some parts or aspects of the additions also add romance and strong emotional impact to the comparatively detached and dry (when read in English at least) Hebrew version. The Greeks likely would have valued the increased emotional elements. Perhaps Greek-speaking Jews would too, though perhaps not enough to justify adding to the scriptures over it... I think it could be that the translators added stuff that was not there in order to impact the Greek-speaking Jews, but why alter the story to get people to be faithful to the Truth?

Maybe these additions, or parts of them, were added by translators only, in order to adapt it for their readers. Maybe those additional sections were in the first manuscripts, but got lost or left out somewhere along the line.  I do not know for sure. We have no proof that these additions were in the original, but I don't think we have definitive proof that they were not. An absence of evidence does not guarantee anything. Either way, the Greek book of Esther seems aimed at people who must struggle against erosion and distortion of their faith in a culture that has conflicting values and does not love God. The Greek Jews and the early church surely drew strength from this, as can we.

To me, the difference between the Greek book of Esther and the Hebrew book of Esther is like the difference between the gospel accounts of the Resurrection. If you go through a Christian Bible - no matter which church it is printed for - and read the resurrection accounts in all four Gospels in a row, you'll find they do not perfectly line up. Some details vary, but the message we believe about Jesus altered by differences in details people remembered? No.

Does the Greek rendering of the story change anything for me? Well, it made my namesake more relatable, not that she wasn't already pretty relatable before. Her prayer when she was fasting in preparation for her uninvited visit to the King's throne-room, plus her behavior when she actually went in, particularly intensify the story for me. In the Greek version, she leaned on a maidservant's arm as she entered the throne-room, and nearly fainted a couple of times, yet still did what she had to do. At the very first instant when the doors came open the king was upset, and at the sight of his angry face she lost her strength. Yet at the sight of her - especially in that condition - God touched the king and his heart melted. The king was moved with compassion and went to comfort her. That was part of why he gave her mercy. The account does differ slightly in that he went to her, not she to him, and he touched her with the scepter as opposed to her reaching out to touch the scepter. If this deviation offends you, please read the accounts of the resurrection in all four gospels in one sitting, then return to the question.

The Greek version does not change the meaning of this book on the whole. It mostly just makes it easier to"see" the story in your mind, as it brings it much more to life. If a person prefers the Hebrew version for any reason, I do not think it will cause a problem. I also do not think relying on this one will hurt either, as it is so much the same. I do recommend a read through of both versions before getting too upset, one way or another. The differences are certainly not worth splitting churches or dividing the Body over, at all.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - The Book of Judith

Like the books of Job and Tobit , Judith is regarded as a work of fiction. This book makes the statements about the "historical value" of the deuterocanonical/apocryphal/anagignoskomenal writings sound funny. There is no historical value to it. It is loaded with blatant historical errors. Nebuchanezzer of Babylon carried the people of Israel off into captivity after they fell away from God for some time. So began the great exile, and I  think the first in their history after they settled the promised land. The book of Judith has Nebuchanezzer the king of Assyria threatening the people of Isreal and brutally conquering the surrounding nations and striking fear into all hearts right after Isreal returned from their exile. 
So much for historical value! Really!
The book is longer than the book of Tobit, sixteen chapters, but the synopsis need not be any longer.

The book of Judith - a worthwhile Read.

Here is a brief synopsis of the book of Judith:

