Journal of Heresies

Bible Study Challenge #3

2007-12-10T11:15:00.000-05:00

There are many stories in the Bible where God appeared to someone and asked that person to perform radical and sometimes violent tasks in His name. According to the Bible, God even commanded that the people of Israel destroy all the inhabitants of the promised land which He told them to take and possess. The Israelites did enter the land, but they did not destroy every man, woman and child of the inhabitants. Their disobedience in this matter made God very angry at them and led to various afflictions.

Imagine that God (or His angel) appears to you in some way. God tells you He has chosen you and makes a great promise to you and your children and your children's children. To receive the promise He tells you that you must wipe out the family down the street and take possession of their property in His name. He also tells you not to be afraid because He will go with you and will help you complete this task. Doing so will demonstrate to all the world that He alone is God. If you believe this and do this, it will be accounted to you as righteousness and He will bless you and your descendants.

Knowing it was God who asked it, would you obey the instruction of God? Explain your answer.

If you want to participate in this Bible Study Challenge, please review the simple guidelines here before submitting your first comment.

Bible Study Challenge #2

2007-11-13T19:55:00.000-05:00

Why are there so many similarities between Yahweh and the god Ba'al?

Bible Study Challenge #1

2007-11-10T10:52:00.000-05:00

Who was the first Messiah?

Bible Study Challenge

2007-11-09T10:38:00.000-05:00

Last night I was thinking about my blog and how it might look in the future. I was also thinking some about why I haven't been writing. One reason I don't write is because I don't have many answers, mostly a lot of questions. When I find an answer, it creates even more questions.

So, I had an idea. I'm going to post questions on my blog. The intent is to stimulate discussion about interesting biblical, historical and philosophical topics. Some of the questions are ones that I struggle with, and some are not. Some will appear easier to answer than they really are. Others may not have an answer. Whatever question I ask, I hope that it will stimulate thought and discussion, both in my blog and in your personal lives. I want people to dig into the Bible and into the extra-biblical resources available to enrich the understanding of all participants.

I will moderate comments and they may not appear on the blog immediately. I will allow all comments that are not spam. However, this is not a place for personal attacks and I will not tolerate disrespect or abusive behavior. Please keep answers on topic and as short as possible to facilitate the interchange of ideas. I may contact anyone who posts a comment that is off topic or very long, to request that the comment be edited.

Eventually, I will probably add links on my blog to the bloggers who regularly participate.

I'll post the first question tomorrow.

Enjoy! And tell your friends. :)

Personal Update

2007-11-07T21:47:00.001-05:00

Wow, I have to say I'm surprised that I still get over a dozen visits a week to my blog even though I haven't posted anything for some six months. Sorry I've dissappointed those who were regular visitors.

I started a temporary part time job last April to get some experience, money and a small weekly vacation from my normal life as a stay-at-home mom. I do say vacation, because "work" is very, very easy compared to the job of raising three young children and caring for all the needs of a household. Going "to work" after being at home for five years has also been very good for my marriage and health.

While I worked, my husband had to be soley responsible for home and children for 8-10 hours straight twice a week. He suddenly discovered that when he has cleaned one room and then finishes the next, that the first one looks almost as it did before he cleaned it. Children LOVE to play in clean rooms. He also discovered that when you have three children, you can't just jump in a car and run errands... it takes anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes just to get everyone ready and loaded into their seats, let alone all the extra potty breaks, questions, complaints, and bags that are inevitable.

The second day of work, when I came home it was near our kids' bedtime. So, after I took my shower, I got them into their beds and then went into the living room. My husband came in and plopped down beside me with his hair all roughed up, exhaustion on his face. Then he asked, "Are they asleep yet???" He never had a bedtime growing up and would often contradict my insistance that they go to bed an hour or two before our own bedtime. Now, when I tell the kids its time for bed, he helps to get them up the stairs and on their way.

Anyway, the result of my working has been that my husband finally grasps what my life is like when he works all day, all week, all month, all year, and he is far more understanding when I say that I need a break.

Another great development has been that we are actively in the process of relocating. My husband is actually more excited about moving than I am. We will not be moving quite as far as I need to if I want to pursue an education in ancient civilizations. However, we will be close enough that I could occasionally do day trips to explore resources.

Right now our priority is to move into an area with a very good public school for our children. When our children are older, maybe I'll try to enroll in some classes. But, before we can move at all, we need to find a good job in the new location. I've had a couple inteviews but nothing definite so far. We recently decided that it will be more financially secure for us to wait until closer to spring to move. In the meantime, I am looking for more temporary part-time employment where we are. If I find suitable employment in the new location that can support our family, then my husband will stay with the kids until they are all old enough to go to school. If he find suitable employment, then I'll stay at home until then. Either way, we will have far more quality family time than his current position allows.

Spritually, I've been mostly just processing everything that has happened in the past two years. I have come to terms with my new perspective and with the Most High. I've even been able to discuss my views with a few other people without feeling as though I was about to subject myself to deep pain. I've needed time to grieve and to heal. Now its time to dust off the ashes, bathe, and re-enter the world. I'm not sure, however, that I'll re-enter the spiritual war. The only correct side of the war is the side of truth, but all the recruiting officers lie. Friend and foe look alike.

I won't make any promises about when the next time will be that I write in this blog. However, I do think about the people who I've connected with here, and I will probably write again sometime.

Thanks for reading.

"Jesus Camp"

2007-04-30T16:45:00.000-04:00

The other night, my family and I watched a video called "Jesus Camp." The videographers basically follow around three youths and their families who attend a pentacostal evangelical church and who go to the week of camp the church leadership provides each year at of all places, "Devil's Lake," ND. I am sure that some people who watch the video wonder if the people who were followed are geniune in their presentation, or if they have been prompted on what to say. I personally am fairly certain that there was very little if any prompting that occurred in the video. I have personally witnessed and experienced the types of groups and situations depicted in the video.

As a person who encounters about 10 weeks of Christian summer camps each year for the past decade, I have seen many mininstry methods and I have seen the responses of many children. I also attended a camp once as a child and I especially remember going forward for the end of the week alter call and the conselor led discussion in our cabin shortly there-after. The camp I went to as a 5th grader wasn't pentacostal like the one presented in the video, but I can certainly relate to the desire of the children of that age to connect with God.

The continual question that most people probably have while watching the video is whether the children are being manipulated by church leadership to respond to the 'call of Christ.' Personally, I ask myself that same question often, even in less radical settings. Perhaps one reason I ask myself that is because when I was at camp in 5th grade, I went forward because I felt like that was what I was expected to do. I didn't realize that I went forward for that reason at first. It took some time for that fact to dawn on me.

We were told that if we go forward we were to wait until the pastor or a counselor came to pray with us. So, I did so, and I waited, and I waited, and I waited... there were a lot of kids who went forward. Probably every kid at camp. Did every one of them feel called by God to go forward? As I said, I waited a long time kneeling on the floor and the room was becoming nearly empty. I suddenly began to wonder why I need a pastor to pray with me about this when I already pray in private and knew that God heard me. The whole idea of an alter-call was foreign to me even though I had previously seen people respond to alter-calls at other church events. I wondered why I had even walked forward when I had never felt the need to in the past. I suddenly felt like an idiot kneeling there waiting for some sort of assistance that I didn't need. So, I got up, walked away and returned to my cabin where my cabinmates were waiting for the last of us.

Once we were ready for bed, the counsellor had a discussion time so we could all talk about our experiences that night. She had us each take a turn to share. When my turn came, I gave the same general story as everyone else, even the part where I supposedly cried because my sins were now forgiven. I wonder what the response would have been had I told the truth of what I had learned that night? Knowing that I had lied, I went to sleep that night wondering why I not only went forward for something that was unneccessary, but why I also later lied about what happened.

I had simply done what was expected of me.

Children want to be accepted, they want to fit in, they want approval from the adults around them, and they are also very curious about spirituality. Most parents use their childrens desire for approval to express what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not acceptable. Most adults would frown at and scold a child for writing on the walls or jumping around on a couch, and praise them for picking up their toys and for being polite. This is training for life skills. But, is there a point at which we, as parents or guardians, use our parenting tools to force children to act in a way that ceases to reflect the truths they know in their hearts?

At one point a 12 y.o. boy is preparing to give a sermon and he tells his interviewer, "Its not going to be me up their preaching." I know that he was implying that God would be preaching through him, but I wondered too how much of what he would say would be the catch-phrases that he hears over and over again from the ministers. At various time in the video you can hear the kids repeating as their own words the jargon and phraseology of the church. Personally, I am far more interested in what they really think, than in regurgitated jargon.

To be honest, as an adult, I still struggle with expressing thoughts that are outside of the expectation of the people around me. That is part of the reason I started this journal. Its a way to express things that too often I leave unsaid. In fact, if I walked into a church like the one shown in the Jesus Camp video and taught from the Bible, they'd probably start trying to cast the devil out of me with unintelligible babbling. (By the way, I've been in services like that one, and they are certainly memorable experiences). But, even in the not so charismatic groups, I would be viewed as a heretic. As the one mother in the video put it: "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who love Jesus, and those who don't." I wouldn't say that I don't love Jesus, but I certainly have a different understanding of him than most people. According to many christian authors, I am the enemy. Whats the point in talking with people who will imediately ostricize me?

Another interesting quote from the movie is from Becky Fischer, the youth minister: "If you want something from God, you have to cook a little." This quote is followed by the room full of kids and counsellors becoming as intense and emotional as they possibly can as if the more they do these things, the more of God they'll get. Once the congregation is in the desired emotional state, they are told what monsters they are in their hearts, to which they all burst into tears. Finally they are told to tell Jesus their evils and to come forward to have their hands washed with bottled water to make them clean again.

The basics are there: you've done something wrong, repent, and God will forgive. But there is another message too. A little girl gets the message loud and clear when she tells of "The churches God likes to go to." She says they're "Not dead churches, but ones where people are jumping up and down, and if they ask God just right, he'll go there." Yeah, just like Santa, right? By the way, some may think the message is only getting skewed in Pentacostal churches like this one, but perhaps they should think again. What are churches teaching our children? What is the right message?

There are a lot of pressures on our children today to be super-children. And, the children want to fullfill those expectations. I remember my childhood experiences at camp and in other settings, but my experiences were not nearly as intense as the multi-media, pressure intensive assault that is being heaped on the kids of today (and not just in churches). Becky the youth minister says that she wants Christian kids to be as radical as the Arab children over in Palestine. In a deleted scene, the director of a pro-life clinic says: "This generation wants something worth dying for... this generation... they will do anything you tell them to, and its who gets ahold of them."

How frightening is that? These are children, not little mini-me's. They have hearts and minds of their own. We need to foster their desire for truth and their compassion, not shape them into automatons. But too often today, inside the church and outside the church, that is what is being done to this generation. What will happen when they become adults and wake up? Or worse, what will happen if they become adults and don't wake up?

If you watch the video, also watch the director commentary when you're done. I didn't finish listening to the commentary yet, but from what I've seen so far, its their reactions to what they were seeing and experiencing and looks quite interesting. Jesus Camp is bound to stir up controversy from people of various belief systems. It would be quite useful for a group discussion.

So I've read Stitchin

2007-03-16T11:38:00.000-04:00

I have had at least five people tell me that I should read "The 12th Planet" by Zechariah Stitchin. So, I have read the book. The 12th Planet is the first in a series of books by Stitchin which he calls the Earth Chronicles. I believe the book was recommended to me because in it, Stitchin delves into the ancient texts and attempts to explain what it all means.

In the beginning of the book, Stitchin makes several claims which I was expecting him to support during the course of his book. Some of these claims equated the gods of various near-eastern pantheons as the same gods. While I am compelled to agree that there is crossover between pantheons, I'd like to see how his specific conclusions are made. He does not provide explanations for these claims, nor directly references other resources which might do so. I was disappointed to find that he was making this and other statements as if they were well known, and was making the statements as a starting point for his theories. Written in 1976, Stitchin uses some of the then popular scientific theories to support his theories. Unfortunately for Stitchin, some of these are now debatable. For instance, it is now known that neandarthal man posessed physical attributes that suggest he had a higher potential for intellegence than modern man, that neanderthal also had a culture, used weapons, practiced medicine, burial and other "advanced" behaviors, and co-existed at least for a time with both homo-sapien and homo-erectus. The more recent discoveries have caused those older theories on mans evolution, to which Stitchin refers, to be re-thought. Because the "facts" on which Stitchin builds his argument are shaky, so are the theories based on those "facts". I have to wonder what Stitchin (if he is still alive) thinks of the recent debates about how to classify a planet as a planet and how he fits the theory he once presented regarding the 12th planet together with the latest astronomical discoveries. Stitchin also presents mostly hand drawn copies and a few photo-like copies of various ancient artifacts which he says depict the gods wearing attire which would be necessary for air, water and/or interstellar travel. Personally, I have to do some serious mental acrobatics to agree with his interpretation of these images.

The single most annoying thing that Stitchin does however is also something employed by most Christians. Many Christians, including myself at one time, look at the Bible as one big book where details from Matthew are directly connected to details from Genesis, and to Revelations and to Romans, and to Isaiah, and so on, and so forth. Basically, most Christians don't look at verses in their historical and cultural context. They don't consider who the writer was (because its all really from one source right?) and they don't consider who the words were written to, or what it would have meant to those people in their own time. Nor, do they consider that the writings of past generations were used and misused by succeeding generations just as is done by our own generation. Verses are intermixed and thrown together to say "This is what we believe, and see, God says we are right, so you'd better believe it the way we do." This is backwards logic, and dangerous logic. Instead of inquiring for the mind of God, Christianity presumes to be the single almighty authority which alone can speak for God. Unlike Christianity, Stitchin does not presume to speak as if he is God. He does however, use all ancient texts in this same manner, irregardless of time, place and culture, he carves out a quote here and a quote there and pastes them together to prove his point. He takes the words and images of the past and forces them together into his worldview.

Although I have great difficulties with Stitchin's assertions and methods, I did find a couple of his statements interesting, and worth considering while I continue to learn about the ancient Near East. The one most intriguing to me is the idea that the area of Egypt and Nubia may have been the domain of Enki/Ea, and the northern areas, those of Sumer and Akkad, may have been the domain of Enlil. This idea if true also has some interesting implications for understanding the meaning of texts which describe the interactions between Enki and Enlil.

Given the enthusiasm with which this book was promoted to me, I am very disappointed in it. Zecharia Stitchin fails to effectively present enough solid evidence of his theories to convince me of his postulations. I hope that those who made the recommendation only thought that I would find something interesting in his writings; this I did. However, there isn't enough in it for me to recommend the book to others.

