Can one be a Christian witch?
True
ponder some. I believe that when a person refers to Jesus as a witch they
do so in regards to the fact that it appears that his miracles were an act
of magic. However, that is not what most Christian would call Jesus.
The problem
appears to be word usage. When you take that away basically you are left
with an individual that used magic (either knowingly or unknownly is not
clear). In terms of those of us that are Wiccan or Pagan (etc), that would
suggest that he was indeed a witch (by our definition of the word) although
most Christians would not accept
this word usage.
I take this a step further when looking at Moses and what he did when
leading the Israelites out of Egypt. I saw a very interesting documentary
about how there is supported evidence that Moses took many aspects of
Egyptian
magic with him since he was educated so heavily there. In fact this
particular documentary suggested that Moses was indeed a very powerful
magician. Again we come back to word usage and how each of us defines the
word "witch". Some ppl may accept that Moses was a witch due to his use of
magic and some may not b/c witch has such negative connotations within
Judaism and Christianity.
Also as a side note, is the translations "will not suffer a witch to live"
correct? For some reason I recall a translations of "will not suffer a
sorcerer (or sorceress) to live". Could someone correct me on this? Witch
may have been used in more recent translations of the bible (i.e. King
James) but I believe (and I could be wrong so please correct me if this is
the case) that the Torah does translate it differently. During the time of
King James it would not be surprising that the translation
became "witch". What I get from both the bible and the Torah is that
basically that statement is merely stating that a Jew or Christian will not
suffer a magic practioner to live, or at least not one duly accepted by God
to pratice magic. There are magic practioners within Judaism and
Christianity and they are accepted (although obviously not called witches).
The big thing in the Torah and OT
(typically the same except for some translation differences) is that their
God did not want them to be worshipping some other deity other than
Themselves.
I do believe you can be a Christain witch however most
Christains do not accept the term "witch" b/c of their phobia and
misunderstanding of the translation. If one is Christain and following God
then most likely He wouldn't have a problem with someone practicing magic as
long as that
person did not worship another God. That is all it seems to come down to
for me. It becomes more complex when ppl become too rigid in their
definitions of the words in the text (written by other humans, btw, and
subject to many interpretations, which I guess is 95% percent of the problem
*chuckles*).
Anyway that's my 2 cents or perhaps 4 or 6 *g*.
darkness, laughter and light,
True
cerista and/or Mortality
"True" <trut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gvOn6.642$OS1.5...@nntp2.onemain.com...
I am of the humble opinion that anyone who practices witchery (Term used in
Appalachia to mean magic) is a witch, no matter what other word usage is
associated with them. I prefer the term witchery to magic for two reasons.
The first is obvious, I grew up with it. The second is because David
Copperfield, et al., does not use it, he uses "magic".
--
Mortality
"As long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise
is ignorance, bigotry, and hate,
I say the hell with it!"
--Spencer Tracy as Col. Drummond
Inherit the Wind
Relayer
> Also as a side note, is the translations "will not suffer a witch to live"
> correct? For some reason I recall a translations of "will not suffer a
> sorcerer (or sorceress) to live". Could someone correct me on this?
From memory (which someone will correct if it is innacurate) the word was
Pharmakopia meaning poisoner.
R.
Demon-X-Streem
"miracles" as the Christan belife would call it....I have actualy read a
book called "Anchint Christan Magic" now what truth this held i do not
know...but it wus intersting never the less.... The Christan religon is
actual made up of many pagen religons....if fact on of its magor hollidays
is based on the selabration of the Goddess " Eostre " the goddess of spring,
Witch sometimes wus symbolized by the rabbit. Her name is still retaind in
the Christian lunar-based festival of "Easter".
Blessed Be
"True" <trut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gvOn6.642$OS1.5...@nntp2.onemain.com...
Ahura
> I do believe you can be a Christain witch however most
> Christains do not accept the term "witch" b/c of their phobia and
> misunderstanding of the translation. If one is Christain and following
God
> then most likely He wouldn't have a problem with someone practicing magic
as
> long as that
> person did not worship another God. That is all it seems to come down to
> for me. It becomes more complex when ppl become too rigid in their
> definitions of the words in the text (written by other humans, btw, and
> subject to many interpretations, which I guess is 95% percent of the
problem
> *chuckles*).