The Assyrian king in the story, Nebuchanezzer, gets the idea he is going to be god, basically, and run the world. He sends letters to the kings of every other nation in the known world and orders them to serve him or else, since he's the new boss in town. Why? Because he said so, and that's that.
They all blew him off because he was just one man. This Nebuchanezzer assembles an army and conquers the nation next door, then the next one, and the next. His best general, Holofernes, gathers all his best men and campaigns across the known world until they come to Israel. Israel refuses to surrender.
Inside Israel, the whole nation without an exception, even foreigners who live with them, fast and pray and wear sackcloth and ashes and beseech God for help. High up in the mountains, a little town called Bethulia sits right on the border. Holofernes and the very strongest Assyrian armies are camped outside, demanding surrender or else. A mercenary who is native to the area tells Holofernes the short version of the story of Israel - from Abraham, to the exile, to the return. He basically said, "Unless they have provoked their God, do not attack them. You will lose, because their God will deliver them and destroy you."
This ticked off Holofernes, who order that this guy be taken into the little town and held there until the whole city was being slaughtered, and he would die with the town he appeared to be working for.
So a small unit of servants took the mercenary commander to Bethulia, but the townsfolk threw stones at them with such zeal, they left him in the ravine they'd taken shelter in and then retreated.
The townsfolk came down from the mountain to check things out, and found him there. They untied him, and took him before the town magistrate. After hearing his story and learning that he at least respected the power of God, the magistrate took the man to his own house and thanked him for his courage, and how he said what he'd said about their God and their people.
Unfortunately, other people from the surrounding countryside wanted to be in the Assyrians' good graces and advised Holofernes how to could take Bethulia without a casualty. The mountains were rough and hard to ascend, so take the springs at the foot,where the people went to get their water, and they would weaken and die from thirst. No need to waste any arrows.
So that is what Holofernes did.
After several days without water, the people were starting to panic.They confronted their magistrate and demanded that he surrender to the Assyrians, lest they should die of thirst. The magistrate said he would do so if God did not deliver them in five more days.
At this point, an extremely righteous and wise widow heard what had happened. She called the leaders of the city together and said they had no business putting a time limit on God and trying to be His boss/give Him ultimatums. They said they agreed, but they had no choice because the people were thirsty, panicked, and not thinking straight; they couldn't be reasoned with.
She said she wasn't going to tell them what she had planned, but she had a plan. She asked them to pray. She prayed like crazy. Then she removed her widows garments and dressed to impress. She was vary beautiful, and wealthy. she packed up some stuff and took one very lovely maidservant down to meet Holofernes. While flattering him like crazy and stating allegiance to his king/god, Nebuchanezzer, she said the story he'd heard about their God and their people was rue, but that the people had displeased God. She said she was a seer, basically, and would tell him when the time was right to attack. He agreed, and thanked her. She was favored by all who saw her, and Holofernes promised her safety. He then hatched a plan to get her to bed. He invited her to dinner, and she went, bringing her soft woolly reclining mat (her bed, I think). She sat on the bed and they ate dinner and he drank til he passed out. Nothing else happened, as he was so busy talking and drinking and stuffing himself that he passed about before anything else took place. She then cut off his head with his own sword, and carried it out of the camp with her maid.
She took the head to the magistrates. She told them to order the armies to mobilize as if to attack, but don't attack. The armies would look for Holofernes and not find him, and panic. Then, their armies should attack.
All this happened. When the Assyrian armies saw that their commander had been beaten, and were disgraced because their pride and strength had been bested by a woman, they did indeed turn and flee. The Israeli armies did indeed attack the retreating foe and win. Messengers were sent out to all the cities, including Jerusalem,and more Israeli armies came. They decimated the enemy and there was so much plunder, because the foe had conquered so many places already, there was plenty for everybody. The mercenary captain believed fully n God after he saw all this, and heard how Gd had helped and protected Judith and had delivered a nation through this small ton, from so great an army. je was circumcised and followed God the rest of his life.
There was tremendous celebration of this victory across the nation. Judith became a household name, and the high priest met her and blessed her in person. She inherited all of Holofernes' stuff. It took her several cart to move it.
Most of the final chapter is a worship song, said to be composed and sung by Judith herself.
She dedicated all Holofernes' things to God as an offering. Her fame never ceased, but grew. She ran her late husband's estate until she died, never marrying again even though she was proposed to many times. On her death she distributed her wealth among both her own and her husband's kindred. The whole country mourned. No one troubled the nation of Israel again until long after Judith's death.

Presumably, no one bothered Israel because they feared what God could do and the embarrassment of being brought down by just one person, and a female at that.
I don't think the book is true, obviously, and I do not know if it is inspired or not. My feminist tendencies could be pulling me either way, and so I am biased and I know it, so I will not try to judge that. I am certainly glad I read it and feel edified for having done so. I can say that much.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - The Book of Tobit

The book of Tobit was canonized by the early church, the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, and was in both the Septuagint - the Greek Bible used by first century Christians -and the Latin Vulgate - the first Bible to be printed. It was declared not to be scripture by Martin Luther in the Middle Ages, and was removed from the actual printing of Protestant Bibles as late as the 1880s. The tens of  thousands of Protestant split-offs and divisions that are collectively classified as "Protestant" all left it out too. Thus, many people who were raised Protestant now know absolutely nothing of the book of Tobit; I didn't.