The Past In My Future

2007-02-21T08:40:00.000-05:00

So after my first post in a long time that I did last night, I started thinking of all sorts of things I could blog about. I do have almost two months worth of blogging I could catch up on... I'll try not to do it all in one post, lol.

Last summer was pretty rough for me, so a good friend suggested that I should take some time to dream about what I would do with my life if I could do whatever I wanted to. It didn't take long for me to decide that I would study the Ancient Near East. For many people this may sound like a dull and boring subject. However, I think it is fascinating, especially so when you attempt to sort out how the different cultures are interconnected and how out of this amazing time in history the great book of books we call the Bible was formed. As I child, I'll admit, I too thought that history was boring. The reason for this is that history was never put together as a story, but as a list of dates and people who were never shown in my classes as part of a greater context. There was no logical order, no sense of meaning in the history of my school years. Just dates and names. But, when you look at history as the great story of our ancestors whose lives changed the world, sometimes for good, and othertimes not so good, then history becomes a grand epic. Suddenly, we can understand why the Jews, Christians and Muslims, just can't seem to get along (something I couldn't understand when the subject came up in school). Many other issues can be comprehended by looking into the past. Maybe if we spent a little more time understanding our past, we would be better equipped for the future.

Anyway, my friend's advise was good advise. However, for me to do that which I would most like to, I would need to return to the college world, and my family would also have to go with me to that world. Such a life change at the age of thirty and with three young children to care for seems almost too challenging to achieve. I am certain that if I am to pursue an education or eventual career in this field that I need to start right away. I would need to learn at least four foreign languages, some of which are out of use. I could make life easier and stick with a particular language family, but in doing so I would limit my ability to research the things I want to study. So, I'll probably learn not only four (or more) other languages, but also four very different languages. I know that my ability to learn languages will diminish the older I get, so I shouldn't delay in doing so. The first obstacle however is to simply move to and get into college. Along with that obstacle is another: money. Will I need to both work and take classes? Then, could I balance work, school and family? Would I be able to keep up with the young minds of classmates who can devote as much time as they please to their studies?

I know which university I would probably enter, if they would even accept me. I have no idea what the criteria are for admissions of continuing education students. I do know that I would need to take undergrad courses to acquire the qualifications for post graduate studies. The university has good financial aid programs, but I don't know if they are only for undergraduates, or if they apply to post graduate students as well. I should meet with a continuing ed advisor at the university, but it is a four hour drive from here and I am afraid that I'll travel all that way and spend money for lodging just to have them tell me that the costs are too high. But if I don't go, then I've failed already.

Meanwhile, I have been watching for job openings in the university museum. Such a position seems to be an ideal starting point. I would be working for the university which means I would have a large discount on tuition (as would my family). Also, I would be working in the area of my interest and perhaps could learn quite a lot outside of the classroom setting. I would also have easier access to the resources that are so mysteriously locked away in the back rooms and archives. And, we would have a stable source of income to help us transition to a new location. My resume however isn't terribly exciting. I have spent the last five years as a stay at home mom and occasionally volunteering for things. I am sure that the five year gap in my resume is unappealing to most employers. I think I'd be better off just sending an essay on why they should hire me and offer to send a resume on request, lol. Unfortunately, most universities have online application systems which apparently weed out anyone whose resume does not fit certain criteria; so it may take a miracle just to be considered.

For now, I'll continue to study independantly, learning from the few resources I can get my hands on.

Apologies!

2007-02-20T21:28:00.000-05:00

My apologies to those who have commented on my blog over the past four months! Tonight I finally switched over to the new blogger format and discovered that there were 67 comments that needed my permission to be published on my blog. I thought that new comments were to be emailed to me for moderation, and I wrongly assumed that I just wasn't getting any comments. Most of the comments were spam, and for this reason I am very glad that I have moderation set to on. However, I am sorry for the long delay in publishing those that were legitimate.

Also, I have been taking some time to study a number of theological issues that have come up and I am not sure when the next time will be that I will publish a quality post about biblical truth and heresy. I know that I have some regular visitors, and I am sorry that you have probably been disappointed by my lack of posts. Be assured that I am still here and still studying. I am also writing quite a lot of notes about what I am studying and may eventually, along with a friend's efforts and collaboration, co-author a book. I will probably continue to use my blog from time to time. Although I am unable to post on a daily or even weekly basis, I hope you will continue to check in for updates. Your visits are an encouragement to me. I will make an effort to publish at least one new post a month. Perhaps as I slowly begin to blog again I'll do so more and more.

The Bible: Truth, Lies and Faith

2007-01-06T13:41:00.000-05:00

Dr. Claude Mariottini recently wrote a post on his blog entitled "Did Moses Exist?" directing our attention to an Associated Press article: "Did Moses exist and what can we know about him?" Regarding the post and article, Mike G. of Louisville KY stated:

"To me, these are strong evidences of Moses' life at one period of time in the past and the Bible's authenticity. Real people, with real problems... wrestling with and relating to a loving and just God."

The following is not intended as a rebuttal of Mike or the article. These are some of my thoughts inspired by the article and Mike's comment.

If you were to see a non-biblical ancient text which portrayed a human in a similar manner, would you readily accept it as truth?

When we have based so much of our lives on the contents of the Bible, our first instinct is to defend against the suggestion that it may contain errors, or even worse, entirely ficticious stories. The very idea is outright offensive. But why? Because we don't like to look like fools? Because if one story is made up, all of it could be, even God? Because we might "loose our salvation"? We are offended because of all the things we fear we will loose if our understanding is wrong: salvation, pride, world-view, all the time spent devoted to scripture, purpose, hope, family, friends, God and so on. It is a scarey prospect, but what if the Bible isn't entirely factual?

Rabbi Sperling is a spiritual leader and I presume that he maintains a faith in the God of the Bible even-though he has doubts about the texts historical accuracy. On the surface it appears he is undermining the foundation of his religion and even his God. Yet, the faith of Israel was not originally based on the reliability of written words. Israel existed before Moses. The Israelites left Egypt and trusted God before His words were written in stone at Sinai.

Indeed, the Bible itself calls into question the accuracy of the Torah. Jeremiah writes:

"'How can you say we are wise, and the law of Yahweh is with us?' But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jer 8:8)

If Israel inherited lies after the passage of less than 1000 years, how reliable are those writings after 3000 years? Who is there today who can verify the accuracy of events 3000-4000 years ago? With the discovery of ancient cities and ancient writings, we can have a glimpse into the ancient world. Perhaps someday a copy of the Torah from the reign of David will be found. If that priceless artifact were ever uncovered, I suspect the Judaeo-Christian world will be both awed and shocked by the contents thereof.

How is the statement of Rabbi Sperling any different than that of Jeremiah? Yet, both somehow remain certain of their God. Does Rabbi Sperling undermine faith? or does he represent a faith that relies on something beyond written words. If the entire Bible is taken away does that take away God?

Is Nanna/Suen, the Sumerian moon god, found in the Bible?

2006-12-14T16:31:00.000-05:00

I have recently finished reading The Study of The Sumerian Moon God, Nanna/Suen by Mark Glenn Hall. My intent was to test the theory that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could have at one time been Nanna/Suen. The reason for the study was based on the realization that the name YHVH does not appear in the genealogies until the generation of Moses, YHVH states in Ex 6:3 that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know Him by the name YHVH, Abraham came from Ur to Haran (Sumerian cities and cultic centers for Nanna/Suen) before travelling to Canaan, and the festivals that YHVH instructs Israel to keep are very similar to those kept throughout Sumeria. Also, the moon and moon gods of Egypt were called Yah, and the mountain on which YHVH spoke to Moses was called Sinai (a word whose definition is not known, but bears some similarity to the name Suen).

Nanna/Suen was also at times called Asimbabbar. The author believes that these three names represent three separate gods whose characteristics were syncretized into one god during the Sargonic and Ur III periods. All three were always seen as the God of the Moon, and as one culture encountered or overtook another, similar gods, like the moon gods were worshipped as the same god. The name Suen is believed to represent a more Northerly and Westerley Semetic tradition, and the name Nanna is believed to represent the southern Mesopotamian Moon God. How much these gods and their associated cults may have compared is difficult to establish because of the lack of archeological materials prior to the Sargonic period. However, by the time of Abraham, the three names represented one god. There does appear to remain some interesting remnants of the early traditions by the manner distinction made that Suen is uniquely refered to as the youth, frisky calf, or young cowherd; whereas Nanna is uniquely portrayed espoused to the goddess Ningal.

Significant characteristics specific to the syncretized Nanna/Suen include: his association with the moon as well as the moons phases and moonlight; as the one who established the months and days (lunar calendar); as the one who went to the land of the dead (underworld) at the end of each month to decide their fates and returned again on the third day (the new moon); as the one who could renew life (vegetation and creatures); as overseer of the herds and flocks (although a couple other gods did this also); and, as the chief son of Enlil and (grandson) of An (the two highest gods worshipped in Sumeria); Nanna/Suen is often symbolized by the crescent moon or the calf/bull whose horns form the crescent shape. Nanna/Suen is also describe in ways common to most of the Sumerian gods such as lord, prince, god, father, and heroic warrior.

As far as characteristics are concerned, I do not feel that there is a significant correlation between those of YHVH and those of Nanna/Suen. YHVH is the ever-existing one, but Nanna/Suen has a father; YHVH is not associated with the light of the moon, but rather is the creator of the moon. The times when YHVH is depicted as a calf/bull, he appears to be angered by the action. He also says to not make an image of the sun, moon or stars to bow down to them. The difficulty of this comparison is the apparent re-writing of the book of Genesis to include the name of YHVH. If the name was added to the ancient stories, then what else has been altered to fit the YHVHist perspective? From the text we can ascertain that Judah and those Israelites who returned from the land after the Babylonian exile probably would agree with Genesis as we have received it. The prophets of that time proclaimed a very monotheistic YHVHist message and when the portion of exiles returned, they essentially avowed themselves to YHVH'ist monotheism (at least that is what the story depicts). However our oldest manuscripts of Genesis are fragments from the 1st century BC, and they aren't even in Hebrew. YHVH as presented in our Bible's doesn't resemble Nanna/Suen, but how did Abraham of Sumeria understand the God who gave him the covenant in relation to the rest of Mesopotamian religion? Did Abraham know YHVH by another name? Did YHVH speak to Abraham through another god/gods, or through other gods who weren't gods? Was this God who called Abraham unknown to the rest of the world? Yet, Genesis depicts YHVH as one who has communicated with His creation throughout history.

While reading, I was not only comparing the characteristics of Nanna/Suen with those of YHVH, but I was also watching for other ways in which the Sumerian moon god may have passed into the Biblical texts. In my previous post on the Shepherd Psalm, I noted the similarities between a Psalm to Nanna and the Biblical Psalm 23. The Hymn to Nanna/Suen with Prayers for King Susuen in which Nanna/Suen sires Susuen and appoints him prince for all his days also brought to mind the hymn in Isaiah 9 where YHVH establishes the government of peace on the throne of David. Unlike the Shepherd Pslams, what stood out to me for this fragmented Hymn was the relation of its overall theme with that of Isaiah 9 rather than the specific wording.

What stands out to me the most about the Moon God's persona are the many ways in which he resembles Yahshua and messiah related concepts. Nanna/Suen is the chief son of God, Yahshua is called the only begotten son of God (I can show that only begotten implies chief/favored, rather than the only child). Nanna is the light of heaven and earth, Yahshua is called the light of the world. Nanna is the cowherd/shepherd, Yahshua is called the good shepherd (also, like Suen, David is depicted as a shepherd boy who delights God). Nanna descends into the underworld to decide the fates of the dead and returns in three days, Yahshua died and rose again after three days and is given judgement over the dead. Nanna/Suen renews life, Yahshua is given power to resurrect and give life to the dead. Nanna/Suen is also credited with providing irrigation and rain, and Yahshua states that he gives living water/the water of life.

As stated earlier, one reason for this study was the importance of the moon in the festivals given by YHVH. However, the lunar calendar was followed by all of sumeria, and probably all of Mesopotamia, Regardless of which god was worshipped. For most of the gods there were daily morning and evening offerings, there were new moon festivals, festivals on the 7th and 15th days of every month, a first fruits festival in the first month and a seedtime/harvest festival in the 7th month. But, Nanna/Suen not only receives offerings during these festivals, but at firstfruits he is depicted as bringing his own firstfruit offering (by boat) to the temple of his father, Enlil. Also interesting to note is that the foods offered to Nanna/Suen would all be considered clean foods according to the Torah. I am not sure how the contents of these offerings compare to those of other Sumerian gods.

One dissimilarity of the Nanna/Suen cult is the fact that the priestess appears to hold the highest temple office, whereas Israel's highest temple authorities were male. although I am curious if Miriam the sister of Moses would have been viewed much like a priestess during the exodus.

In the Sumerian pantheon, Nanna/Suen is the son of Enlil(lord of the sky) the son of An(heaven). An is viewed as the most high god, but there was also believed to be a primordial god/goddess pair, Enki and Ninki (not to be confused with Enki (the lord of earth/water). But, most interestingly there is a little mentioned god named Haya, who was apparently considered the maternal grandfather of Nanna/Suen, and therefore of the same generation as An (the highest god in the Sumerian pantheon). Unfortunately, there is little information available regarding this god's attributes and role in the Sumerian understanding of the universe.

So, in conclusion, I don't believe that YHVH was once known as Nanna/Suen. I do feel that the Sumerian belief system is significant to understanding the Biblical stories from Creation through the sojourn in Egypt. As I stated in a previous post, Israel attempts to worship a calf god several times and in doing so calls down the wrath of YHVH; could this god have been Nanna/Suen? There are many similarities between Yahshua and Nanna/Suen. Is the messianic hope reflected in the Sumerian moon god? Could the prophecies of messiah be the remnants of Sumerian beliefs? Do some of the stories about Yahshua intentially borrow from the ancient worship of Nanna/Suen? If YHVH found the worship of the calf (Nanna/Suen?) abominable, then what does that say about the worship of the Nanna/Suen-like Messiah? And finally, we are still left with the question: By what name did Abraham know YHVH and how did his God fit into the theology of his time?

The Shepherd's Psalm for Nanna

2006-10-30T13:30:00.000-05:00

"He (Nanna) gave his word in the purity of his heart that like a shepherd, he would guide the living, return the land to their hands, put water in their midst, and make their days long." (Karki, stor 49 sub Waradsin 29; clay cylinder)

The next 15 lines are missing of the the clay cylinder from during the reign of Waradsin. I wonder if they too would sound similar to Psalm 23 in the bible.

"The Lord (YHVH) is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters, He restores my soul... And I will dwell in the house of the Lord (YHVH) forever."