>
If you want to be a christian witch, you should ask the pastor of your
church what he/she thinks about it. I'm sure you'll get a definitive answer
there.
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: Can one be a Christian witch?
>
> From: "Ahura" <iv...@yahoo.com>
> Reply to: [1] "Ahura"
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:41:13 -0800
> Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [3] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4] <gvOn6.642$OS1.5...@nntp2.onemain.com>
>
>
>"True" <trut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
**** and if you don't attend church? =)
I doubt that Unitarians would have a problem and I know of
a Society of friends that has more than a few very out of the broom
closet witches and they have no problem with it.
When you think of it..there is probably a majority vision of what
a word means...with a lot of minority addendums.
Do we go by the majority???
I have met Fundie Wiccans and Fundie Christians and they both tend to
get very angry when someone questions them. Instead of accepting
the concept of the heyoka as the one who tests convictions they choose
to go over the top eventually ending up getting more angry at themselves
for not being able to answer questions ...
hopefully in the end all this does is open their eyes to the concept of
the sacred unknowable.
Wiccan has a majority definition and minority ones.
Christianity has as well.
We seem to gather together under the looser majority ones then seeking
to understand further...we get into the minority maybes.
Just a thought.
Brenda
--
.d88b. Brenda's Free Spirit Homepage
88 88 http://www.victoria.tc.ca/~wt211
`8bd8' ********************************
`88' Realms of Faery and Heaven
g888RAVY888g http://www.themestream.com/articles/363498.html
88 Of Avalon and Faeries
88 http://www.themestream.com/articles/333793.html
88 ***********************************************
d88b
d8888b
True
Demon-X-Streem wrote in message
> I don't know if you could call them a witch...but Christans did use magic
or
> "miracles" as the Christan belife would call it....I have actualy read a
> book called "Anchint Christan Magic" now what truth this held i do not
> know...but it wus intersting never the less....
I am a firm believer that there are ppl within the Christian church who can
and do use magic. They typically do not call themselves witches due to the
stigma associated with the title. I would imagine they don't call
themselves anything per se. The point being, though, is that those of us
that are comfortable using the word "witch" and do not see anything negative
in it's definition can use it to describe a person who uses magic, from any
faith. A person like Brenda obviously feels comfortable using the word
witch and still remain a Christian and I don't see that as a problem.
>The Christan religon is
> actual made up of many pagen religons....if fact on of its magor hollidays
> is based on the selabration of the Goddess " Eostre " the goddess of
spring,
> Witch sometimes wus symbolized by the rabbit. Her name is still retaind in
> the Christian lunar-based festival of "Easter".
Aye, very true although She is more appropriately associated with the Pagan
holiday of Ostara which occurs in March and not April. I have a feeling
that Easter was a combination of both Ostara and Beltane.
True
Brenda G. Tataryn wrote in message
> **** and if you don't attend church? =)
> I doubt that Unitarians would have a problem and I know of
> a Society of friends that has more than a few very out of the broom
> closet witches and they have no problem with it.
In regards to Unitarians they are not Christians, imo. A Unitarian is a
Unitarian and not Christian. Within the Unitarian church you will have
Jews, Buddists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Pagans...you name it they
probably have it *chuckles*. I enjoy the Unitarian ways however it is not
accurately, imo, a Christian religion at this point.
> I have met Fundie Wiccans and Fundie Christians and they both tend to
> get very angry when someone questions them. Instead of accepting
> the concept of the heyoka as the one who tests convictions they choose
> to go over the top eventually ending up getting more angry at themselves
> for not being able to answer questions ...
Tell me about this "heyoka"? I have not heard the term.
> Wiccan has a majority definition and minority ones.
> Christianity has as well.
> We seem to gather together under the looser majority ones then seeking
> to understand further...we get into the minority maybes.
> Just a thought.