Like the book of Job, Tobit is considered by scholars to be a divinely inspired work of fiction (Catholic, Orthodox, and such scholars do. Protestant scholars have varying opinions, but at the very least say it has much merit and is very good spiritual reading even they are unsure or flat don't believe Tobit is scripturally authoritative like Job is). It has similar subject matter in that two of the characters, including Tobit, lose a great deal even though they are very godly and later pray that they might die, yet they are restored to joy again. Here is a synopsis of this 14 chapter gem.

Tobit was a Jew living in Nineveh. Most of his countrymen had become part of the dominant culture and forgot God, or all but forgot God. Tobit was one of a few, a remnant basically, who did not forget God. Tobit was very generous and God blessed him. He worked for the king, and was very highly trusted and favored. When the king died, his son turned out to be a very evil and inept ruler. He committed atrocities against many Jews, and left them to rot in the sun. Tobit went in secret, by night, and buried them.
Some others in court snitched on him for this. He fled for his life. All his possessions were confiscated except his wife and son. He had to stay in Media for years, separated from his wife and their only child. When he was finally reunited with his family, his celebration feast was interrupted when his son saw another Jew laying strangled in the road. Tobit immediately began burying the dead again, despite being mocked for it by the neighbors.
While he did so, a bird above him defecated into his eyes. His eyes became infected, and treatments only made it worse until he was completely blind. He could no longer work.
One day, he had a misunderstanding with his wife, who had become the breadwinner, and she asked him what good all his alms-giving and upright behavior had accomplished? She sat accusing him. This hurt him so bad that he prayed he would die.
He began setting his affairs in order, expecting God to answer his prayer. He sent his son, Tobias, to retrieve ten talents he had left in trust with a relative in Media, many years back, when he was still rich and worked for a good king.

The very same moment Tobit prayed for death, a very upright and gentle girl in Media, named Sarah, also prayed for death. She had been married seven times, but was oppressed of a demon who killed all her husbands, so they dropped dead as soon as they entered the bridal chamber to consummate the wedding. She was still a virgin, having been the bride at seven weddings! One of her maidservants told her she had killed them all, and ought to become like them, "May we never see a son or daughter of yours!". Sarah then asked God to kill her because she hurt so bad, and if He did not see fit to do so, to please look on her affliction.

God sent the angel Raphael immediately, to take care of both problems. Raphael appeared as a man to Tobias, who was just then looking for a companion on the dangerous road to Media.
Raphael went with Tobias, masquerading as a distant relative. They caught a fish and Raphael told Tobias to keep certain parts of it, because they would be used to drive away evil spirits and to heal physical afflictions.
Raphael told Tobias that there was a kinswoman whom Tobias had the first right to marry, and that she was destined for him before the world began. Tobias had heard of the seven dead bride-grooms, but Raphael calmed his fears. He told Tobias that her house was on the way, and they needed to stop to rest there.
They spoke to her father about her hand in marriage, and her father told Tobias about the evil spirit who killed all her husbands. Tobias said he was not afraid, so preparations were made and they were married that very night. Tobias' new father-in-law, Raguel, sent servants to dig a grave to bury Tobias secretly, and hide the family's shame.
Meanwhile, in the bridal chamber, Tobias put the fish liver on the incense coals per Raphael's instructions. Then Tobias and Sarah knelt and prayed, as Raphael had instructed beforehand, for God's protection and blessing. The smoke  of the fish liver drove the demon away, and Raphael chased it down and bound it.
When Raguel's servant came to see if Tobias was dead, he found the couple sound asleep - and alive. Raguel ordered the grave filled back in by daybreak, not wanting Tobias to know about it, and sang great praises to God. He gave Tobias half his inheritance (when he married Sarah, he became Raguel's sole heir since Sarah had no brothers or sisters) up front, and ordered two weeks of feasting. Raphael was sent onward to collect the ten talents they went to retrieve in the first place, and to invite the relative who kept it to the wedding feast.
Since Tobias wasn't at liberty to go home as planned, and phones did not yet exist, his parents were worried sick. His dad said, "There must have been some delay," but his mom was essentially convinced that he was dead and was mourning for him already. She spent all day every day staring at the road he'd taken, answering to no one, and then cried all night every night and couldn't sleep.
After the two week feast, Tobias was like, "I absolutely have to get home, my parents must think I'm dead!" So his enormous new wealth was packed up. Sarah and all Tobias' new servants hit the road, led by Tobias and the angel Raphael, who was still in disguise.
When they arrived, Tobias' mother was beside herself with joy. Tobit stumbled out to greet his son, and Tobias applied the fish gall to his eyes, as he had been instructed to do, then peeled the films off his father's eyes. When Tobit saw his son, he shouted praises to God. He then heard of the marriage, and saw Sarah and all the wealth Tobias had returned with, so he also declared a long feast.
It was when Tobais and Tobit attempted to pay him that Raphael revealed his true name, nature and mission. After calming them down from their fright, he gave some exhortations for right living and promises for those who are faithful to God, and reminded them twice to worship God always. Then he departed from them. They praised God all the more.

