Reading Judith for the first time

[Ecclectic79]

I thought I'd just drop a comment here as I'm reading.

I may have mentioned a couple times that I did a once-through read of the KJV a couple months ago. It was the 66 book version though, so I'm currently trying to bring myself up to speed on 1 & 2 Macabees, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, and Judith.

I'm up to Judith 8 right now and I just have to drop the commentary - wow. I'm in the middle of listening to a widow who's been with the rest of the people in 34 days without water, heard their complaint to the city leaders, heard the wager of 5 days, and she's essentially giving them the Rob Roy pep-talk about how none of them have had idols since their captivity (they're sieged by a subsequent Assyrian king who apparently didn't check his history on Sennacherib) and how they need to set an example for the rest of Judah because if they don't the rest may very well fall like dominoes; thus she's suggesting that they literally wait and pray until either they're delivered by the Lord or until they die of thirst.

I'm still learning the P's and Q's of why this book and those mentioned above were omitted in the 66 book version of the bible (a lot of it seems to be languages not matching the local vernacular of the claimed time of writing) but wow - as far as some of these stories it seems like we need more of this kind of spirit. Even if we were to take these as more historical than inspired its strong stuff.

 

[Ecclectic79]

Having finished it now I clearly get something:

1) There was no Assyrian kingdom at the return from captivity.
2) There was no Assyrian king named similarly to or after Nebuchadnezzar.

In essence Judith is more like a moral fable essentially telling the people of the land 'You've come this far, you've given up your idolatry - fear no foreign force'.

 

[ChristianLife08]

I thought I'd just drop a comment here as I'm reading.

I may have mentioned a couple times that I did a once-through read of the KJV a couple months ago. It was the 66 book version though, so I'm currently trying to bring myself up to speed on 1 & 2 Macabees, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, and Judith.

I'm up to Judith 8 right now and I just have to drop the commentary - wow. I'm in the middle of listening to a widow who's been with the rest of the people in 34 days without water, heard their complaint to the city leaders, heard the wager of 5 days, and she's essentially giving them the Rob Roy pep-talk about how none of them have had idols since their captivity (they're sieged by a subsequent Assyrian king who apparently didn't check his history on Sennacherib) and how they need to set an example for the rest of Judah because if they don't the rest may very well fall like dominoes; thus she's suggesting that they literally wait and pray until either they're delivered by the Lord or until they die of thirst.

I'm still learning the P's and Q's of why this book and those mentioned above were omitted in the 66 book version of the bible (a lot of it seems to be languages not matching the local vernacular of the claimed time of writing) but wow - as far as some of these stories it seems like we need more of this kind of spirit. Even if we were to take these as more historical than inspired its strong stuff.

Curious, do you hold these extra books and Judith as authoritative by God?

Faithfully,
ChristianLife08

 

[Ecclectic79]

I'm in something of my own unique circumstance: ie. I was raised and confirmed Catholic, fell away for about 15 years during which time I did a lot of exploring, spent much of that time between agnosticism and atheism (not by choice - it felt like the 'facts' were forcing me that way). In the last year I had a run-in via the NDE world with new age and theosophy, and I came to see that as an inversion of Christianity once I started to see all the parallels between their ascension narrative and the book of Revelations.

As of right now I'm sorting my way out to see if I'm Catholic, whether or not I believe that's the true church, etc..

Catholics, at a minimum, maintain that these are inspired (even if not necessarily canonical). I'm reading through them, have a Catholic page that I'm going to read when I have had the chance to read them all, until then my own judgment is somewhat in suspense.

IMHO I have to figure this out for myself - ie. if I buy something some else tells me rather than coming to that conclusion myself, my subconscious mind will reject it, I'll rebel whether I want to or not, hence I can't buy anyone's tautologies - I have to sort it out on my own.

 

[ChristianLife08]

I'm in something of my own unique circumstance: ie. I was raised and confirmed Catholic, fell away for about 15 years during which time I did a lot of exploring, spent much of that time between agnosticism and atheism (not by choice - it felt like the 'facts' were forcing me that way). In the last year I had a run-in via the NDE world with new age and theosophy, and I came to see that as an inversion of Christianity once I started to see all the parallels between their ascension narrative and the book of Revelations.