It's a common problem that one religion will expect the other to retain a
rigid definition of things while they have a more relaxed definition of
their own religion. Can we say double standard? ;)
True
Ahura wrote in message
> If you want to be a christian witch, you should ask the pastor of your
> church what he/she thinks about it. I'm sure you'll get a definitive
answer
> there.
A definitive answer that supports that particular pastors opinions, aye.
When I was in college there was a pastor who taught a class on mythology.
At first I wasn't sure if it was going to be hogwash b/c I "expected" him to
go on about his religious beliefs etc. It actually turned out that he was
one of the most open minded ppl I had come across. He actually started the
class checking to see if there were any Baptist or other types who follow
the word of the bible exactly b/c if they were he was going to suggest that
they might not like what he had to say *chuckles*. If a person went to this
pastor to ask about being a Christian witch, I am sure that would go over
just fine. It completely depends on the pastor/person.
True
cerista and/or Mortality wrote in message
> I am of the humble opinion that anyone who practices witchery (Term used
in
> Appalachia to mean magic) is a witch, no matter what other word usage is
> associated with them. I prefer the term witchery to magic for two
reasons.
> The first is obvious, I grew up with it. The second is because David
> Copperfield, et al., does not use it, he uses "magic".
Interesting distinction and one that I would tend to agree with. However,
witchery is still not a word that would be typically accepted by Christians.
But witch and witchery would still be words that I, personally, would use to
describe someone who practices magic from any religion. Now what do we
call David Copperfield? *g*
True
Relayer wrote in message
> From memory (which someone will correct if it is innacurate) the word was
> Pharmakopia meaning poisoner.
I have heard this before also, but had forgotten when I had originally wrote
the post. If this translation is actually true then it has even less to do
with a practioner of magic and "witchcraft". Again it all comes down to
translation and which translation a person chooses to believe.
Chive Mynde
wt...@victoria.tc.ca wrote:
>>If you want to be a christian witch, you should ask the pastor of your
>>church what he/she thinks about it. I'm sure you'll get a definitive answer
>>there.
>
>**** and if you don't attend church? =)
>I doubt that Unitarians would have a problem and I know of
>a Society of friends that has more than a few very out of the broom
>closet witches and they have no problem with it.
>When you think of it..there is probably a majority vision of what
>a word means...with a lot of minority addendums.
>Do we go by the majority???
>I have met Fundie Wiccans and Fundie Christians and they both tend to
>get very angry when someone questions them. Instead of accepting
>the concept of the heyoka as the one who tests convictions they choose
>to go over the top eventually ending up getting more angry at themselves
>for not being able to answer questions ...
>hopefully in the end all this does is open their eyes to the concept of
>the sacred unknowable.
>Wiccan has a majority definition and minority ones.
>Christianity has as well.
>We seem to gather together under the looser majority ones then seeking
>to understand further...we get into the minority maybes.
>Just a thought.
>Brenda
Bravo. Well said.
- Chive
"I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study
and discussion with as many people as I could meet, that all religions
were true, and also, that all had some error in them; and whilst I hold
by my own, I should hold others as dear...." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Chive Mynde
"Ahura" wrote:
>If you want to be a christian witch, you should ask the pastor of your
>church what he/she thinks about it. I'm sure you'll get a definitive answer
>there.
Ridiculous. Christ didn't have to ask a pastor, nor did he
have a church. The kingdom of heaven is *within*...
Chive Mynde
<NTUn6.1465$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>In regards to Unitarians they are not Christians, imo.
Wrong.
From the web page:
They are called 'Unitarians':
- because of their traditional insistence on divine unity,
the oneness of God.
- because they affirm the essential unity of humankind
and of creation.
It seems, therefore, that Christ *was* a Unitarian and
*not* a Christian.
HTH.
Chive Mynde
<NTUn6.1465$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>Tell me about this "heyoka"? I have not heard the term.
I know this question was directed to Brenda, but I
feel that I must share my answer as well.
I first learned of the Heyoka in the book, "Black Elk Speaks".
If you do not already own this book, then you have a
lot of studying to do. It is a standard, introductory
text.
John Neihardt dedicates Chapter 16 to the Heyoka Ceremony
and describes it in detail, as seen through the eys of Black
Elk.