A song that seems to fit with this story; it may be a further comfort to those comforted by it.

On his death bed, Tobit told his son to leave Nineveh as soon as he buried his mother, like the very same day, because Tobit believed the prophecies of the prophet Nahum (found in the Bible, including the Protestant canon of the Bible) about Nineveh. He was sure it was not a safe place to live.
Tobias did as he was told. The book ends with the captives of Nineveh marching past the family's home in Media, before Tobias' very eyes. And he praised God.

I hope you enjoyed this synopsis of the book of Tobit. It has been a comfort to me lately, and the more I read it, the more I feel it is indeed inspired, and should not have been thrown out. I feel a little bit cheated for not having access to it, and some other works in the "Apocrypha," all my life before. 

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Regarding "Gay Christains" and "Gay Theology"

Forgive me, some of its gross, but needs to be said.
I want to make it very clear I do not ascribe to any of the ideas I am typing out here. I am just explaining a point. We are called to love sinners, but not sins,and there is a difference. I have things I've been delivered from that are disgusting, disturbing, and that freak people out, especially church people (not the things I am talking about here though). I have also previously self-identified as bi-sexual. I have no same sex desires now, at all. I do not hate anybody, but I really felt I had to make this point.
If the "gay Christian" theology is to be believed, then beastiality and rape and incest are all ok too. The O.T. Scriptures that say homosexuality is a sin are in the same section, Leviticus 18 (the laws concerning sexual conduct), that condemns all of those other things. None of those other things are mentioned in the NT at all.
Look at the other sexual laws that would have to be dismissed along the same grounds, otherwise it becomes "what is and isn't a sin is based on my and select others' feelings about it". Can you accept this new theological position and be consistent?

If animals of the same sex jumping on each other and humping means that it is in fact natural (I've at least seen that argument), then the dog jumping on your leg when you come in the house means that beastiality is natural too, and the fact that animals have no reservations about inbreeding means that incest also is. Furthermore, research shows that offspring of two first-cousins has about the same odds of genetic defects as a child born to a mother in her 30s.
You think people who do those things don't feel the need to hide for fear of being ostracized? You think the church wouldn't lose its mind over people like that going shamelessly public and insisting on being married and ordained and so on, and act very un-christlike and unproductive in its response (I'm not saying an un-christ-like response is justifiable. It's not)? Do you suppose that people, be they professing Christian or not, might be tempted to commit violence over it? Naturally, that un-christlike and unproductive behavior would result in severe emotional wounds for those doing those sins. Does that mean that the church should not call such behavior a sin? Anybody ready to sanction those sins, or make it just a matter of individual conviction?
My dad met someone at work who eventually told him he liked dogs in that way. The guy had been raised Baptist and believed that he was right with God. He had no desire to repent,and did not feel any conviction for his behavior. I met him several times when I was young (my dad did not know yet at that point), and he seemed like a really nice guy. Maybe those kinds of guys aren't out of the closet yet, but pornography of that sort does exist and does sell, so there's people buying it. When and if such people "come out" in droves, and make the same demands that LGBT people do, what are going to do? Get mad at the church for going off-normal and then fall off the horse on the other side, saying that its ok to do that?



Just something to think about.

Jesus' cross was enough to make all of us new, if we'll have it. It was enough to forgive us all, and it does not matter what we have done. If we sincerely repent and call what the wrong we have pursued or done "wrong" and receive his gift of salvation, then we shall have His Salvation. That makes us all equal, and in this we are all alike.

Adventures in RCIA: More on the Bible

I have been reading the notes in my New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, with Apocrypha. It says on the cover it is "An Ecumenical Study Bible." It has the disputed books in between the Old and New Testaments, and gives a lengthy intro to the section. Here is what I learned so far today:
The books called Apocrypha by Protestants, some of which are called Deuterocanonical (while the rest of the OT is called "protocanonical") by Catholics, are as follows:
Tobit, Judith, the Greek version of the Book of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or the Book of Sirach), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 3 Esdras, The Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151. 4 Maccabees is not, canonized by any present Christian church, but was included in the appendix of many of the first Bibles because of inspirational value.