Epiteths of Nanna/Suen

2006-10-25T15:24:00.000-04:00

A month ago I wrote asking if Yahweh was once known by another name prior to the Exodus and in what way did he appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if he was not known as Yahweh. I think that a logical place to start is with the cult of Nanna/Suen (who was also occasionally called Asimbabbar). Nanna/Suen the moon god of Mesopotamia. For the sake of simplicity I will just use the name Nanna. In my post "Who is YHVH", I laid out the theory; now I am investigating the similarities and differences between the characteristics, cults and symbologies of them both.

Currently I am reading "A Study of the Sumerian Moon-God, Nanna/Suen" by Mark Glenn Hall. You won't find this book on Amazon.com; it is Dr. Hall's dissertation for his doctorate degree. I was quite excited to find that the nearby university had it in their library.

Listed below are the ways in which some people between 2700BC and 1600BC described Nanna/Suen as found in the book by Dr. Hall. (peeking ahead in the book, it appears there will be more epiteths listed later, probably as found in a different class of texts)

2700BC - 2350BC Pre-Sargonic

"Frisky calf of Enlil"
"Lord"

2350BC - 2112BC Sargonic (Akkadian)

"Dazzling(?) light"
"The light of the land"
"True lord of the shining heart"
"Ornament of heaven"
"Crown of heaven"
"The one whose name no-one can interpret"

2112BC - 2004BC Ur-III

"Lord"
"Chief son of Enlil"
"Frisky calf of An (or heaven)"
"Prince"
"The canal inspector" (I suspect this one was written to scare off those who might damage the vital canal)
"He who spreads a sheen over the people"
"The lord who alone is the rising god"
"Great lion of heaven and earth"
"Great lion of the pure heaven(or of holy An)"
"Respected one of heaven"
"True crown of An/heaven"

2000BC - 1600BC Isin-Larsa/Old-Babylonian

Isin

"Lord"
"He whose head is raised high among the Anunna gods"
"Revered in Heaven and Earth"
"The true princely son of Enlil"
"The Lord who alone in heaven and earth surpasses all the gods"
"The greatest chief of the Anunna gods"
"He whose powers cannot be dispersed"
"Lord who alone is the rising god"
"He who restores the ways of old"
"Chief son of Enlil"

Larsa

"Ornament of the Ekur"
"Princely son endowed with respect by great An, in whose power is power over all things"
"Holy god who resides in the pure heavens"
"The true lofty reverenced one of the land who has set up a residence of splendor in the temple"
"He of great renown"
"The wise one on high who reaches the decisions"
"The pride of the father who sired him... born to Ninlil"
"Crown of heaven and earth, with visage arrayed in grace, chief son of Enlil"
"The lofty king, my king"
"Lord of Ur"
"The lord who is treated with honor, who makes the universe bright"
"Princely son who appears in the pure heavens who listens to requests and petitions"
"God who rises in the clear heavens"
"The great lord, light who fills the pure heavens, the princely crown whose head is raised, true god who brings forth day and night and determines the month, who completes the year... who just decisions from the father who sired him... who hears prayers and petitions"
"He who renders judgement"
"Great lord whose head in radiance is lifted, who arises over heaven and earth, light, wide radiance, the rays of which are ever renewing, who places his light on the multitudes, migthy prince whose power is worthy of praise, every pure in all of his attributes, the princely son of the great mountain Enlil, prince beloved in the Ekur"

Babylon

"The god who created me"
"Eldest brother among the gods"

Most of the above epiteths are fairly specific to Nanna. There are however some that can be found applied to other gods. For example, both Nanna and Yahweh are called "lord," but that does not make them the same god. There needs to be correlation in how the two gods were viewed, celebrated and symbolized.

One strong argument against Nanna as Yahweh is the symbology of the calf. When the Israelites made a molten calf to represent Yahweh while Moses was receiving the covenant on the mountain, Yahweh was very angry about it. But, why did they make a calf? Why not any other animal? Did they believe that Yahweh was Nanna? Had they previously worshipped Nanna? Later, the king of the northern kingdom of Israel makes two gold calfs and two temples which N. Israel seems to accept without hesitation. Why calfs again? Why calfs especially if their sacred teachings taught them what terrible consequences followed such an act? Why are twelve calfs/bulls in the temple Solomon built(Jer 52:20)? And, why does part of that northern territory become known as "Samaria"? Is the word "Samaria" related to the word "Sumeria"?

An interesting observation of the above epiteths is the similarity between many of them and those of Yahshua. This is especially true in the Gospel of John where, among other epiteths, Yahshua is described as the light of the world. There are very few references to anyone in the Bible being the light of the world (or of similar things), yet it is a major theme in John's Gospel. Of special note also is the idea that Nanna is the "Chief son of Enlil." Enlil is one of the primordial gods, the god of the sky/air, and is the son of An who is at the very top of the pantheon. To say that Nanna is the son of Enlil is to say he is the son of God. Yahshua is described as the only begotten son of God. However its important to note that Isaac is called Abrahams only begotten son (Gen 22:2,Heb 11:17) even though he had previously begotten Ishmael, and Israel is also called God's son (Ex 4:22,Hos 11:1). The term "only begotten" does not mean he was the only one born, it means he is the son of the promise or the unique or prized son. The term "only begotten" is the same as saying that Yahshua is the chief son of God. Also to say that Nanna is the chosen one of An sounds a lot like the concept of the annointed one of Yahweh. The idea of the princely son who receives prayers and petitions sounds like the attribute of mediator which is also applied to Yahshua.

While there can be found some convincing arguments agaist any connection between Israel's God and Nanna, the cult of Nanna seems to play an important role in the drama of Israel. Will Nanna turn out to be one of the greatest enemies of Israel? Or, is Nanna an intimate aspect of Israelite culture whose name and association with the calf/bull changed over time? If Nanna is not Yahweh, is he the son of Yahweh? Was Yahshua Nanna? Did some scribes make Yahshua appear to be Nanna?

There is a lot more to read, and a lot more to consider. This is a puzzle that extends through both time and space. No wonder Babylon is called Mystery. But, who is a harlot? It appears that in today's world everyone is born into spiritual harlotry except perhaps those who have no religion at all. If harlotry is the worship of false dieties or corruption of the true one(s), then virginity might be the worship of no diety at all.

Resource for Sumerian Texts

2006-10-22T08:32:00.000-04:00

This week I found a really great resource for anyone who is studying ancient Sumerian texts. The site is a continually updated searchable database of Sumerian texts. When you do a search it brings up a listing of the references in english, much like a Bible search in e-sword does. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, I can't go directly from those search results to an online english translation. the text links instead take you to an online transliteration... which is great if you can read Sumerian (which I haven't learned to do yet). BUT! The transliteration has a list of sources at the bottom where you can find the english translated texts, text commentary, etc. I now have three books that I am very interested in reading, and the university library that is about a half hour away has two of the texts! Woohoo! :) One is taken out, but I hope to go to the library today to get the one that they have, which is the one I was most interested in reading anyway.

Blog recommendation

2006-10-19T10:32:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine, who explores scripture and seeks truth as I do, has started a blog in which he plans to compare and contrast ancient texts to attempt to piece together the ultimate truth. He has spent the past week reading the Enuma Elish and writing his commentary in a series of posts. Check it out here: http://biblicalmyths.blogspot.com/.

Who is YHVH?

2006-09-27T15:27:00.000-04:00

Warning: This post presents a potentially faith shaking theory. Read with caution. Also, please note that this is a theory only and not proven fact. I am writing this because as one who seeks the full picture I don't feel I can ignore the existance of these disturbing connections. This is probably the most 'heretical' thing I will ever write and I personally prefer that what I am about to present would be disproven by a crowd of historical witnesses.
____________________________________________________

Attempting to correlate the events and people of Genesis and Exodus with more ancient sources is a very challenging task. It seems that in those sources the god of Israel who is the creator of all is woefully absent. Polytheism abounds. The gods have a heirarchy, but any god is worthy of worship. Most city-states had a god who was esteemed more highly than the others, but the temples of different gods resided in the same cities and occasionally one god would visit the temple of another god as one king might visit the palace of another. Most of the gods had made some sort of contribution to the formation of the world (and some to its destruction). It appears that every society of the ancient past worshiped one or more gods none of which were called Yahweh. Now I could argue that this is why the world is in such a fallen state, beacause the one true god was forsaken. However, those who would say that the Bible is absolutely perfect, containing no more and no less than the Word of God because God is so powerful that he made sure it happened that way, must also conclude that He is so powerful that the ancients would at least know something about Him. Someone HAD to know SOMETHING since belief in Him is traced according to the Bible through the line of Seth and later that of Shem. Nor could there be large families extending so far through history without anyone encountering a people who insisted their God was the only one and that He was so powerful that He alone controlled the blessings and curses throughout the world.

It is clear from the Bible that the ancestors of Israel dwelled in Mesopotamia. There are also enough similarities between some of the stories in Genesis and those in Sumerian literature that we can conclude that the writers of the Bible either traced their history back to the same events, the stories were influenced by Sumerian stories, or they outright borrowed (and re-wrote) the Sumerian stories. The Sumerian sources both attest and contest the Biblical narratives. The most significant difference is theological. Where our Bible accredits the events to the work of Yahweh, the Sumerian accounts accredit them to another god and often to many other gods. While I would like to think that the true stories (the ones with Yahweh) have not yet been discovered, I must consider that Yahweh was once known by another name and was viewed as one among the Sumerian pantheon.

The first choice of course would be that Yahweh is the same as the Sumerian god An, since An was the absolute highest of the Sumerian hierarchy. It would make sense that God most high would be the supreme diety. However I have not yet seen enough connections to conclude this idea is strongly supported. An appears to have very, very little interest in earthly matters. Complicating the situation is the fact that Yahweh's actions as recorded in the early chapters of Genesis are performed by a variety of different Sumerian deities. Recently however, I have been reading quite a bit about another Sumerian god whose name has taken a variety of forms over time and among different peoples. The places and the names and the holidays and the attributes of this god are found within the more ancient of our own sacred writings.

According to the Bible, our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and this same God is the God who appeared to Moses, and is the same God who we worship today. Abraham and his family lived in Ur, a Sumerian city and major commercial center. In this city, one particular god was more highly regarded than the rest. A calendar which honored this god was also in use and the 1st, 7th and 14th days of the month were set apart as holy. They also held special festivals that occurred near the same time of year that Israel was to keep the feast of unleavened bread and the feast of booths or ingathering. Over time it was decided that another city would become the major center of worship of this god and there a most impressive temple was built in his honor. This new location was Haran.

The Bible records that Abraham and his family moved from Ur to Haran. Later when Abraham left Haran, he did not forsake his relations there. We see that both Isaac and Jacob were instructed to acquire their wives from among Abrahams relatives in Harran. Their fathers were also displeased by their other sons choices to take wives from among the canaanite tribes. Some would argue that Yahweh was a Canaanite diety, but why not marry a Canaanite if Yahweh was one of their gods? There is no mention of a change in rulership in Haran during those years, and in Haran, Abraham's relatives appear mostly at peace with their neighbors. It seems likely to me that Abraham left Ur somewhere between 2100 and 2050 BC during the reign of Ur-Nammu, and that his son and grandson aquired their wives prior to the Elamite invasion of Sumeria which occured around 2000 BC. Jacob, unlike his fathers does not appear concerned that some of his sons take Canaanites as wives. Perhaps this is due to the strained relations between he and Laban when he, laden with family and flocks, departed without saying goodbye. Jacob did have his name changed to Israel shortly after this event. Or, perhaps the political situation has changed so that returning for wives could be dangerous.

Then we see that Israel ends up in Egypt for a long period of time. And, the Bible indicates that Israel cried out in Egypt to the God of their fathers, so we can assume that they mostly remained loyal to Yahweh. Does a god by the name of Yahweh appear in Egypt? Not a god named Yahweh, but there is a god named Yah. Actually, there is more than one god named 'Yah.' Yah is the Egyptian word for 'moon' and was used to refer to any of the moon gods. It is interesting to note that the first appearance of a reference to Yahweh in a name is Azariah, the son of Ethan, the son of Zerah, the son of Judah. There are also other great-grandchildren of Judah whose names contain "Yah." It seems likely that Judah's great-grandchildren would have been born in Egypt considering that Moses is the great-grandchild of Levi. (Some might say that Judah/Yehudah contains Yahweh's name, but 'dah' doesn't mean anything by itself).

Now, guess who that god of Ur and Haran was. Thats right, the titulary god of those cities was the god of the moon, who the Sumerians called Nanna. The Semitic name for Nanna however was 'Sin.' Is it any coincidence that the mountain on which Moses encountered YHVH was Mt. Sinai or that YHVH made his covenant there with his people?

So, what are the attributes of this moon god, Nanna? Although Nanna was the son of Enlil and Ninlil (the god of wind and goddess of air), during Ur's time of power, Nanna became known as the "father of the gods," and "creator of all." He gave birth to Utu, Shamash in semetic (the sun-god), and Inanna, Ishtar in semetic (goddess of life, fertility and war). Nanna was considered to be the God of shepherds and nomads because he provided light for them to travel by night. Also as "god of wisdom" and of writing, he inspired Ur Nammu, the ruler of Ur near the time of Abraham, to codify a law that promoted justice, the care of orphans and widows, and equal weights and measures, much like the Torah later would do. Nanna also would enter the underworld every month where he would determine the fate of the dead (eventhough Utu was the judge), and and rise again on the third day (the new moon).

The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was Sin/Nanna suggests also that Israel was not identical with the majority of the Hyksos who worshiped Set the god of the desert and of storms. Although as foreigners, they may have been viewed by Egyptians as Hyksos (foreign rulers). An argument could be made, however, that Yahweh had been the Egyptian Set rather than Yah; Set was a god of storms and the desert and his name may mean 'pillar of stability.' How did Yahweh lead the people out of Egypt and through the desert? He led them by the pillar of clouds and fire. Set however was not known in Ur or Haran, unless Set can be connected with Enlil. Also, an argument could be made that nearly all gods participated in the Exodus since the plagues manifest each god's agreement with with the command to let the people go by turning their powers against Pharoah. The usual Christian understanding would be that the plagues represented God's power over everything including the "so-called" gods of Egypt. But its unlikely that the Egyptians would have seen it that way, and I think its unlikely that the Israelites saw it that way either.