If I am correct in the usage of the Sioux word, "heyoka"
it rougly translates to "sacred clown". It is the Oglala
Sioux equivalent of the Trickster/bodhisattva spirit that
helps humanity.
You may want to also visit this informative site:
http://www.hayoke.com/id18.htm
HAY-YO-KAY HOT SPRINGS
Heyoka
"The elders speak, too, of the 'heyoka', a person who, in vision
or dreams is visited by the Thunder Beings, and who assists humanity
in it's exploration into the new worlds. The 'heyoka', too, becomes
one who is contrary to the accustomed and accepted rules of society. The
'heyoka' does so precisely to push the fold of accepted reality,
to sound the wake-up call. According to Ogalala Sioux Elder, Looks-for-Buffalo,
"The Heyoka is the counterpoint to the Thunder Beings who
repeatedly dissolve the existing order and fashion a new arrangement
from the pieces.
"Not all 'heyokas' are indigenous peoples, many are living among
modern society. Modern day heyokas are charged to live as witnesses
against the corruption of the Fourth World and to assist the shift
into the Fifth World, as planetary midwifes."
From Lame Deer Seeker of Visions:
"Another kind of medicine man is the heyoka, the sacred clown.
"To us a clown is somebody sacred, funny, powerful, ridiculous,
holy, shameful, visionary. Fooling around, a clown is really performing
a spiritual ceremony. He has a power, it comes from the Thunder beings,
not the animals on earth.
"It is very simple to become a heyoka, all you have to do is dream
about the lightning, the Thunderbirds, you do this and when you wake
up in the morning, you are a heyoka, there is nothing you can do about it.
"It is not easy to be a heyoka. It is even harder to have one
in the family. ... the wise old people know that heyokas are thunder-
dreamers, that the Thunder beings commanded them to act in a silly way.
"The heyokas get their power from the wakinyan, the sacred flying
ones, the Thunderbirds. These Thunderbirds are the wakan oyate - the
spirit nation. If the Thunder-beings want to put their power on earth,
they send a dream to a man, a vision about thunder and lightning. By
this dream they appoint him to work his power for them in a human way.
This is what makes him a heyoka. Every dream which has some symbol
of the thunder powers in it will make you into a heyoka.
"A clown's work is sacred, it's a medicine man's job."
John (Fire) Lame Deer
and Richard Erdoes
Lame Deer Seeker of Visions
The Life of a Sioux Medicine Man
Simon and Schuster (1972)
the.ol...@freedom.net
Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:E7Pn6.60$V65.1...@news.interact.net.au...
which the Septuagint, (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made in
Alexandria of Egypt prior to New Testament times), used to translate the
original Hebrew word. The problem is, that there is no such thing as an
exact translation for a word from another time, and another culture, as
well as another language. You have to try to understand as exactly as
possible how the original writer understood the word he or she used, then
try to find one which your readers will understand in the same way.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________
Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: Can one be a Christian witch?
>
> Reply to: [1] "True"
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:56:15 -0500
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [3] newsgroup(s)
> References:
>> I doubt that Unitarians would have a problem and I know of
>> a Society of friends that has more than a few very out of the broom
>> closet witches and they have no problem with it.
>
>Unitarian and not Christian. Within the Unitarian church you will have
>Jews, Buddists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Pagans...you name it they
>probably have it *chuckles*. I enjoy the Unitarian ways however it is not
>accurately, imo, a Christian religion at this point.
>
>> get very angry when someone questions them. Instead of accepting
>> the concept of the heyoka as the one who tests convictions they choose
>> to go over the top eventually ending up getting more angry at themselves
>> for not being able to answer questions ...
>
>
one who is formless, backwards or not falling into any box
whatsoever..except in the box of heyoka! A Lakota term I learnt from
an old teacher. In some places it is Loki, in some coyote,raven,
the madman of the woods,etc. In many traditions that heyoka is allowed
to try to disrupt even the most sacred of rituals to test the conviction
and deep truth of the seeker. I thank any heyoka that has come into my
life to teach me if I think what I think..