The only Catholic doctrine I know of at this time which is founded on Deuterocanonical writings is Purgatory, with all the associated practices of offering prayers, masses, and sacraments for the dead. I will not offer my current, personal view on that here right now, because I am not sure if I even have one.

The word "Apocrypha" means "hidden things," and scholars only speculate at why this term was used. The early church included all of these works in the Septuagint. Early scholars, who usually did not know any Hebrew, quoted from the disputed works and the works found in the original Hebrew Bible without differentiation. This may, or may not, be solely because they did not know any Hebrew and the Greek Bible was the only one they had. Over time, people started questioning the parts that Protestants now call the Apocrypha. Perhaps this is because of exposure to the Hebrew, which it was all supposed to be based on, but I do not know at this time.

All of these works were included in the Latin Vulgate, which was complied in the fourth century. However, there were prefaces noting that these disputed writings were, despite being very valuable teachings, not to be treated as authoritative scripture. Over time, translators and scribes started skipping the prefaces for whatever reason(s), and the whole thing was again treated as infallible, doctrinal scripture. This was the status through most of the middle ages.

So when were these books written? What is in them and what was going on? Evidently, after the Perisan exile and the Jews' return to their homeland, Alexander the Great's campaigns took a lot of territory where Jews lived as ethnic minorities, and also took Israel itself. Later, control of Israel went back and forth between tyrants from Greece and from Egypt. In Israel, Jewish culture stayed pretty strong, but Greek and other polytheistic influences started to take root and create controversy among the diaspora. There were also intermittent attempts at deliberate ethnocide (that means the dominant culture actively forcing an end to the minority culture - or at leas trying to. This is like genocide except the people's genetics and physical presence is not destroyed) by some Greek rulers.

During this time, some new books were written and the established Hebrew Canonical texts were translated into Greek. Some of these translations contain parts that have never been found in any discovered Hebrew texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the Hebrew Bible version of Esther that Protestants use never mentions God's name at all, and it records no prayers or songs of worship. The Greek version contains prayers and songs of praise and does mention God's name several times. Other than than, the story is the same. The additions in the Greek versions of ancient Jewish canonical books, plus the books written about the trials and deeds of God's people in the Hellenistic age, compose the Protestant "Apocrypha". Major recurring themes in these Greek writings are the folly of idolatry, being faithful to the true God instead of mixing religious practice with popular pagan and unholy activities, and maintaining acceptable practices of worship and doctrine regardless of personal cost. These themes are becoming increasingly relevant today, and regardless of whether one views these writings as canonical or apocryphal, it is probably a good idea to at least look over many of them. I might add that these themes were probably very helpful/relevant to persecuted Christians in the Pagan Roman Empire, just as they were to persecuted Jews under the Greek empire.

Some of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical works contain serious historical errors, like the book of Judith. The book of Judith has Nebuchadnezzar as king of Assyria, and his invasion taking place after the Jews' return from exile, so pretty extreme historical flaws. In theology class at SLU, I was taught that the book of Job is a work of fiction, but it is still viewed by all Christians and by Jews as inspired. The lessons of the book of Job are understood to come from God and to be revelatory, just like Genesis and Revelation and everything that is consistently found in between. Likewise, the Deuterocanonical works contain historical fiction: Judith, Tobit, 3 Maccabees, and Bel and the Dragon. These cannot be accepted as fact, and cannot be treated the way my fundamentalist family, and church acquaintances over the years, read the Bible. If you cannot adjust to hearing historical fiction stories that present precepts and truths to you, sort of like parables, then it is probably best for you to leave these works alone - at least for your study of Scripture.

Many of these writings have quite disputable authorship. The Wisdom of Solomon is not written in the Hebrew style, but with the Greek style and also is perceived to have some Greek philosophy mixed in with it. That would indicate pretty strongly that Solomon did not write it. The Song of the Three Jews records the story of Daniel's three friends being delivered out of the furnace with more detail, and consists mostly of a worship song sung by them as they went through the trial and came out of it. Scholars believe it could have been written during the time of the Persian empire. The Catholic Bible has this writing in between Daniel 3:23 and 3:24. For some reason, scholars doubt that Daniel actually wrote it, perhaps because they think it was written too late. Psalm 151 is clearly supposed to be David writing about Shepherding his flock and how God gave him victory over Goliath. Copies of it were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, scholars think it was written during the time of the Persian empire, or possibly as late as 3  B.C. If that is the case, David couldn't have written it.