The Israelites lived in a polytheistic and henotheistic world. Henotheism is devotion to a single god while believing in the existance of other gods. The phrase "God of gods" and "God most high" suggests that there are other gods. The command to "have no other gods before (or besides) me" suggests that there are other gods. Designating that Yahweh is "the god who..." suggests that there is a need to distinguish Him from other gods (although it could simply be a reminder of what God does for us). Only someone looking from a monotheistic perspective will interpret the entire Bible in a way that makes Yahweh the only god. Someone who is not monotheistic will interpret these much differently. Devotion to one god does not mean that they didn't believe there were others.

While I now strongly doubt that early Israel was monotheistic, it appears to have eventually become so. When did they become monotheistic? After the Exodus, the name of Yahweh becomes extremely popular for use in naming children. Yet this may only indicate their allegiance to Yahweh, not monotheism. It is during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah that we see the pagan dieties removed from the temple and destroyed. Why wasn't anyone stoned for this by the authority of Torah all those years for worshipping other gods? Could it be that Hezekiah and Josiah (or the priests of their days) converted Israel to monotheism? Some scholars say that the book of law 'found' by the priests in the temple was actually the book of Deutoronomy. Interestingly, the tone of Deuteronomy is more insistant on worshipping "one god" than any of the other books of Moses (Torah). Nearly all the books of the latter prophets also begin to appear around this time of reformation. I suspect that any biblical books that contain a clear monotheistic message were written after 750 BC.

Where does all of this leave me and my faith? Am I certain that Yahweh is a renamed and evolved form of Nanna? No, I'm not certain of that. There are too many other gods whose qualities have been given to Yahweh to be certain that our Yahweh of today is the same as the Nanna of ancient Sumer. I do feel that if Abraham didn't worship Nanna, he was at least strongly influenced by the Nanna cult and the reign of Ur-Nammu. If we claim to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then we must ask: "Who was their god?" Unfortunately, the archealogical record isn't very supportive of the claim that their god is the same god that Jews or Christians worship today. I once read a statement on a Jewish site (I think it was reform Judaism) that they recognized that God evolves. At the time I found their statment appalling. Maybe that statement wasn't so wrong.

When I began to see some five years ago that Christianity is steeped in paganism and non-biblical traditions, I changed my life accordingly. I began rejecting any teaching or tradition that was not clearly taught within the Bible, and especially those that had absolutely no Old Testament support. I also began to seek the counsel and instruction of scripture rather than the doctrines of churches. When these things stood out to me, I realized that although I had a personal relationship with God, I hadn't really known Him. Walking in Bible teachings I thought I was beginning to understand. Now I am seeing once again that I still don't know Him. I know He is there, but why does He hide?

A dream: dove transformed into an eagle

2006-09-12T09:48:00.000-04:00

Ocasionally, I have what I feel are spiritually significant dreams. I tend to get them around this time of year, especially so, nearer to Yom Kippur. I don't have a lot of these dreams, maybe 1-3 a year. When I first began to have them over a decade ago, I fretted about what to do with them. If I didn't tell anyone, was I hiding the revelations given to me? If I tell people, who do I tell? Are the dreams prophetic? Does that make me a prophetess? And so on. All these dreams have one thing in common: they lead me to pray. Over time, I realized that prayer was the main purpose of the dreams, and that unless I was instructed to tell a particular dream to a large number of people, I was not expected to. I now simply treasure the wonder of the gift of sight into the unseen. Once in a while I'll tell a dream to a close friend or family member. I also began to write them down when possible; although certain aspects of the dreams always stay with me, I sometimes forget the finer details over time.

This morning I had one such dream. I woke from it at 5:20 AM merely a half hour before my husband would wake. I didn't want to disturb my husbands sleep, so I didn't turn on a light to write it down. Since this is my personal journal, it seems to be a good place to record what I remember. I'm not putting it here because I think other people need to know about it. I'm just putting it here because it is an aspect of my spiritual journey.

This morning I dreamed that I was outside studying my Bible. Others were also around, each by his/herself in a place of quiet and solitude. The day was nice. As I was pondering the scripture, I saw a vision. A pure white dove was flying at a distance and turned, flying directly at me. It slowed as it neared and I heard a voice saying to go down a certain road, the "road of ____". I can't remember the specific name used for the road. When the vision ended I got up to find the road. A friend was studying nearby, so I went to him and asked if he knew about this road and where I could find it. He said he heard that the road was in a certain place and said it was called by some "the way of _____"(a synonym of the blank above). So we walked until we came to the road, a single lane dirt road like one might find in a state forest. We proceeded down the road for sometime and my friend began to see the vision of the white bird just as I saw it the first time, he pointed and I saw it too. The bird turned toward us and began to slow, gliding with its wings extended just as in my first vision. As it approached it grew in brightness so that everything was as blackness compared to the glory of the white dove and I was awestruck. But, then the brightness of the dove began to fade and our surroundings began to become discernable once again. The dove appeared to falter in its flight. It then transformed into an eagle and swoped away. The vision on the road came to an end and I awakened from my sleep.

Usually, I have a pretty good grasp of the interpretation of my dreams. Sometimes I understand parts but not all, and the understanding comes years later. Most of my dreams include something that was, something that is, and something that I haven't yet known or understood. I am quite uncertain in this dream about what happened with the dove and why it transformed into an eagle. I have ideas as to what the dream is about, but its not very clear to me yet. Since I'm not certain about such an important part of this dream, I'm not going to write down any of what I do understand. The vision of the shining white dove is very strong; I still see it when I close my eyes.

Sorting out the heritage of Zadok and Abiathar

2006-08-26T14:15:00.000-04:00

Some time ago, Dr. Claude Mariottini wrote in his blog a reply to my question about why he thinks that the priest Zadok was a Jebusite. I have now finally been able to devote some time to comparing his arguments with scripture and to drawing some conclusions on the matter.

Acording to the scripures, Abiathar is the only living relative of Ahimelech (1 Sam 22). Ahimelech is a descendant of Aaron's son Ithamar (1 Chron 24). And, Ahimelech was the priest at Nob who gave provisions to David when he was fleeing from Saul. Saul ordered that Ahimelech's entire family be slaughtered because of David. However one person, Abiathar, son of Ahimelech survived and fled with an ephod to David's camp. David felt responsible for the deaths and told Ahimelech to remain with him for protection. At this point, Abiathar must be old enough and know enough to run to David without assistance and while in David's presence the author of Samuel calls Abiathar 'the priest.'

If I can trust the timeline in my NASB, approximately 15 years pass between the death of Ahimelech's family and the beginning of David's kingship in Hebron. David reigns as king a total of 40 years, so from the time that Abiathar enters the protection of David until Davids death, 55 years have passed. By the time of Solomon's reign, Abiathar would certainly be far too old to serve as 'the' priest since the priest is to be between 25(or 30) and 50 years old. He could however continue to assist in temple duties. When David instructs on the division of the priests at the time he appoints Solomon as king, we find that Abiathar and his son Ahimelech are mentioned but niether are listed as 'the' priest (1 Chron 24:6). This strongly suggests that Abiathar was nolonger the high priest prior to his banishment to Anathoth, and rightly so since he was essentially retired at least a decade (probably two or three decades) prior.

In 2 Samuel 8:17, we find David expanding the kingdom and Zadok son of Ahitub is mentioned as the priest along with Ahimelech the son of Abiathar. Ahimelech son of Abiathar is also mentioned in 1 Chron 24:6. Abiathar's father and his son appear to be both named Ahimelech. If the son of Abiathar has become a priest and Abiathar is not mentioned as the priest, then it is quite likely that by this time Abiathar has already retired. However a son of Abiathar named Jonathan is mentioned several times elsewhere and it still appears that Abiathar is an important priest in 2 Sam 15:35 and in 2 Sam 20:25, so 2 Sam 8:17 and 1 Chron 24:6 may contain errors. Also, 1 Kings 2:27 states that Solomon dismisses Abiathar from the priesthood. Alternatively, the usage of the name Abiathar rather than Ahimelech during Zadoks priesthood may be an error if scribes were confused by both father of Abiathar and his son having the same name.

However, the fact remains that Abiathar is very aged by the beginning of Solomons reign. One suggestion regarding the line of Zadok is that Zadok was Abiathar's uncle. Given the age of Abiathar, this senario seems extremely unlikely. Also, when David assigns the 24 divisions of the priests, Zadok is listed among those descended from Eleazar, where as Abiathar is listed as those from Ithamar. (1 Chron 24) Perhaps Zadok could be an uncle through marriage, but not by biological descent.

The presence of two priests makes a lot of sense if Zadok is younger than Abiathar. Just as when a President of the USA retires he is still called 'President' so also would it be likely to continue to call the high priest the high priest even after he has 'retired.' Perhaps a one writing about that persons life would even refer to that person as priest prior to his acquisition of that office. For example someone might write: "President Bush was in college at that time." We would know that while in college he was not president, but writer simply uses his later title out of respect. So Abiathar would be the elder, retired priest; and, Zadok would be the current chief priest during the last 30 years of Davids reign.

We would then expect that after Zadok's 30 years of service, he too would retire. In 1 Kings 4:2 we can see that before construction began on the temple, Zadok's grandson, Azariah is 'the' priest; whereas Zadok and Abiathar are simply listed as priests in 4:4.

Another twist to all this is thrown in when one writer states that Abiathar was dismissed "to fulfill the the word of YHVH, which He had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh." (1 Kings 2:27) This suggests that Abiathar was descended from Eli, yet Eli does not appear in Abiathars genealogy.

Eli's lineage is far less attested than Zadok's. Who is Eli the son of? He had two sons, Phinehas and Hophni. Is his son Phinehas the same as the Aaron's grandson? If so, then the name Eli must be short for Eleazar. However, this is very doubtful because Samuel who was a child during the priesthood of Eli's sons was contemporary with David's father Jesse. So, Eli would be contemporary with Boaz (since he was rather old when Samuel came along) during the time of the judges. Then this Phinehas son of Eli would probably have been in the generation of Obed. Phinehas son of Eleazar on the other hand lived through the Exodus hundreds of years earlier.

I really can't see how any of this implies that Zadok was a Jebusite. If Zadok's heritage is of the line of Eleazar as scripture states, then his rise to pre-eminence is fitting with the statement in Numbers 3:32 that Eleazar son of Aaron (and probably his offspring) is to be chief over the chiefs of the Levites. There were a few other points that Dr. Mariottini raised, however this is getting very long already, so I'll leave that for another post if needed.

"What is Faith?" My perspective

2006-08-18T09:54:00.000-04:00

The words for faith translated in scripture can also be translated as trust, firmness, belief. Faith is not something that you can possess like you can have a house or have an apple. Faith is something you 'have' by doing, or in the words of my dictionary "to have" in this sense is to "exhibit in action." The word faith today is often used in other ways; for instance, 'having faith' is often equated with being a Christian, and 'the faith' could refer to a particular set of beliefs.

Understanding the concept of faith is important. I think that many people when asked the question, "Do you have faith?" answer "yes" because they think they ought to and don't want to either disappoint others or don't want to bring attention to themselves. They would feel stupid or embarassed if they were to say, "I'm not sure, what is faith?"

I have a neighbor who is the almost 40 y.o. daughter of a now retired presbyterian minister. She was a preachers kid all her life. Several years ago she decided to leave her dad's church and go to a different one in the area. The new church is more active in helping the community and participating in missions. They enjoy studying the bible, and members actually seem to care about each other. Some members also 'move in the spirit' speaking in tongues, giving prophecies, being slain in the spirit, etc. Some of them have taking trips to the "Toronto Vineyard Church," which is basically a huge gathering of people expecting or hoping for some spiritual manifestation to strike them. She wants what they seem to have. She wants it so much that its heart breaking to watch her sway with her hands uplifted, petitioning God to send his spirit on her. Her self-image is now wrapped up in whether she has or does not have one of these spiritual experiences. She thinks she just has to have "more faith" and it will happen. Eventually, she wanted so much for an experience that she began to act as if she were, but her facial expression of deep pain shows this is not the case. Her obsession with seeking the spiritual experience is eating her away inside.

One day a few of the members delivered her husband of his demons (he has bipolar disorder). His condition had been stable for over 15 years. Because he and his wife believed he had been delivered, he stopped taking his medication. Within a week he was in the hospital because he became severely manic. The 'prophetess' who began this deliverance had told them that this was an attack of the devil, and if they stood firm (had faith) it would pass. He is back on medication and they are left thinking that they didn't have 'enough faith.'

Faith isn't something that can be measured by how magical you seem to be or what miracles you experience. Simon Magus wanted the spirit and would give money for it, but Peter rebuked him for trying to buy God's gift. Trying to acquire spiritual gifts by praying just the right way or believing just the right way is no different than offering money. In fact those who are seeking the gifts often do offer money. Willing yourself to 'have more faith' so that God will bless and love you more, is an attempt to earn salvation.

Israel eperienced many miracles at the exodus, not because they had a lot of faith, but because YHVH wanted to show them and all Egypt that He alone is God and he keeps his promises. The fact that they went straight back to idolatry demonstrates that they were not trusting in YHVH, yet YHVH still gave them manna to eat and gave them water in a dry place. He saved them from their enemies, moving the earth and sea not because of their faith, but because of His faithfulness. Yet after all He did for them they feared man more than YHVH and so refused to enter the promised land to take possession of it. Those who spurned YHVH through their disobedience to His instructions were not permitted to enter.

Salvation is by grace, not faith. Faith is our response to His grace, the acceptance of His gift to us. Everything we do and say (our work) is an expression of faith. Without grace we cannot be saved, without faith we do not receive His grace; without obedience we have no faith. Hebrews chapter eleven gives a long list of people who by faith walked in obedience. Simply put, our faith is our trust in action.

What is faith?

2006-08-15T23:00:00.000-04:00

"Faith" is a word so often used in religious gatherings that sometimes we forget to talk about what exactly faith is. So, lets talk about faith. Leave a comment that you feel answers the question, "What is faith?"

Does it matter how God's name is translated?

2006-08-14T11:42:00.000-04:00

Blind beggar left a comment on Dr. Mariottini's recent post on The Name of God in bible Translations. My reply to his/her comment was getting too long for the comment page as well, so I'm posting it here.

blind beggar said:

I’m not sure why it matters since Jesus told us to address him as Father. I don’t go around calling my father by his given name, he is dad.

I’m sure I must be missing the point (and I apologize for doing so), but does it matter how YHWH is translated?

This is an important question to consider. Here are my thoughts:

If someone asked you what your father's name is, how would you reply?

More importantly, however, YHVH's name clarifies who He is. He isn't just any god, He isn't Allah, or Zeus who both are viewed as fathers of gods and men. He is the One who is, the eternal One, Creator of all, the gracious God of Israel, and King of the universe about whom the Bible is written. Would it not be silly to write a book about someone and never say who that someone is? If you made a photo album for your grandchildren, would you only list your dad, as "Dad" or would you make sure that somewhere in there they saw his full name, and that they saw it often enough to remember it? Just as there can be many fathers, but only one who is yours (and whose name you yourself have as your own), so there are many 'gods' and 'lords', but only one who is YHVH. If a persons name is important, how much more important is the name of our God?