As of right now I'm sorting my way out to see if I'm Catholic, whether or not I believe that's the true church, etc..

Catholics, at a minimum, maintain that these are inspired (even if not necessarily canonical). I'm reading through them, have a Catholic page that I'm going to read when I have had the chance to read them all, until then my own judgment is somewhat in suspense.

IMHO I have to figure this out for myself - ie. if I buy something some else tells me rather than coming to that conclusion myself, my subconscious mind will reject it, I'll rebel whether I want to or not, hence I can't buy anyone's tautologies - I have to sort it out on my own.

I can respect that. Except for the NDE, and length of time it took you thus far. I've had a similar experience, though my faith is grounded. I appreciate your honesty, and yes, the RCC does hold these Apocryphal Books, as they're called, as authoritative. Your last statement is interesting. If this is your mindset, why then post a thread for others to reply and for you to read what they have to say. If as you revealed are adamant about solely you figuring things out. The point i wish to make is this. The Lord specifically sent His followers to do His work until His coming again. Being as such, I encourage you as you seek for God and His true church, not necessarily the RCC, to soften your heart to this truth. God speaks and reveals many things to us THROUGH His children here on earth.

Be blessed,
ChristianLife08

 

[Ecclectic79]

If this is your mindset, why then post a thread for others to reply and for you to read what they have to say. If as you revealed are adamant about solely you figuring things out.

The post was an expression of how impressed I was with the narrative. Women need role models these days, in so many characters of the OT you have incredibly strong women as heroines. My first post was how impressed I was, the second was a half self-rebuttal when I realized that...as far as I can tell... the author is giving a nudge and wink to tell you that its an illustration of faith done right rather than historical actuality.

As for God's true church - I'm convinced at this point that would, at a minimum, include no church that believes in rapture. If I remain a catholic I'll probably find myself incredibly conservative and of the variety who will respect the dignity of Mary but will not say Hail Mary's nor accept the apparitions as valid, nor will I petition saints. Also, if its true that the RCC might be the end-times apostasy, all the better reason for me to be there to help keep those I love as well as others unknowing of the matter safe (ie. sedevacantism may very well be in my future).

 

[ChristianLife08]

The post was an expression of how impressed I was with the narrative. Women need role models these days, in so many characters of the OT you have incredibly strong women as heroines. My first post was how impressed I was, the second was a half self-rebuttal when I realized that...as far as I can tell... the author is giving a nudge and wink to tell you that its an illustration of faith done right rather than historical actuality.

As for God's true church - I'm convinced at this point that would, at a minimum, include no church that believes in rapture. If I remain a catholic I'll probably find myself incredibly conservative and of the variety who will respect the dignity of Mary but will not say Hail Mary's nor accept the apparitions as valid, nor will I petition saints. Also, if its true that the RCC might be the end-times apostasy, all the better reason for me to be there to help keep those I love as well as others unknowing of the matter safe (ie. sedevacantism may very well be in my future).

another interesting statement. Why so against the rapture? have you thoroughly studied supporting scripture? Spoken to those who hold this view? More importantly, I encourage you to not be legalistic about it. one's view on the rapture is not one that depends on an individuals salvation. But in matters of WITHIN the Church, it's a non-essential. As Augustine said, "in essentials unity, in non-essentials LIBERTY; in ALL things, love."

Lastly, the doctrine of the Virgin Mary is an essential to the RCC. No, disrespect to you. But many especially in the RCC will wish to denounce many who go against this unscriptual doctrine. i.e. The Reformation and other martyrs before this.

Faithfully,
ChristianLife08

 

[Ecclectic79]

another interesting statement. Why so against the rapture? have you thoroughly studied supporting scripture? Spoken to those who hold this view? More importantly, I encourage you to not be legalistic about it. one's view on the rapture is not one that depends on an individuals salvation. But in matters of WITHIN the Church, it's a non-essential. As Augustine said, "in essentials unity, in non-essentials LIBERTY; in ALL things, love."

You might also find this fascinatingly eclectic, or ignorant, but I'm getting to be something of a fan of people like Steve Quayle, Tom Horn, etc.. Brother Michael Dimond is a bit like a Catholic analog of Steve and he's said some things under fire that really impressed me.