I have seen a lot so far in my life...and I have barely begun to live
in this life. The Satan (Ha-Satan) of the Bible was a sort of heyoka in
that he tested Jesus in his firm convictions.
He/she is out there. Be thankful that they make you think.
>> Wiccan has a majority definition and minority ones.
>> Christianity has as well.
>> We seem to gather together under the looser majority ones then seeking
>> to understand further...we get into the minority maybes.
>> Just a thought.
>
>It's a common problem that one religion will expect the other to retain a
>rigid definition of things while they have a more relaxed definition of
>their own religion. Can we say double standard? ;)
>
>darkness, laughter and light,
>True
Blessings
Brenda
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: Can one be a Christian witch?
>
> Reply to: [1] Chive Mynde
> Date: 2 Mar 2001 15:23:07 -0800
> Organization: The Vegetable Kingdom
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [3] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4] <3aa0...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:56:15 -0500, in article
><NTUn6.1465$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>
>
>feel that I must share my answer as well.
>
>I first learned of the Heyoka in the book, "Black Elk Speaks".
>If you do not already own this book, then you have a
>lot of studying to do. It is a standard, introductory
>text.
>
>John Neihardt dedicates Chapter 16 to the Heyoka Ceremony
>and describes it in detail, as seen through the eys of Black
>Elk.
>
>If I am correct in the usage of the Sioux word, "heyoka"
>it rougly translates to "sacred clown". It is the Oglala
>Sioux equivalent of the Trickster/bodhisattva spirit that
>helps humanity.
>
Now I am wondering about the Hunkpapa!
By the by.....my hero is Sitting Bull!
Brenda
cerridwenn
knowledge of many religions other than "traditional christianity")
that the translation that led to the common printing of the word
"witch" was actually a general term in reference to a wide variety of
charlatans. one of these was probably professional poisoners, since
herbal medicine as well as poisons were certainly well known and used
for centuries. another group that would have been included were
people who made money by _pretending_ to divine the future, much like
psychic hotlines and other fakes of modern society. the reason that
was a "bad thing" (aside from the obvious that it preys on the weak
and promotes all kinds of unfounded superstitions and misconceptions)
was that true psychic ability is a gift of the divine not to be
abused.
you have to understand that language to language translation usually
loses the original idea, especially when the translators feel they
have something to gain by changing the meaning. early use of "magic"
came to be understood as miracles and the means of using or
controlling magic in that light became lost knowledge to those within
the religion.
sad but true, personal agendas by a few supposedly "in the know" lead
to vast misunderstandings and great unpleasantness later on.
of course, someone will disagree with me, probably very nastilly from
what i've seen (which won't matter since i don't seem to get half the
messages that come through the newsgroups anyway for some reason) but
as far as that goes, i think religious scripture (any religion) is
meant for individual, not mass, interpretation... so go to it!
--cerri
cerista and/or Mortality
"True" <trut...@yahoo.com> wrote >
Sexy.
--
cerista
"As long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise
is ignorance, bigotry, and hate,
I say the hell with it!"
--Spencer Tracy as Col. Drummond
Inherit the Wind
>
Chive Mynde
<7gl0at8hnvvdqrj2j...@4ax.com>, cerridwenn wrote:
>
>i was taught (in sunday school, i may add, by a teacher with vast
>knowledge of many religions other than "traditional christianity")
>that the translation that led to the common printing of the word
>"witch" was actually a general term in reference to a wide variety of
>charlatans. one of these was probably professional poisoners, since
>herbal medicine as well as poisons were certainly well known and used
>for centuries. another group that would have been included were
>people who made money by _pretending_ to divine the future, much like
>psychic hotlines and other fakes of modern society. the reason that
>was a "bad thing" (aside from the obvious that it preys on the weak
>and promotes all kinds of unfounded superstitions and misconceptions)
>was that true psychic ability is a gift of the divine not to be
>abused.
Very nicely said. I agree completely.
>you have to understand that language to language translation usually
>loses the original idea, especially when the translators feel they
>have something to gain by changing the meaning. early use of "magic"
>came to be understood as miracles and the means of using or
>controlling magic in that light became lost knowledge to those within
>the religion.