Those who collected the books of the Old Testament thought the name was so important that inclusion of the name YHVH was one of the requirements for canonization (which is why the inclusion of the book of Esther is sometimes questioned). Yet, ironically todays English Bibles hardly even mention the name.

Also, many people think that the terms LORD, Lord, GOD and God as used in our Bibles are equivalent terms. But the Hebrew distinguishes between these and sometimes knowing which Hebrew word was meant brings a better understanding of the passage.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling YHVH "Father," but allowing His name to be lost and relatively unknown to the world is in my opinion as tragic as taking His name in vain. I realize that the issue doesn't even come to the minds of most people, but that itself is part of the tragedy. We should not allow our Father's name to be blotted out of our books and ultimately our minds.

More about Yahweh's name in Bible Translations

2006-08-14T10:41:00.000-04:00

The following are some of my thoughts in reply to Dr. Claude Mariottini's new post about using the name of YHVH in Bible translations and elsewhere. It seemed too long to post on his page as a comment so I decided to put it here. I have a previous blog entry regarding this topic which can be found here.

I personally wouldn't have a problem seeing the Hebrew letters, but I've endeavored to learn what they are and how to prounounce them. I suspect that one argument for keeping the Hebrew rather than using transliterated letters is because of the controversy in tranliterating the 'vav.'

Just using the transliterated letters would also produce the same issue as Dr. Mariottini has raised about using the Hebrew letters. The pronounciation of YHVH or YHWH is not clear to someone who has no background knowledge of the name. Its not even totally clear to those who do. Because of the controversy of proper pronounciation, I tend to use YHVH to represent the hebrew letters which allows people to choose which pronounciation they prefer. But when I say the name, I tend to say 'Yahweh' because that is the pronounciation that seems to be most agreed on by scholars. The fundamental problem with using YHVH is that christiandom in general would not readily recognize it as God's name either.

My point however is that Christiandom can learn the name in all its possible forms, and writers, editors and church leaders can and should facilitate the dissemination of that very important information. If that effort is made, reading YHVH, YHWH, Yahweh, or even its Hebrew form will not be too difficult for anyone.

The name of Yahweh in Bible translations

2006-08-13T11:28:00.000-04:00

In this post by Dr. Claude Mariottini, he stated: "I agree with the decision to leave the tetragrammaton untranslated, but the use of Hebrew letters to represent the name of God will confuse many American readers who are not familiar with Hebrew."

Something I don't understand is the decision by nearly all american translators to continue the practice of using "LORD" to translate the tetragramaton. Most Bibles will include a very small explanation in their introductory pages stating that LORD is used in place of the name of Yahweh. Why is it that teaching the name to seminary students is quite simple, but teaching it to laity is viewed as "too difficult?" I think that if scholars and pastors and other spiritual leaders would tell people what the name is they would gladly use it. Those who have memorized verses the current way, may not switch to quoting with the name included, but they would still be enriched by knowing the name of their God. If Bible editors would not take away the name and then explain why previous versions did not contain the name, people would readily learn and appreciate knowing it.

I most often use the NASB study Bible. This version often mentions in the margin notes that LORD is actually the Hebrew YHWH. If there is concern that people will have difficulty with the transition, why not note in the margins "YHWH, God's name,rendered LORD in many translations, see page.."

The laity is quite capable of learning many spritual things. In fact scripture appears to indicate that new believers were expected to study and learn, and to proceed to do all that most christians now expect only pastors to do. The Israelites were at times read entire books of the Bible in a matter of a day or two. It wasn't enough for the priests or rulers to know these words. It was proclaimed in its entirery to everyone.

Pastors aren't some special elite group that are to do everything for everyone; and lay people aren't a bunch of morons unable to handle learning a few facts about their God. There were some times in history when church leaders made access to the Bible and religious material at best inaccessible, at worst, illegal. They claimed it was because the laity would misinterpret and promote heresies. Meanwhile, those same church leaders were full of corruption and teaching/practicing their own heresies. Had the laity been given full access to the Bible, they would be able to stand up to the people leading them astray. Today, we have access to a vast archive of materials and information. Why then in this age of information, is information still being held back? Is the pervasive attitude which considers laity to be stupid peasants and priests/pastors/scholars as the worthy elect the haunting whispers of shameful periods of church history? I hope that those who possess the power to correct glaring errors (such as denying people easy access to the name of their God) would make every effort to do so.

"The Gnostic Paul"

2006-08-10T22:57:00.000-04:00

Last week, I finished reading a book called "The Gnostic Paul" There is more to the title, something about the gnostic exegesis of Pauls epistles. And its by a female author. Unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me (I returned it to the library) to give you a proper reference, but I doubt there are many books like it, so it shouldn't be too hard to find if you are interested in it.

Anyway, its not a very long book, but it took me over a month to get through it, eventhough I am usually a very fast reader (I read the Da Vinci Code in 3-4 days). "The Gnostic Paul" was a challenging read because my beliefs are nearly as anti-gnostic as one can find. This book was basically a gnostic interpretation and commentary on Paul's epistles as represented in several sources especially the Nag Hammadi find.

Some people might wonder why I would spend time reading such a book. Afterall, gnosticism is a heresy right? And, we shouldn't learn false teachings right?

I think that many christians would be surprised at how gnostic our churches are. In fact, I suspect that most christians would have far less difficulty than I did in reading this book. I have been culturally a christian most of my life, and spiritually a believer since I was about 16 years old. Only in the past several months have I come to any understanding of what gnosticism is. Not only that, gnosticism is rather diverse and is easily cloaked by spiritualizing any popular belief. Without understanding what gnosticism is and teaches, how can anyone defend against it? Gnosticism isn't just a christian heresy, it is a way of seeing the world that can be found in any religion. To a gnostic, our great writings are not to be understood literally; everything is spiritual. All flesh is bad, everything spiritual is good. this is of course a simplification of gnostic belief. It is far more involved than this and sometimes surprisingly diverse. Or rather it appears diverse to literalists like myself, and I'm not even an extreme literalist.

Gnostics would readily identify with my blog description. For a gnostic, the place I am stuck is this fleshly world and the place I have alighted on is the spiritual world. A gnostic might expect from my blog description that I have become pneumatic, or spiritual. And that I feel bound to the fleshly world from which I will be fully released at death. They would however be sorely disappointed to find that in their opinion, I am only a psychic (or even of class of people they believe are destined to destruction).

I should explain I am NOT gnostic, regardless of how my blog description could be interpreted. I believe that the God of the "Old Testament" is the same God and Heavenly Father of the "New Testament" and that His name is YHVH. Gnostics believe that the Old Testament God was some evil being and a lesser "god" than the Father, God of the New Testament. In fact, I believe that that the teachings of the Old Testament are still valid and important for us today. I attempt to live my life in accordance with YHVH's commands. To a gnostic, all the commands found in Torah are irrelevent (and even oppressive) because they believe that they are saved by grace, the chosen and the elect who are sons of the Father, beings of light trapped in fleshly skin, and that their position in the kingdom is permanent and unconditional. To gnostics, they are essentially two people, a spiritual person, and a fleshly person, and whatever is done in the flesh is of no consequence because the flesh will die.

It is in fact my anti-gnostic beliefs that cause me to feel stuck, yet separate from popular beliefs. In the modern church's efforts to gain membership, it has become incredibly gnostic and has adapted gnostic technics, spirituallizing pagan and foreign practices so that it would be found acceptable to the cultures in which it resides. Gnosticism is alive and flourishing in churches today. It would be wise for christians to learn a little bit about it in order to stand against it. (I hope that those reading don't think they know everything about gnosticism by reading this journal entry... I have a very general understanding, and there is much more to gnosticism than I am writing about today.)

An obvious question that reading a book like this one would raise is: Was Paul gnostic? I don't think that anyone living today is really qualified to answer that question. Some might say that the heresy didn't exist in the church until a hundred or so years after Paul lived. Yet others would point out that Pauls epistles were highly favored by gnostics. The point of the book is to give a gnostic perspective of Pauls writings. Just because some people perceived Paul as gnostic does not make him gnostic; just as the description of my own blog could be perceived as gnostic but most certainly is not. Whether or not Paul promoted gnostic or gnostic-like teachings, the fact remains that many christian gnostics can easily refer to Paul as an esteemed representative and emmisary of their faith.

For those who aren't gnostic the important question is: Do the teachings of Paul agree with the teachings of the apostles, Yahshua and the Old Testament? It is clear from scripture also that all the apostles were capable of making mistakes. If Peter can be given "the keys of the kingdom" in one moment and called satan shortly thereafter, then Paul could certainly be walking in truth at times and speaking in error at other times. Its hard to even know for sure if the "errors" are Paul's or some scribes. Let every book of the Bible ('Old' and 'New' testaments) be a witness; those teachings that are consistant are those on which we can fully rely.

The Da Vinci Code's Tragic Flaw

2006-07-28T18:14:00.000-04:00

I have finally picked up and read the popular novel, The Da Vinci Code. On pages 251 through 254 of the book, the author Dan Brown tells history as it was. I suspect that these pages are among those about which many Christians have been so disturbed. Discovering that we have been practicing pagan customs and that we have been lied to (or at least misguided) by people who supposedly are the church fathers can not only be shocking but sometimes faith shattering. The important question to ask ourselves when our eyes are opened is this: Who is our faith built on? Have we trusted in the so-called church fathers and their man-made articles of faith? Or, have we trusted in the one true God, Creator of the Universe and His holy promises?

The answer to that question will direct our ultimate response to information like that presented on pages 251-254 of The Da Vinci Code. If we love YHVH our God, with all our heart, mind and soul, then we will turn away from practices and teachings that have been added to those giving to us by YHVH. If we are unwilling to conform to His will, then we have not put our faith in Him, but rather in some man-made image.

The irony of The Da Vinci Code is that while pointing out erroneous beliefs, practices and teachings of the church, it simultaneously presents alternative erroneous beliefs as truth. How is it that Jesus cannot be God (or a god), yet Mary Magdalene can be? The text on page 274 says: "The threat that Mary Magdalene posed to the men of the early church was potentially ruinous... she also had physical proof that the Church's newly proclaimed deity had spawned a mortal bloodline." Yet, the text on the bottom of page 275 says of the books heroic sect: "The Priory of Sion, to this day, still worships Mary Magdalene as the Goddess, the Holy Grail, the Rose, and the Divine Mother." How is what the church has done be any different than what the Priory has done? If Mary was a goddess, how is it then that she and her offspring are mortal?

The greatest asset of Dan Brown's novel is that it will hopefully challenge people to seek out what is true. The quest for truth can be both frightening and exhilarating, but it will never be in vain.

I have seen both the movie, and read the book. I found the book far more interesting than the movie. Dan Brown has artfully woven together very intriguing historical references and viewpoints to take us on an intense journey that is as much about us as it is about his characters. It is thought provoking as well as entertaining, but perhaps not a book for just anyone.

Warning to Those Who Keep YHVH's Feasts

2006-07-14T22:56:00.001-04:00

I desire to keep the feasts and celebrations which YHVH set forth for us in the Torah (the first five books of the bible). He gave to us these feasts as reminders of what He has done and promised, and to teach us about His relationship with us. For me, keeping the feasts is a blessing.

Recently, I have been doing internet searches to find what groups might be gathering to keep Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles) this year. It is nice to be able to celebrate with others. However, I discovered during my search that there are some anti-semitic groups who also hold gatherings for Sukkot. The Anti-Defamation League terms these as "Christian Identity" groups and gives the following description which can be found at the ADL website:

Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles. Adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent, while non-whites are "mud peoples" created before Adam and Eve. Its virulent racist and anti-Semitic beliefs are usually accompanied by extreme anti-government sentiments. Despite its small size, Christian Identity influences virtually all white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements. It has also informed criminal behavior ranging from hate crimes to acts of terrorism.

The ADL website also contains a list of events held by known Christian Identity groups, and a history of the movement.

While there is nothing wrong with some people thinking that they are descended from the lost tribes of Israel, an attitude of racial supremacy is gravely erroneous. Ironically, Joseph (father of Ephraim and Mannasseh, two of the lost tribes)was married to an Egyptian woman who was very likely dark-skinned. This of course means that Ephraim and Mannasseh and all their offspring were/are racially mixed.

Anyway, I want fellow feast keepers to be careful as they look for others with whom to celebrate.

Encouragement for Truth Seekers

2006-06-02T14:49:00.000-04:00

For some people, the idea that their church or church leaders might promote error is one that is too disturbing to considered. Even more frightening is the possibility that their Bible may contain biased translations and even additions to the text. Those who are willing to ask or admit what they find are deemed faithless or worse. I have personally been called a variety of names and I know others who have been called far worse because as you can probably see by reading my blog, I believe that the truth will set you free. I am not afraid of the truth because I know that the truth is the beautiful and wonderful plan of YHVH who loves us.

Asking and searching out the scary questions is a difficult, and too often, painful path. It is for this reason that I so very appreciate the recent posts by Dr. Claude Mariottini: Memoirs of a Christian, part 1 and part 2. I hope that you will find these posts as encouraging as I have.

Pantheistic Monotheists

2006-05-05T14:38:00.000-04:00

The following quote comes from the book review titled The Jewish Goddess, Past and Present by Jay Michaelson which can be found here.

Based on the Bible, one might think that most Israelites were pious monotheists; yes, they came into contact with foreign gods and goddesses, and many strayed, but the Temple was the center of religious life, and the priests there maintained the covenant between the God in heaven and His people.

Based on the Bible, the vast majority of the Israelite people were not pious monotheists. Although YHVH says that there is no other god beside Him and commands that He alone be worshipped, the Bible and other historical sources show that the majority of Israel retained and adopted the worship of other so-called gods and goddesses. This is afterall what the prophets were continually warning about. Learning that archeologists have found an abundance of Asherah relics or any other idols should not shock the Bible student. Such findings support the scriptural description of the state of Israelite society.

Michaelson also says:

Perhaps the deeper question here is what we mean when we speak of Judaism — whether we refer to the normative texts of the elite, or the descriptive reality of the masses. Which is more accurate, and which more wise: the strict ideals of the rabbis, or the complex realities of the peasants?