As far as reading the bible and looking for doctrine for or against rapture - in making it through the first 66 books I saw no evidence for it. I don't have all the bible excerpts handy as I'm still something of a distance from being able to call out book and verse citations but suffice to say the arguments that have been made regarding the restrainer, several second comings (rapture-related) vs. one at which the dead in Christ will rise for judgment in the valley created from the mount of Olives - the later case seems to be much more compelling, and much less dangerous in that we all go in prepared.

On another note I also have doubts about the scriptural basis of the seemingly universally accepted 7 year tribulation from the futurists perspective but, that's a different matter and I think part of the problem is I just haven't heard a strong enough 'full futurist' case for the book of Revelations to refute or edify that notion.

Lastly, the doctrine of the Virgin Mary is an essential to the RCC. No, disrespect to you. But many especially in the RCC will wish to denounce many who go against this unscriptual doctrine. i.e. The Reformation and other martyrs before this.

This is what I do see - that she bore Christ and gave him physicality, thus her statement of being 'blessed' through the generations would be correct. I can see the ark of the covenant connection here as well. Also, I do believe that she's by that nature mother of the church reflexively as Christ is the head of the church. Also Jesus told John that he would call her 'mother' which adds another element to such title. Where I might deviate from some other Catholics - as far as I can tell from the bible the title is honorary. Similarly to how Elijah and Enoch ascended, we typically don't petition them in prayer - I tend to see Mary in a similar light.

Some people claim that since she was right to bear the Lord that she must have been a divine incarnation herself - IMHO that creates a problem of infinite regression, ie. she would need to have been immaculately conceived from someone who was immaculately conceived and by that logic one could have a line of immaculate conception all the way back to Adam! I tend to think it more likely that either a) she lived an incredibly upright life, which God adjusted to amplify, and that was all that was needed or b) in the manner that Nimrod/Gilgamesh started 'becoming' something else (ie. Nephilim-like) that Mary inversely could have started 'becoming' more divine. Of those two situation a) seems far more likely. Someone could try suggesting that she was the Holy Spirit incarnate but, not only is there no biblical basis for it - that would also have a very strong note of deja vu harkening back to an Egyptian trinity who was father, mother, and son.

That said also I don't know what to make of Fatima - yet - and being that these have been times of such delusion and deception I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a great many of the Marian apparitions have been either Isis or Sophia. Some like Malachi Martin claim that 1/3 of the Catholic church has been Masonic for a long time, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary may not have happened because of that - or - I could see some likelihood that enough Catholic scholars realized that it would be a consecration to someone other than Jesus hence they were squeamish on the eschatological consequences of such a doing when they realized that 'pretty sure its Mary' doesn't mean they're sure enough to go quite that far.

I'm on the fence about Fatima - part of me is incredibly wary in that I know seducing spirits really love to not only throw on an air of benevolence but also seem to delight in coming to as close to approximating goodness as possible while still spinning a corrupted message and result (to which apparitions of Mary also aren't a biblical thing). On the other hand, part of me is also concerned in that I don't want to be a Pharisee - ie. there's a fine line, particularly with just how good seducing spirits have gotten in their forgeries, to where if you slightly overstep the bounds and call a holy thing demonic you're in essence partaking in the one unforgivable sin which is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

 

[ChristianLife08]

Thank you so much for your transparency. My last encouragement is simply this. I hope and pray that you remain in the Lord with all humility. Do not allow yourself to be so legalized about who or what MUST be accepted (refer to my Augustine quote). Remember, the ultimate goal in the Christian faith is that because we area already made righteous by the blood of the Lamb. Our goal here is to constantly be conformed to the IMAGE of the Son. All the while loving all around us and preaching the Gospel of our Lord and Savior. Worrying about souls until the day He comes.

Be blessed,
ChristianLife08

 

[Knee V]

With regard to your criticisms of Judith, many have similar criticism of books like Esther, Job, and Daniel.

 

[Ecclectic79]

With regard to your criticisms of Judith, many have similar criticism of books like Esther, Job, and Daniel.

Who's that?

I love all four that you mentioned.

 

[Knee V]

I couldn't give specific names of people, but many claim that books such as those present many historical inaccuracies and are works of pious fiction. So I wouldn't discount Judith just because some of the historical details don't make sense to us.

 

[Knee V]

Heck, people say the same things about the Gospels, too.