>
>sad but true, personal agendas by a few supposedly "in the know" lead
>to vast misunderstandings and great unpleasantness later on.
>
>of course, someone will disagree with me, probably very nastilly from
>what i've seen (which won't matter since i don't seem to get half the
>messages that come through the newsgroups anyway for some reason) but
>as far as that goes, i think religious scripture (any religion) is
>meant for individual, not mass, interpretation... so go to it!
>
>--cerri
Thank you for clearing up one piece of this puzzle...
Obviously, you have a natural talent for this.
- Chive
>>> Also as a side note, is the translations "will not suffer a witch to live"
>>> correct? For some reason I recall a translations of "will not suffer a
>>> sorcerer (or sorceress) to live". Could someone correct me on this?
>>
>>From memory (which someone will correct if it is innacurate) the word was
>>Pharmakopia meaning poisoner.
>
"I came to the conclusion long ago, after prayerful search and study
True
cerista and/or Mortality wrote in message
> > Now what do we
> > call David Copperfield? *g*
>
> Sexy.
*laughs* Okay, some might call him sexy...I'm on the fence about that ;)
True
Brenda G. Tataryn wrote in message
> >Tell me about this "heyoka"? I have not heard the term.
> >
> **** the contrary..the sacred clown, the testor, the trickster...
> one who is formless, backwards or not falling into any box
> whatsoever..except in the box of heyoka! A Lakota term I learnt from
> an old teacher. In some places it is Loki, in some coyote,raven,
> the madman of the woods,etc. In many traditions that heyoka is allowed
> to try to disrupt even the most sacred of rituals to test the conviction
> and deep truth of the seeker. I thank any heyoka that has come into my
> life to teach me if I think what I think..
> I have seen a lot so far in my life...and I have barely begun to live
> in this life. The Satan (Ha-Satan) of the Bible was a sort of heyoka in
> that he tested Jesus in his firm convictions.
> He/she is out there. Be thankful that they make you think.
Okay, I am familiar with the being (typically the coyote or the raven in my
belief system) but not that particular term. I have not done that much
study into Native American beliefs and deities.
I was speaking with a Jewish friend of mine tonight who stated that when
translating hebrew, just mis-translating a vowel can change the whole
meaning of a sentence. The example he gave me was a word that means "light"
was inaccurately translated to "horns". The old hebrew word for light and
horn was apparently very close in spelling.
True
<the.ol...@freedom.net> wrote in message
> As I recall, Taliesen (sp?) of Earthstar said that this was the Greek word
> which the Septuagint, (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made in
> Alexandria of Egypt prior to New Testament times), used to translate the
> original Hebrew word. The problem is, that there is no such thing as an
> exact translation for a word from another time, and another culture, as
> well as another language. You have to try to understand as exactly as
> possible how the original writer understood the word he or she used, then
> try to find one which your readers will understand in the same way.
Exactly! So someone who believes that you can't be Christian and a witch is
being far too literal with that particular translation, "shall not suffer a
witch to live", imho.
True
cerridwenn wrote in message
I agree with you if that's any consolation *g*. I think that if you read
the bible you will realize a lot of what is written was purely common sense
for the time. For example, a lot of the diet restrictions in the OT and
Torah make sense if you think about how many diseases were running around at
the time.
Clearly, if you are writing down rules to live by for a society, stating
that you won't put up with someone who poisons, takes advantage of or abuses
others is something you want to add in. Since you want to keep the masses
under control restricting the use of magic to those "touched by the divine"
makes sense also even if I don't agree. In today's society one must be able
to look at the bible as words from long ago and figure how to apply those
words to then, not now. It's all about interpretation and I find that there
are Pagans who do not wish Christians to find and accept "relaxed"
interpretations in the bible. Such as we are seeing with ppl like Brenda
stating she is a Christian witch we see ppl stating that there is no way she
can do such a thing. It seems to be the Pagans, atm, are holding her to a
rigid translation of an out of date book. This seems most unfortunate b/c
she appears to have found the ability to see that translation for how and
what it was most likely intended.
True
The Last Church wrote in message
> >I do believe you can be a Christain witch however most
> >Christains do not accept the term
>
> Most christians don't even except other christians.