The first part of the question, "what do we mean when we speak of Judaism" is a good one, and in my opinion the same question can be by extension applied to Christianity whose practice has greatly diverged from its Hebraic and Judaic roots. The challenge for all of us, whether called a Jew or Christian, is to sort through all the traditions handed to us, and to toss away everything that YHVH calls an abomination. Clearly, Asherah and idol worship were disasterous infections among the Israelites of old and plague both Judaism and Christianity even today. Often times those practicing the pagan customs don't even realize what they are doing. Are Christianity and Judaism defined by the sum of their practices? What if their practices are not in line with their calling? I know some believers who no longer want to be called by the name "Christian" because the world defines Christianity by its practices and customs, many of which do not stand up to the instructions given to us in the Bible.

Regarding the last part of Michaelson's question: "Which is more accurate, and which more wise: the strict ideals of the rabbis, or the complex realities of the peasants?" I have several questions. First, what is meant by "rabbis" as the modern concept of rabbi may not be the same as the ancient concept of rabbi. Does the phrase "ideals of the rabbis" refer to philosophy, scripture writings, or rabbinical practice? Solomon was supposedly quite wise, yet he practiced what Michaelson seems to be referring to as "the complex relaties of the peasants." And of anyone, certainly Solomon eventually grasped just how complex it was indeed! Solomon only retained (and prospered) the kingdom by the promise and grace of YHVH, but Solomon's folly in worshipping the foreign gods of his wives set a poor standard for future leaders and the nation as a whole.

Michaelson's first observation is accurate - there is a dichotomy in definition. However, the dichotomy is not between people (if that is what he is saying), it is within people. Both "rabbi's" and "peasants" are capable of folly as well as wisdom. It is in my opinion inappropriate to label all who might fall in one or another group as more wise or more accurate.

It is unfortunate that Michaelson reviews the two books in one article, and incorporates some of his own religious comentary. The first book, Did God Have a Wife? Archeology And Folk Religion in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever may be an interesting and useful resource for investigating the archeological context of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and perhaps the origins of some unbiblical customs. It is however difficult to determine from the article, whose views are whose.

Check out the article which I linked to above, and also Dr. Claude Mariotini's post on his blog found here.

The Parable of the Bronze Serpent

2006-04-30T15:07:00.000-04:00

Once upon a time, the Most High God, the Creator of all that is, bestowed promises and blessings on a people. Having rescued them from a life of bondage and oppression, He sent His messengers before them with many signs and wonders, giving them food and water, and victory in battle. Yet, the journey was long and difficult in the eyes of the people, because they could only see jagged rocks and barren land. They had never seen the land to which they were heading and many times thought that this barren wasteland would be their fate. As they drew near to the promised land, their way was blocked so that they had to take another more difficult path. Disappointed and angry, they grumbled against the Most High God and despised His provisions, biting and blaspheming against the hand that fed them. In return, the Most High sent serpents to hiss and bite at them. Realizing their sin, the people repented and confessed their sins. The Most High then instructed that a serpent made of bronze be placed on a pole to save all who were afflicted by a serpent bite, because the bite was deadly. When a person who had been bit beheld the sign of their sin and affliction, that person would live.

Soon the people entered the land and they carried with them that bronze serpent. They became a prosperous and mighty nation in a good and bountiful land, as the Most High had promised. Yet, they exchanged the glory of the Most High for images and created things, including that very sign of His grace, the bronze serpent on the pole. So, the Most High cast those people out of His sight, reducing their kingdom to little more than a memory.

Hundreds of years later, The Most High again returned His people to that special land. They dwelled in the land and the holy place of the Most High was rebuilt. A voice cried out, calling that people to repentance, which many did; Having rescued them from bondage and oppression, a sign was given to them, which like that bronze serpent would cause those who looked to it to live. The Most High not only sent healing and relief through the new sign, but instruction also. Although the instructions were not new instructions, those who looked to and listened to the sign began to be called by its name. The Most High sent His messengers before them, and worked great miracles through those people. In time, however, some who were looking to this sign began to forsake the Most High who gave this sign of grace for the sign itself, and they too worshiped as their god the created rather than the Most High God, the Creator of all that is.

More on Empty Pews...

2006-04-18T10:18:00.000-04:00

You may think that the things I wrote about in my last post are limited to one or two congregations, that I base my observations on very limited experience. My husband and I, however, regularly encounter all sorts of congregations as a result of my husband's vocation. Our encounters are not even limited to one denomination, although the majority are mainline protestant. Only a very few groups exhibit a wholehearted passion for their Creator and Savior.

Too many people are only putting in their payment for the Jesus Christ insurance policy. Those who have become insurance salesmen have been trained how to illicit a positive response. Effective ones can draw hundreds, even thousands of individuals to come forward in an alter call. I have seen nearly whole audiences walk forward. Yet, I know that most of those people did so because they are only acting out what they think someone is expecting of them, they were following the cues in the script. The ones who are genuinely giving their lives to God at those times are often left without support and guidance; like babies left on a sidewalk, they don't know how to find sustanence and die for lack of love.

Every Sunday people go to churches and put on a show. They smile and shake hands, sing a few songs, nod their heads (some in sleepiness, some in response to someone's command), meanwhile inside their hearts they have personal struggles, questions, sadness, loneliness, and anxiety that remains. There is also a sense of guilt that people carry as they think that something must be wrong with them for having these feelings. Afterall, no-one else who has this insurance policy feels that way right? And so, most people pretend that they have the perfect Christian life and home. The difficulties of real life are never addressed and people go home no better off than they were before they went.

The church should have two main purposes: the first is to love YHVH with all their hearts, minds and souls; the second is to love one another as Messiah has loved us. Its not about going through the right motions, instead, it is a way of life, an attitude and posture of the heart. The modern church has become religion for the sake of religion. Our devotion should not be to a denomination, a building, or to certain practices, but to YHVH. We need to walk in obedience to Him, not to organizations. When we are facing Him, our lives will become a reflection of Him and a witness to everyone we encounter.

Empty Pews, Missing Generations

2006-04-13T22:58:00.000-04:00

Most church organizations that have existed for more than 30 years have a major concern. That major concern is that the majority of their members are over 40 years old, with only a small minority of younger members. Between the efforts to draw in the younger generations(some frequent and extensive, while others as rare as once every few years), members and clergy ponder the age old question: "Why?"

As one both on the inside and on the outside (and falling in that <40 category), I will attempt to shed some light on this matter. First, I say I am on the inside, because there are times when I encounter "church" every day of the week. I am now stuck living literally within the beast until circumstances change (and prayers are answered). I have intimately observed "church" for over 10 years. I was once highly involved for six years, holding a variety of offices/lay positions. Volunteering in such ways consume a large amount of time and energy. While I used time and energy as an excuse when I first began resigning from my numerous 'jobs,' these were somewhat minor issues.

The main reason I left was because I became disgusted. I became disgusted that in the 6 years while I was seeking to learn and to help others learn, only a very small group of people ever signed up for the pastor's bible studies; I was disgusted that while Easter and Christmas were supposedly about Jesus' death and birth, over half the congregation would ask my children what Santa and the Easter bunny brought them, while none told them about Christ; I was disgusted that old buildings are more important than people; and finally, I was disgusted that tradition was more important than faith, truth and love. So, after six years I knew that I would no-longer remain in this man-made society, wrongly called "church," where scripture is only a reminder that Christianity has something to do with God, while paper Easter bunnies are taped up on walls and windows amidst arguing over what kind of tape is proper to use on the sacred walls.

Now, to be fair, I'll also mention a few things that I did like... the few things that gave me hope that perhaps there was a light in all the darkness. There was a very old, but resilient woman who would stand up in the congregation each time she was there, leaning heavily on her cane, who while using all her strength to speak would give praise and glory to her Creator for some blessing, whether small or great, which she received that week. There was the adult sunday school teacher who faithfully attempted to teach and study eventhough there were only 3-5 people who came to class. There were a couple sweet and humble people of faith who sadly were so overwhelmed by church politics and gossip that they had no energy left to take a stand.

This is the grim reality of the state of the "church" today (especially rural churches). I have more to say, but it is late, so I'll probably write some more on this another day.

Taking some hard hits

2006-03-29T15:21:00.000-05:00

I state in the little introductory paragraph under my journal title that part of what I'll write about are the wonders and perils of this journey. This past week has been one of peril for me. I have been banned from a forum which I have frequented for a year because I said that I do not have a problem associating with people who doubt the validity of Paul's epistles, and that I didn't think those beliefs about Paul warranted the very condemning statements being made about them. I have been branded by the forum owner as being the enemy of Messiah and servant of Satan. Others have been banned as well; so the body of Messiah is once again being pulled out of joint while evil looks on and gloats. The situation is incredibly tragic. I am grieving. Please keep me and everyone this affects in prayer.

Speaking for God

2006-03-21T14:17:00.000-05:00

When it comes to people claiming to speak for God, I often strongly doubt the authenticity of their words. Perhaps that makes me like the Israelites who rejected the prophets. Certainly those I am doubting would think so. Ironically, I feel that I myself have heard from YHVH more than a few times.

The earliest example I can think of happened when I was about five or six years old. I was getting ready for church one morning and felt that I should wear my very best clothes for this special time with God. I proceeded to put on my favorite shirt. I don't remember what I wore on my legs, but that shirt was in my opinion the best shirt I owned... it was so great in fact that I had begun to wear a couple holes into it. Dressed my best, I went downstairs proclaiming that I was ready to go. My mom saw me and said "You are not wearing THAT." I was crushed. She sent me back up to my room to return with something more to her approval.

In my room again, I kneeled in front of my dresser and opened the drawer. Looking into it, I could see nothing that was better than my favorite shirt. With tears brimming over, I prayed. "Whats wrong with this shirt? Its my best shirt. Why do I have to change it?"

Then an answer came to me. "Its not what you wear on the outside that matters, but what you wear in your heart."

Equipped with the word from a higher authority than my mother, I descended the stairs with confidence and now proclaimed: "God said its okay if I wear this shirt because its what you wear in your heart that matters, not what you wear on the outside."

My mother was not at all convinced. She sent me straight back to my room with a few added consequences if I didn't return 'properly' clothed. As I trudged back up, the tears were in full flow, only now I was angry. I was so angry that I nursed that anger throughout the entire church service (thats a long time for a 5 y.o. to be angry).

The message I received was good, and to this day I believe it was sent from YHVH. But, I got it all wrong, and it took me over ten years to realize it. In my arrogance, I didn't hear the message given to me. I didn't apply it to myself. Instead, I thought I had received heavenly permission to disobey my mother and wear what I wanted. Perhaps if I had remembered that God also said to honor your mother, I would have dressed in my best that day. Instead, my heart was clothed in anger. Not only did I miss the point, but I also added to the message when I passed it on. I gave my own interpretation, that I could wear what I wanted, as if my interpretation were God's own words.

YHVH had answered my question, "Why do I have to change it?" He meant that I should obey my mother because it didn't matter what I wore on the outside because He was concerned with my heart. The message was for me, not my mom.

So that day, long ago, I heard from YHVH and boldly spoke it out (along with my own interpretation), claiming that it was all a message from God. My audience had strong doubts that this word was heaven sent and rejected the message. I of course thought that she was rejecting the very words of God. But, the message was not for her, it was for me, and it turned out that I was the one who was really rejecting His words.

Perhaps those people I encounter today who claim to speak for YHVH really have heard from Him. Yet, is the message they recieved for others, or is it for themselves? Do they speak purely the message they received, or do they add to it or take from it? Speaking in YHVH's name is a great responsibility. What if we mess up the message and someone has believed our error? If we hear from Him, His words need to first be applied to our own lives, and then if meant for others, passed on to them with the utmost care. What we hear should also agree with what scripture says. Its an easy thing to claim your own words and thoughts are the message of the Almighty One.

Justice in the World

2006-03-12T22:40:00.000-05:00

Today I read a news article titled "Prison Cell Death Deprives the World of Justice." The article was about Milosevic, the leader of the Serbians in the 1990's who is believed responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavians. The last paragraph of the article explains the title: "It is a tragedy there will be no definitive ruling..."

Because Milosevic died before a ruling was made, the author of this article and others are saying that Milosevic cheated justice. He did not recieve his sentence, did not suffer punishment at the hands of people, did not satisfy the desire for retribution; he did not pay a 'just' penalty. However, even if sentenced to life in prison or imediate death or whatever maximum penalty allowed, justice (that of eye for eye) demands that he die hundreds of thousands of times over and over again. The best human justice would fall short of the requirement.

Does a death sentence bring justice? What of all the suffering people in the world? Will punishing the evildoers bring justice? Would not justice require that those who suffer, those who are victimized, those who trodden upon like stones in the path - would not justice require that they recieve compensation? Yet, many evildoers die in their riches and comfort, and most of the lowly are never raised up. The death of Milosevic before he could be determined guilty does not deprive the world of justice; by the reckoning of eye for eye, the world is already deprived of justice, and has been for thousands of years.

Does this mean that we shouldn't bother with justice? No, not at all. We should right wrongs at every possible moment; but, we are deceived if we think that we are capable of meting out justice, measure for measure.

I say that the world is and was deprived of justice, but there will be justice. The creator of the universe, the supreme judge of all supreme judges, has a measuring line that is not too short or too long; His plumbline is perfect, and His septer unbreakable. He will mete out justice from His throne: punishing evil, bestowing mercy on the repentant, and comforting the down trodden. The world today is without justice, because it rejects YHVH; but, there will come a day when perfect justice will cover the earth. Milosevic has not escaped justice, he has entered into it.

By the way, the article I mentioned can be found here.

Sacrifices and Offerings?

2006-03-06T22:14:00.000-05:00

Would it be wrong today for someone to present a sacrifice or offering before YHVH? Many people would say it IS wrong. These say that sacrifice was done away with when Yahshua (Jesus) was crucified as the "ultimate" sacrifice. The basis for this conclusion comes from Hebrews 10:10... By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Yet, in Acts 21:26, we see Paul and others involved in bringing a sacrificial offering (a sin offering and a peace offering as described in Numbers 6:14). Apparently, the apostles did not have a problem with offering sacrifices, even sin offerings.

So, what is Hebrews 10:10 talking about if the apostles still participated in sacrifices? Notice the word "sanctified." Sanctified means to make holy, to consecrate, or to set apart. All the firstborn of Israel were sanctified as YHVH's possession. The Levites were sanctified in place of the firstborn to perform the service of the tabernacle. Aaron and his sons were sanctified as priests. When people are sanctified, there is also a sacrifice made on their behalf. For example, Numbers 8:5-26 describes the consecration of the Levites. Once they were consecrated, they were always consecrated. So, like the Levites and the priests, we have been set apart to serve YHVH. Aaron and the Levites made regular sacrifices however because they continued to sin.