May of the Greek texts contain noticeable Hellenistic influence. Tobit even includes a popular Greek fictional character in the narrative. 4 Maccabees is not really connected to the family of the Maccabees, and neither is 3 Maccabees. 3 Maccabees is about the dispersed Jews suffering extreme persecution under the Ptolemies and, I believe, being delivered from genocide (I have not read it yet, just a synopsis). All of the Orthodox Churches canonize 3 Maccabees, but the Catholic and Protestant churches do not. 4 Maccabees is a Greek philosophical diatribe aimed at Jews, citing from the stories of 1 and 2 Maccabees, and trying to convince them of the supremacy of reason over the body and soul. The trouble with this is, I note, reason is also part of the soul realm, and is fallen. 4 Maccabees is not canonized in any Christian Bible now, evidently for very good reasons..

The Roman Catholic Deuterocanonical works are: all the additions to Daniel (Bel and the Dragon, Susanna, The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews), the Greek version of Esther, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also called the Ecclesiasticus, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and the letter of Jeremiah (Which appears as ch.6 of Baruch).

Some of the Septuagint books were left out of both Protestant and Catholic canons, but included in others. The Eastern Orthodox churches canonized all the Deuterocanonical works of the Catholic Bible, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 Esdras but not 2 Esdras. The Russian orthodox churches canonized all the Catholic Deuterocanonical works, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and both the books of Esdras (though they call them 2 and 3 Esdras instead of 1 and 2), but not The Prayer of Manasseh. Esdras is seen as trying to write like a prophet, using the figurative imagery and such, and his writings include  an apocalypse. Nevertheless, Esdras never says,"Thus saith the Lord," not even once. No one of his time called him a prophet, and his works were not part of the Hebrew canon, nor do the Protestant and Catholic canons The Prayer of Manasseh is believed to have been written during the second temple period. It is an extremely passionate and skillful prayer and worship piece, comparable in theme to Psalm 51 but without the complaints about God's seeming inaction. I have no idea why it was rejected by both Luther and the Council of Trent.

In some ways,this is a very discouraging topic to study, because it reveals the depth of the division in God's church. Nevertheless, it is a good study and a profitable study. So many beautiful worship songs, and stories of triumph and commitment in the face of opposition and persecution are revealed - "hidden things" no more.

Godspeed

~ Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA: The Bible

Well, I am in the process of joining the Catholic church. I am looking for the first time at these "new" books, which my protestant brothers call "The Apocrypha." The book of Sirach, which I read from in the video, was not canonized by Jews, but the earlychuch canonized it. I do not know when, and do not yet know whether the original apostles like Peter and St. Paul the Great considered it the inspired word of God or not. I doubt it. I donot think it is, though I do think parts of it are anointed and that is has some value. I just do not believe it has the divine authority of Scripture. Sirach was openly misogynistic, he did not just have a differentiating view of gender roles, he came out and said having a daguhter was a curse, not a blessing. El Shaddai spoke to Moses and said to give daughters land,justliek was customarily done with boys, and many other things that indicate a respectful and valuing attitude toward women. Lady Wisdom was not sexualized in Proverbs like she was in Sirach. This may be why the ancient Jews never considered him insired. In any case, they didn't and I don't either. Most of these were written during the time my protestant brethren call, "400 years of silence," the ideabeing that godjust shut up the wholetime and did not send any important prophets or offer any guidance. Then, I was taught, God started talking again like crazy. Well, maybe so. But we talk a lot about the early church and how the early church did tis ad that. The early church cannonized alot of this, and the oldest churches there are still use some or all of it. So, I am beginning my journey through "the Apocrypha" if indeed that is what it all is.



I will post more about this when I know more. I am excited to read about Bel and the Dragon, and Judith, and Susanna. The Song of the Three Jews is beautiful. I just do not have a clue about whether it really was sung by Daniel's three freinds when they were thrown into the furnace for being faithful to God. Their names may have been put in later, when people shoved it in with Daniel's writings, but maybe not. SOMEBODY wrote an annointed worship song, I just do not know if it was really written by who it is attributed to.

 I hope everyone has a wonderful day.
Goodnight and Godspeed.

~Mother Star