Very good point but you find that within any major religion. You even find
it within Paganism *chuckles*.
> How ever, anyone who understands love and compassion is
> Christ-like,,,Christian. You can be christian and claim no religion
> or any......
Heh, a co-worker of mine says that both myself and her son (who is also
Pagan) are better Christians then most actual Christians she knows
*chuckles*.
True
Chive Mynde wrote in message
> >Tell me about this "heyoka"? I have not heard the term.
>
> I know this question was directed to Brenda, but I
> feel that I must share my answer as well.
>
> I first learned of the Heyoka in the book, "Black Elk Speaks".
> If you do not already own this book, then you have a
> lot of studying to do. It is a standard, introductory
> text.
Introductory text to what specifically?
Thanks for the info though.
True
Chive Mynde wrote in message
> >In regards to Unitarians they are not Christians, imo.
>
> Wrong.
>
> From the web page:
>
> They are called 'Unitarians':
> - because of their traditional insistence on divine unity,
> the oneness of God.
Which web page? Please provide reference b/c I have been a member of my
local Unitarian church for many years and there is no requirement to believe
in one God or Christ.
From http://www.uua.org/main.html
"With its historical roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions, Unitarian
Universalism is a liberal religion -- that is, a religion that keeps an open
mind to the religious questions people have struggled with in all times and
places. We believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be
the final authorities in religion, and that in the end religious authority
lies not in a book or person or institution, but in ourselves. We are a
"non-creedal" religion: we do not ask anyone to ascribe to a creed. "
> - because they affirm the essential unity of humankind
> and of creation.
This seems accurate enough.
> It seems, therefore, that Christ *was* a Unitarian and
> *not* a Christian.
Nah, there is nothing in the Unitarian tradition that would suggest this
although one could interpret it that way if they wished to believe in
Christ.
The doctrine of the Unitarian church, that I am affliated with, is this:
"Love is the doctrine of this church
The quest for truth is its sacrament
and service is its prayer,
To the end that all souls shall grow
into harmony with the Divine. "
Further it is stated: "We have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Humanists,
Hindus, Pagans and others worshipping together. "
Jews, Hindus, Pagans and Buddhists (etc) do not and will not be expected or
required to believe in Christ as a requirement to be a Unitarian.
HTH
Chive Mynde
wt...@victoria.tc.ca wrote:
>>On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:56:15 -0500, in article
>><NTUn6.1465$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>>
>>>Tell me about this "heyoka"? I have not heard the term.
>>
>>I know this question was directed to Brenda, but I
>>feel that I must share my answer as well.
>>
>>I first learned of the Heyoka in the book, "Black Elk Speaks".
>>If you do not already own this book, then you have a
>>lot of studying to do. It is a standard, introductory
>>text.
>>
>>John Neihardt dedicates Chapter 16 to the Heyoka Ceremony
>>and describes it in detail, as seen through the eys of Black
>>Elk.
>>
>>If I am correct in the usage of the Sioux word, "heyoka"
>>it rougly translates to "sacred clown". It is the Oglala
>>Sioux equivalent of the Trickster/bodhisattva spirit that
>>helps humanity.
>>
>**** ah. I guess the Oglala use it as well as the Lakota.
>Now I am wondering about the Hunkpapa!
>By the by.....my hero is Sitting Bull!
>Brenda
Very interesting.
Take a look at this page:
Trickster's Way
A Selected Bibliography of Trickster
http://www.trinity.edu/org/tricksters/materials/Tricksterbib.htm
- Chive
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: Can one be a Christian witch?
>
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [3] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5] <E7Pn6.60$V65.1...@news.interact.net.au>
> [6] <7gl0at8hnvvdqrj2j...@4ax.com>
>
>
>cerridwenn wrote in message
>makes sense also even if I don't agree. In today's society one must be able
>to look at the bible as words from long ago and figure how to apply those
>words to then, not now. It's all about interpretation and I find that there
>are Pagans who do not wish Christians to find and accept "relaxed"
>interpretations in the bible. Such as we are seeing with ppl like Brenda
>stating she is a Christian witch we see ppl stating that there is no way she
>can do such a thing. It seems to be the Pagans, atm, are holding her to a
>rigid translation of an out of date book. This seems most unfortunate b/c
>she appears to have found the ability to see that translation for how and
>what it was most likely intended.