YHVH gave the sacrificial system as a means for people to acknowledge and apologize for their sins. The object being sacrificed could never take away sins because it was a symbol. Sacrifice is a symbol of a repentant heart (or thankful, or gracious, etc. depending on the type of sacrifice). It is an outward expression of an inward reality, just like baptism. The sins of a person were taken away the moment that person turned away from sinning, not the moment the sacrifice was made. (see Ezek 18:20-32) But, many people made sacrifices without a repentant heart; they sinned, sacrificed, and committed the same sins again and again and again. Their sacrifices were a burden to both them and YHVH. Without repentance, their sacrifices were worthless. YHVH's desire was and is for obedience. Yahshua lived an obedient life and died an obedient death. Our God desires that we give our own lives to Him in obedience, not the lives of sheep and goats.

So, would it be wrong today for someone to present a sacrifice or offering to YHVH? No, as long as the sacrifice is an outward expression of an inward reality. But, sacrifices made to bribe God to look away from our sins are an insult to Him, not a pleasing aroma, and such sacrifices were never acceptable. There are some today who do the same with the cross of Christ, thinking that they'll just lay claim to the cross (maybe dutifully putting in their time at church, maybe tossing some money into the 'offering' plate as added insurance) and sail into the Kingdom without a change of heart. YHVH wants our hearts first; when we love Him with all our hearts, minds and souls, then we will walk in obedience and He will be well pleased.

Media Recommendation

2006-03-02T17:59:00.000-05:00

The other night, I saw some really neat short videos. They take an object and give a Biblically based message that somehow relates to the object. They are not associated with any church and stress the importants of faith, hope and love over the religious show that many people and churches display. The few that I have seen so far go into Hebrew words and culture, pointing out the mindset that Christ, the disciples and the other people written about in the Bible would have had. I'm looking forward to watching the rest (we have about 12). They are called "NOOMA" and you can order them at the www.nooma.com website.

The New Testament: Fact or Fiction?

2006-02-24T20:59:00.000-05:00

I recently chatted with someone who had come to the opinion that the New Testament and the character of Yahshua (Jesus) is a work of fiction contrived by the Rome to make people believe what Rome wanted people to believe. If his statement is true, then Rome has pulled off the greatest fraud of all times. Yet, even if his statement isn't true, the handprint of Rome in the Christian religion has had a tremendous influence on the forms of worship and beliefs today.

It is the very stark difference between the church as described in the Bible (including the New Testament)and the Romanized church (including protestant forms) that leads me to disagree. Many of todays practices and beliefs are not mentioned and sometimes even condemned in this collection of books and letters that he believes was only propoganda. This is likely the very reason why there was a period of time when lay people were not permitted to read the Bible at all. Why prevent these people from reading a work of propaganda that was to cause them to give their allegiance to the church? Reverse psychology? I think it was because if the laity would read the Bible themselves, they would have discovered the truth and rejected the lies they were being threatened into believing.

There has indeed been extensive propaganda, but the majority of it has come through swords and tortures, death and pain. Those who disagreed with the church were tortured into a confession or killed. Hundreds of years of coercion have been so effective that glowing hot irons and shackles are no longer necessary; most people are already blind and imprisoned although their eyes can see and their feet are free to move.

Can the New Testament be trusted? For the most part, I think so. There are always people who twist scripture, who take words out of context, so it is important to read the context, and compare related scriptures including their context to understand what is being said. Just because someone sounds convincing doesn't mean that they are teaching the truth. Test everything, and prove scripture with scripture.

Cartoon

2006-02-11T20:20:00.000-05:00

If this cartoon makes you think of any particular scriptures, feel free to post them in the comments. I drew this, so if you would like to use it, please link back to this blog.

Spiritual Abuse and Manipulation

2006-02-08T16:59:00.000-05:00

I've been reading a book to learn more about what my brother might be going through in regards to his church and to learn how people might escape from such an environment. To me, the ways in which my brother's church manipulates and the results of those manipulations are pretty serious. I also have not been totally blind to the fact that there are plenty of manipulative people within most churches. I was well aware that I have personally encountered these behaviors. I was, however, surprised to realize just how much spiritual abuse I have been a victim of and how much I have been hurt. I also realized that while I was in leadership positions, I probably unknowingly hurt people as well.

I think that over much of the past three or four years I have been in a process of discovery and recovery. Some of the posts I have written in this blog are eerily similar to some of the examples given in the book. I see now that part of the purpose of my blog is to fight back, to cry out, to warn people. Yet, as I state under my journal title, my body is still stuck, trapped in an abusive system, even though my spirit has found freedom in truth. That is why, I am fencekicker; I want completely out; I want people to wake up; I want to set the captives free. I am tired of being beat up by the church, taken advantage of, treated like a slave, and told to keep quiet.

When my husband began working for the mainstream denomination in which he is currently still employed, we were naive. We thought we would be serving God. We have sacrificed so very much here, but for what? When my husband worked 80-90 hours a week for 10 weeks straight, I used to think it was for God; Now when he works those weeks, I seethe, knowing that he is being taken advantage of and that the organization's purpose for his work is to help bring people into this messed up system. My husband thinks that our presence here can help others to see what we see; I think that we can and will do that wherever we live and work, but at least out there we don't have to be hurt anymore; out there, I can shout and sing-out what I believe from my roof top without restraint. One of the barriers to leaving discussed in the book is the thought that you have already invested so much that you should give it a little more time to see if things will get better. Perhaps this is why my husband feels compelled to stay a little longer.

This book has given me a lot to think about. Maybe the more I understand how we became imprisoned by a church and how we began to see that this isn't the way YHVH intended it to be, the more I'll be able to help my brother and his wife to see what is happening to them. Maybe when we all get out of our abusive systems, we will grow close together as our wounds heal.

I'm planning to give a copy of this book to my brother. In fact, I think I'll just go out and buy about three dozen of them to give away because I think it is very important for people to know about spiritual abuse so they can recognize it, prevent it and escape it. In case you are interested, the book is The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse" by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen.

Mindless Faith

2006-02-04T13:23:00.000-05:00

My brother has been involved in a fast growing church for about five years. During those five years quite a lot has happened in his life including such major changes as getting married, having children, and building their own house. I wish that I could celebrate with my brother all these significant developments in his life, but one other drastic change has also occurred: he no longer spends time or talks with me or the rest of his blood relatives. For many years, I made excuses for him because it takes time to adjust to all these life changes, but it has become increasingly clear that they don't want to have anything to do with us. So, the question is why not?

Recently, my mom tearfully explained to him that she and all of us are hurt by this separation. He gave many petty reasons such as: we don't have all the food prepared when they arrive, so they always come late (the few times they come to anything) because they feel we aren't ready for them. The sum of his statements was basically that we aren't good enough for them.

When considering the source(s) of his (and his wife's) attitude toward us there are possibilities, one of which is that their church is pulling them away from us. This has been a consideration for sometime but as I have only been to their church a few times and that some four years ago, I didn't feel I could draw that conclusion with any certaintly. I have considered attending the church to observe their ways and learn more about their teachings, but I feel that it would be logistically difficult as well as very awkward for everyone.

Yesterday, I received new insight into the workings of my brother's church. Someone (a christian) we know has some friends who started going there. One of the friends he was very close to and he thought that perhaps he and she might marry. When she first started attending she would tell him about the church, how it is organized and her experiences there. He thought about attending the church with his friends but wanted to know more about it before attending regularly and he had some questions about some of the teachings. The church is set up with a mentor system where each mentor has about 10 members he/she mentors, and each member has a mentor, and the mentors have mentors. The members are accountable to their mentor and are to keep a journal which they give to their mentor to read once a week. They also submit various personal correspondance to their mentors. Our friend who had questions had been talking with his friends particularly his female friend about his questions. She was told that she should not think about faith because it raises doubts which will then take away her faith. They also told her she needs to put an end to their friendship, and to cut off communication with him.

His sad story has many parallels with that of my brother. I feel it is likely that my brother and his wife have been instructed to keep away from us. One of the last three conversations of substance that my brother and I had (about 4-5 years ago) was one in which I disagreed with something his church had just taught. Prior to his involvement with this church, he would talk about life, faith, hopes, relationships, struggles, and joys. Now he won't discuss much of anything beyond hello, good-bye and the weather.

I miss my brother. I wish we could share our lives with each other as we once did. I am also deeply concerned about him and his family. Any church that teaches its members to not think or ask questions is dangerous. If its teachings are true, then the church should not fear questions and discussion because the the result of a person impartially investigating the matter will only show that their teachings are true. It is only those who teach falsehood who need fear that their teachings be thought about, examined or challenged.

What can be done? A church has imprisoned my brother and he doesn't know that it has enslaved him.

"The Devil is God's Enemy"

2006-01-25T17:26:00.000-05:00

I homeschool my oldest child (eventually I'll homeschool my other two as well), and I am also teaching another homeschooled child math along with my own since they are at the same level. Today when I was done teaching and they were settled into their "homework" assignments, my daughter asked if I could turn some music on because she wanted to dance. I didn't think music would distract my students, so I said yes and put on a CD of Biblically inspired music. After a song or two played, my guest student turned to me and stated in a matter of fact tone: "The devil is God's enemy."

I must say I wasn't sure how to respond to his doctrinal statement. I didn't completely agree with it. But, if that is what his parents (who go to church) are teaching him, then I don't want to undermine their authority in his life. He was waiting for me to agree with him. What do I say? So, I replied: "The devil is certainly our enemy, and we should resist him."

Then he says: "The devil isn't real."

"Isn't real?"

"No, the devil isn't real."

My overly logical brain is processing... Devil=God's enemy; no devil; therefore, no God? I respond: "There is a devil, he is our adversary, our accuser."

He didn't make anymore statements, and our brief theological discussion ended.

You may be wondering what possible disagreement I could have with the boy's first statement: "The devil is God's enemy." Afterall, isn't the devil (a.k.a. satan) trying undermine God's plans and trying take over YHVH's throne? Isn't that his plan? According to scripture? not exactly. The devil is shown as the enemy of righteous people throughout scripture, and it appears that his desire is to rule over the earth and all that is in it, to be the King of the world, or at least to stop the children of YHVH from attaining The Kingdom. Their really isn't much in scripture to tell us about satan, but he is never shown as a power strong enough to fight or even resist YHVH.

The idea that the devil is some power in direct opposition to YHVH is dualism, not monotheism. The devil, no matter how angelic, is a created being. YHVH is almighty God, the creator of all that is, there is none higher nor equal in any way to Him. There is no power that can injure Him or even rise up against Him! He has no enemies that can rightly be called enemies. YHVH, however, can be the enemy of created beings because He has the power to wound and destroy His own creation. So, YHVH might be the devil's enemy in the end, but the devil could never be God's enemy.

"They Knew"

2006-01-24T17:11:00.000-05:00

Today's headlines include titles such as: "Bush: Congress knew about spy plan" and "Europe's Governments knew of CIA torture flights." The implicite message is: since these other people "knew" about these activities, yet said nothing and did nothing to prevent them even though they had the power to, then they approved of them. It is also possible however that they didn't approve of the activities, and still did nothing about it.

It is strange how change slowly slips by us until one day we wonder how some atrocity ever could have occured. We let some tiny word pass by or we think as long as we know the difference or don't cross a certain line, some practice is okay. Then others allow the same things, but they don't know the lines that were drawn, or the original intent of a word. They interpret from their own view, then make other allowances. The cycle goes on until the end result of a tiny pebble on the road becomes a great and deadly tower blocking the way. We look at it and say how did THAT get there? It started with a pebble, then a stone, then a rock... People step around these things and walk by them as long as they can. There is a tower in the road? What tower? Hey! Cool tower! I think I'll carve a face on it, maybe add some more rocks, maybe ornaments too. Ugh! What a road block, I guess I'll turn around and go back. There are many responses to the thing humanity constructs. There are many excuses, justifications, denials. Yet the tower remains. Its presence persists. Eventually, humans become enslaved by their own creation living life around the tower, for the tower, and in fear of the tower.

Of course there are people who know what is going on. Some of them might even have been able to do something about it. But the fact remains that something is in the road. Looking at it and finger pointing isn't going to make it go away. So, what can we do? I guess that might depend on how much you know, and how much power you have. But, just as these things often start as a pebble dropped in the road, so can their end begin with a pebble thrown away.

Bird Flu

2006-01-23T22:54:00.000-05:00

This is a completely off topic post. Although I could discuss what if any connections the "bird flu" has with prophecy, that is not what I have in mind. I just want to know how slaughtering and disposing of millions of chickens is going to stop the spread of bird flu, and prevent people from contracting it? Do the farmers and their employees who lose their livelihood get reimbursed for their losses? Why not just innoculate the chickens (and other domesticated birds)? Afterall, if the chickens can't get sick, it can't spread from the chickens to the humans right? How much Tamiflu would it take to innoculate a chicken compared to a human? Wouldn't it be much more economical (for the common people) when everything is said and done?

Rabies is a contagious disease that can pass from animals to humans, but we don't run out and kill large numbers of animals when there are a few cases of rabies in the area. (Although I think they used to do this sometimes before the vaccine) We would kill the sick animal (carefully handling and removing the carcass with gloves and garbage bag) , and we innoculate the domestic ones. Perhaps I just don't understand biology enough to grasp the methodology of WHO and the nations involved. It seems to me that culling all chickens (and some other birds) in the countries affected will eventually lead to a world without chickens (and some other birds). Maybe someone should start a "save the chickens" campaign...

Doctrines: Do they matter?

2006-01-18T21:31:00.000-05:00

There is considerable emphasis placed these days on whether or not the believers we encounter adhere to certain doctrines. Most often the doctrines in question relate to the following: what type of being Yahshua (Jesus) was and is; how one obtains salvation; the role of "law;" baptisms (water and/or spirit); sin; and, tradition. When two believers meet for the first time, one often asks the other: "What church do you go to?" The unspoken question is: "What are your doctrines and point of reference?" The name of the particular church summarizes it all in a few words, that is as long as the person doesn't actually differ with their church in doctrine. People use doctrines to categorize each other and to determine their spiritual state. Some use them to decide whether others are worthy of fellowship. But, when everything is all said and done, what difference will it make if one is convinced that baptism is by immersion, and another that a sprinkling is enough? Will it matter if you believe Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and three, one or three, one, two, three, or some other formula? Will 'Jesus' be the password into the pearly gates as is often suggested?

What if everyone is wrong? Will we all be tossed into the lake of fire in the end because we didn't get the words just right?

Many christians might be shocked to discover how the second and third century christian church was divided over most of the beliefs that today are considered to be the foundational tenets of the faith. The apostles never uttered the "Apostles Creed" which was written in 390 AD. The winning doctrines that became definitions of orthodoxy were the ones backed by various governments to the point of death. Although today in America creeds aren't signed or confessed at the end of a sword, churches continue to teach that if you do not confess their confession, you will suffer eternal punishment.

The apostles didn't have creeds. Yahshua didn't teach a magical incantation. Yahshua showed us a living faith in the Living God, a faith evidenced by mighty works, love, forgiveness, wisdom, obedience, self-control, patience, humility, suffering, compassion, and kindness.

Will the possession of the right doctrines matter much in the end? Only God knows. But, who was more righteous: the Samaritan (who at that time would be dispised for his doctrine) that helped the man who was half dead in the road, or the priest and levite that passed him by?

Speaking Of The Devil

2006-01-09T02:20:00.000-05:00

There is a children's song (I don't know the title) in which the lyrics say: "If the sinner's in the road, I will scoop and pick him up... if the devil's in the road I will run right over him."

Kids like this song because when they get to the last verse, they stomp across the room gleefully pretending to run over the devil. The last verse of this song bothers me quite a bit. I ask myself if this is really the attitude that we should have and promote? Clearly we should resist the devil, but should we gleefully trample on him? I think of Yahshua (Jesus) during his temptation. He met the devil in the road and what did Yahshua do? He had a conversation with him!

Peter writes in 2 Pet 2:10-11: "Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgement against them before the Lord."

And Jude writes in verse 9: "But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgement, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!' "

If the highest angels don't even speak against the devil, why do some people feel we should gleefully trample him? Some will say: "but we will bruise the snakes head, we will tread on snakes and scorpians, we will judge the angels." If we do all those things, we should not do it with glee but with mercy, humility and perhaps even sorrow. We should beware that we ourselves do not become the accuser and revel in the demise of others, because in so doing we become satan and condemn ourselves.

Today, I was looking at comments regarding Ariel Sharon's state of health and was disturbed to see the glee of some people, including Christians, with which they condemn him. Reading their comments made me think of those lyrics...

Their comments also made me think of Yahshua on his way to the cross. Those who condemned him thought he was their enemy, they spat on him and mocked him with glee, unaware that he had come to bring faith, hope and life. Yahshua did not ask for retributions, but prayed that they be forgiven. There were also two others hanging beside Yahshua, the one gleefully mocking even as he suffered a similar death, and the other humble and merciful. We should reflect on our own attitudes, and pray that we possess the attitude of the God fearing criminal.

God's Wrath?

2006-01-08T00:59:00.000-05:00

I can't say that I have personally received any revelations that imply that this is the case. The truth is that PM Sharon is very old, and it wouldn't take a prophet to say that he is near to death, stroke or no stroke. Also, PM Sharon has a multitude of trouble in his lap. For him, death may be more of a blessing than a curse. He is under constant threat of money related corruption charges; he (and his nation) is hated by nearly every neighboring nation, including the one unofficial nation within its own boarder; nearly every other nation is telling him what to do; and, over a third (my own estimate which might be off by a few % points) of his own nation is highly pissed off at him; Although I doubt that PM Sharon's illness is an illusion, if I were him, I might arrange my own apparent death!

If Ariel Sharon really is on the brink of death as a result of his decisions regarding 'The Land,' then so are many other people. Ariel Sharon is a politician. Although he may at times promote his own ideas, many of his actions are shaped by his populace and by pressures from other nations, especially those with more power and influence than his own. The most obvious influence on Israeli politics is the USA, a nation which some Israeli's even look to as their savior. I would not at all be surprised if our government (USA) were even forcing Ariel Sharon with evidence of his 'corruptions' to withdraw from Gaza. Our nation is just as responsible -if not more responsible- for partitioning Israel than Ariel Sharon is.

Israel was commanded to not make covenants with other nations, but to rely on YHVH. Everytime Israel went to another nation for protection, trusting in the might of their chariots and horsemen, Israel was torn apart, exiled and desolated. Eventually the nations that they covenanted with became their enemies. The United States is playing the dangerous role of Israel's savior. History shows that Israel's hope in another nation is misplaced, and it is only a matter of time before the US turns against them like a rabid dog.

In Scripture, there are blessings for obedience and curses (woes) for disobedience in both the Old and New Testament. Yet, the rain falls on the just and the unjust, and even the lives of the righteous end in death. Perhaps there are times when the righteous are delivered as Lot was from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; but, there are also times when distress, death and terror fall on those who have not sown unrighteousness. It seems to me that YHVH is often recorded as warning the objects of his wrath in advance so that they might have the opportunity to repent; when they continued in their sins and wrath then came, they would know that it is YHVH who is God. The righteous who lived cursed lives gain a greater reward; and the wicked who have been blessed in this life will receive no mercy when they wake from death. Although YHVH can reveal his might by destroying a life, a city or a nation, He also reveals it through salvation.

There are difficult times ahead for everyone. Each day brings us closer to "The day of wrath," "The day of the LORD." We aren't going to be wisked away from trouble, but we will perservere through it. Some will be killed, some others will be tortured. Those who are killed and tortured, those who have already suffered, do not do so as a result of their sins. But when "The Day" finally comes, it will not be a day of wrath for those who love Him. It will be a day of rest.

Ariel Sharon and God's Wrath?

2006-01-07T14:12:00.000-05:00

While Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, lies dying in a hospital, Pat Robertson anounces to the world that PM Sharon's almost certain death is the wrath of God on PM Sharon for kicking Jews out of Gaza and giving part of the land to Palestinians. Meanwhile, many christians are engaging in damage control so their image of their non-judgemental religion/God does not topple. One Christian commentator quoting scripture stated in rebuke of Pat Robertson that no one knows the judgements of God.

There are at least four issues I could discuss in regards to these current events. Is Ariel Sharon being punished? Why was it okay for prophets announce an event as being a judgement, if no one knows the judgements of God? Is it wrong for Israel to split the land? If Ariel Sharon is being punished, what about the USA since our government is pushing Israel to create a Palestinian State? Is the USA being judged (hurricanes, fires, landslides, recession, inflation, etc)? Does YHVH punish/discipline people during their lifetime? Does YHVH only bring judgement on non-believers in their lifetime? How does one define "believer?" Does YHVH judge believers ever? What are His standards? Are the standards for believers, different than those of non-believers? Do I ask too many questions? I think I just listed more than four issues. I can't decide which one to start on. Leave a comment if you have a preference. I may write regarding one or more of the above questions next time.

Thus Saith Someone: Thou Shalt Call the Sun 'Jesus' and He Who Doth Not Observe The Winter Solstice Shall Be Condemned

2006-01-03T19:19:00.000-05:00

Four years ago, my husband and I concluded that the roots of Christmas regardless of the sales pitch is not Christian. Even before that, we began to dispose of the obvious pagan practices in which many people unknowingly participate during this time of the returning of the sun. I won't bother to lay out the details or the history of the Sol Invictus and similar pagan holy days centered around the solstice, nor will I bother to explain how these pagan practices became integrated into Christianity. This information is easily found via numerous sources, and information on its origins are even published in newspapers during the holiday season.

Every year I am amazed and hurt at how much other Christians judge us for the decision we made. Its ironic that these who judge us go on to accuse us of forsaking grace and being bound by law. By what law do they judge us? Where is their grace? These people are the ones who are bound, not us. And, if I were to be bound, I'd rather be bound by loving commands given by our Heavenly Father, than by the traditions and expectation of the masses. We desire to serve YHVH with all our hearts, minds and souls; to do what is pleasing in His sight because He loves us. We can show our love in return by seeking and doing his will. Not our will, but His be done.

In this season I truly feel like a stranger in this world, and know what it means to be in the world, but not of it.

Is the Trinity Monotheistic?

2005-12-21T10:52:00.000-05:00

Yesterday while hunting interesting blogs to add to my blog links, I came across this excellent and very civil discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of God. Participating in the discussion are a wide range of views even including an Orthodox Jewish professor of medieval Islam and a Buddhist! It is a very long discussion, but well worth the effort. This particular doctrine is one that I have spent quite a bit of time studying during the past several years. Please check it out here.

What is heresy?

2005-12-19T22:48:00.000-05:00

It seems fitting in my "Journal of Heresies" that I should define "heresy" and it associations. According to my New American Webster Handy College Dictionary:

heresy - n. an unorthodox doctrine or opinion, especially in religion.

orthodox - adj. holding sound, generally accepted views, especially on religion. 2. approved; conventional

Therefore, in summary, heresy is either unsound, or generally unaccepted doctrine or opinion, especially in religion.

Etymologically however, orthodox comes from ortho=right/correct + dox=teaching, so the original meaning of orthodox was "correct teaching." Using the original definition, heresy is an incorrect or false teaching.

Ideally, the generally accepted doctrines would also be orthodox (in the old sense). Then, both the modern definition and the original would agree and the state of heresy would be obvious. However, when the generally accepted doctrines are incorrect, there arises something self-contradictory, a paradox (oh no! another dox!). The correct (orthodox) view is not the accepted approved (orthodox) view. Both views can be defined as heretical, yet rarely does either view define itself as such.

Whose heresies am I journalling? Mine? or someone elses? That will depend quite a lot on which side you agree with, and which definition you use.

If THAT is unity, I'd rather be alone!

2005-12-18T01:00:00.000-05:00

Oy!

I heard someone speaking today about 1 John chapter 4. He took it as an opportunity to talk about love and unity within the church, and why he doesn't get into (avoids) certain topics. He said we should put aside our differences in doctrines for the sake of unity.

But, love isn't about the lack of conflict! Unity isn't about comprimise or concession! If a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Wiccan were all spending the day in one room, they might agree to stay quiet to survive the day, but there would hardly be any significant unity and certainly little love between them. Would any of them be enriched by this tentative peace? What a waste of time! They would spend the day hoping to be released from each other, and mentally cursing their plight.

The sons of Israel loved their brothers, yet there were times they almost destroyed each other, literally. They would even lift the sword to their brothers' necks for the sake of righteousness, and YHVH rewarded them for it. There were times they came together as one man, united in purpose, but they did not at once have the same idea of how to accomplish it. Love and unity at the cost of righteousness and truth is worthless. Perhaps we should not be quick to thrust the sword, but we should not shrink from confrontation to preserve the image of a perfected church. We are not to forsake truth and call it love.

Let's say my child does something wrong. I could ignore the behavior, I could praise the behavior, or I could correct the behavior. Which option is the loving thing to do? The loving thing is to correct my child. Correcting my child is not painless for either of us. I might need to speak sternly, cause my child to cry and cause my child to feel badly about his/her actions; I might expect him/her to fix to their best ability whatever injury he/she caused. Love is sometimes stressful, painful, difficult and confrontational. To avoid and discourage all confrontation is to restrain love.

Finally, when no one feels free to express their inner thoughts, then there is no intimacy, no brotherhood. So also, when we corrupt truth to gain support, we become estranged from our Father so that we are orphans without family. Psalm 133 says: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity." To have unity we must have the same Father and we must love with a real love not some counterfeit image.

Island Believers

2005-12-16T23:44:00.000-05:00

Let's say that one day a airplane lost its cargo of Bibles while flying over an island where the people had never experienced or heard of the rest of the world. (and by some miracle they all spoke and read the language in which the Bibles were written). Most of the people after reading the Bibles say to themselves and each other: "This book contains truth by which we should live! We will serve YHVH!" What would the practice of their faith look like? Would they build structures with steeply pointed roofs, long benches to sit on, wooden alter tables, and crosses? Would they gather on Sundays, Christmas, Easter and celebrating with ham, bunnies, eggs, and decorated trees? All these practices and many others that prevail in our churches would be completely absent. If some of these island believers were to cast out to sea (perhaps in search of the rest of YHVH's people) and land in a "Christian" country, they would not recognize Christianity as a religion based on scripture.

Stained Glass

2005-12-15T20:51:00.000-05:00

As a child (~7 yrs old), I was upset when my parents decided to stop going to church. For some reason I thought that church was a requirement for all Christians, that not going was akin to rejecting God, and besides... I liked the singing and the crafts, the classes and even the sermons. Since they weren't going to go to church, and I couldn't persuade them to change their mind, I even tried to hold our own church service one Sunday. It all made perfect sense the night before, the message and scripture were quite clear. Yet, when they sat down to hear my sermon, I had forgotten it all. Its probably a good thing I had forgotten it, perhaps the Holy Spirit took it and tossed it in file 13 during the night to restrain my mouth from sin. As it was, I simply looked like a sweet but foolish child rather than a disrespectful one twisting scripture to my own message. Now, my appreciation for my parents decision grows every day. Had we remained in church, I doubt that I would ever have been able to see beyond the stained glass.

Yet for all those years of separation from the church, I still believed that church is where one went to learn about God. So when nearly an adult, a couple years after I understood and accepted the grace of God, I began to go to church with the man who is now my husband. I was an eager learner, and again... loved the singing, classes, sermons, and now a youth group too. I began to consider membership. But, I thought I ought to know a little more about what I would be committing to before taking such a step. These thoughts prompted me to call the pastor. I asked him "What do you believe?" I thought this would be a good start... the basics.

I think he thought I was introuble! He asked me "What do I believe about what? Abortion? Drugs? Sex?"

"No, what do you believe about God, the Bible? What do you BELIEVE?"

He referred me to the church manual, in his words, a large book containing everything that the denomination believed; he never told me what he believed. Besides being quite disappointed, I was also quite troubled. Why couldn't a man who had long been a Christian, called to ministry, why couldn't he tell me what he believed? How could I become a member of a church where a pastor couldn't tell me what he believed? I began to doubt the authority of the church, and to question this idea of membership. Wasn't I already a member of the body of Christ? Why did I need some church to put it in their records?

Since then I've had several pastors ask me to consider membership, and not one has given me a sound Biblical reason for doing so. The last one to discuss it with me ended her argument: "What kind of message do you think it (not being a member) sends to the rest of the congregation? How would they feel?"

At the time, I was the editor of the church newsletter, the youth leader, a participant in several committees, even a lay speaker within our congregation (although technically, I wasn't allowed to because I wasn't a member). I was intimately involved with the work of the church. I did not hide the fact that I was not member by the standards of the denomination, nor did I flaunt it. If anyone asked, I simply stated I was a member of the Kingdom, and the church's idea of "membership" was unfounded. No one minded, except pastors.

In truth, the church membership log has nothing to do with God's membership log; the title pastor has nothing to do with their qualifications to be called such; and, the church isn't where we learn about God. We learn about God by living, by interacting with Him, by knowing His Son, by seeking His Word; by going beyond the stained glass, beyond the proper church behavior, beyond the proper rote answer, beyond the traditions of men. Church and its trappings have nothing to do with a right walk with God.