**** Just as a side note..King James had a phobia concerning witches.
He made darn certain that the translation of "sorcerer" or "poisoner"
was written down as "witch"
in his version of the Bible.
Blessings
Brenda
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: Can one be a Christian witch?
>
> Reply to: [1] Chive Mynde
> Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:25:25 -0800
> Organization: The Vegetable Kingdom
> [2] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [3] newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>On 2 Mar 2001 17:24:46 -0800, in article [5] <3aa0...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
>
>- Chive
***Went to the site Chive, holy freakin cows!!!! that is a lot of stuff to
read up on.
thanks
Brenda
True
Brenda G. Tataryn wrote in message
> **** Just as a side note..King James had a phobia concerning witches.
> He made darn certain that the translation of "sorcerer" or "poisoner"
> was written down as "witch"
> in his version of the Bible.
> Blessings
> Brenda
Oh, of this, I am completely aware. Queen Elizabeth I seemed to have had
similar issues and she was his predecessor.
Cardinal Fang
>This topic has appeared in a few different threads and it has caused me to
>ponder some. I believe that when a person refers to Jesus as a witch they
>do so in regards to the fact that it appears that his miracles were an act
>of magic. However, that is not what most Christian would call Jesus.
>The problem
>appears to be word usage. When you take that away basically you are left
>with an individual that used magic (either knowingly or unknownly is not
>clear). In terms of those of us that are Wiccan or Pagan (etc), that would
>suggest that he was indeed a witch (by our definition of the word) although
>most Christians would not accept
>this word usage.
Heh...there are Christians in this world that call other Christians
'non-christians' just because there way of worshiping God, or Jesus, differs
somewhat from their own. Is it possible to be a ' Christian Witch' if other
Christians commonly disagree with one's particular spin on Christianity?
I don't see why not.
Its the good Christian that really doesn't care. They realize, who are they to
judge? That's God's job.
A Christian practicing witchcraft doesn't automatically make you a
non-Christian...there will always be disagreement over what should be and what
should not be practiced. Some Christians think that practicing astrology, using
the tarot, or being a medium is satanic, but I know there's a lot of Christians
out there that engage in these "practices", some even for money.
And "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", if you take it by its apparent
meaning (not its other translation as "poisoner"), it doesn't say that witches
can't be Christians. It just raises a spectre of strong disagreement with the
practice of being a witch (or whatever they meant by being a witch).
Cardinal Fang ho...@earthlink.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead me not to temptation, I enjoy finding it myself.
Cardinal Fang
>
>cerista and/or Mortality wrote in message
>
>> > Now what do we
>> > call David Copperfield? *g*
>>
>> Sexy.
>
>*laughs* Okay, some might call him sexy...I'm on the fence about that ;)
Its all smoke and mirrors.....
True
Cardinal Fang wrote in message
> >> Sexy.
> >
> >*laughs* Okay, some might call him sexy...I'm on the fence about that ;)
>
> Its all smoke and mirrors.....
If he is appearing sexy to a lot of ppl can I have some of the smoke?
*laughs*
Chive Mynde
<SX_n6.1537$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>
>
>Chive Mynde wrote in message
>
>> >In regards to Unitarians they are not Christians, imo.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> From the web page:
>>
>> They are called 'Unitarians':
>> - because of their traditional insistence on divine unity,
>> the oneness of God.
>
>Which web page? Please provide reference b/c I have been a member of my
>local Unitarian church for many years and there is no requirement to believe
>in one God or Christ.
Did I say that there was a requirement to believe in one God or Christ?
The statement, They are called 'Unitarians'...because of their
traditional insistence on divine unity, the oneness of God,"
does not imply that there is a requirement to believe in one
God or Christ, just that God itself manifests itself as a
divine unity, or oneness.
A whole can and does have many parts.
Chive Mynde
<TX_n6.1538$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>
>
>Chive Mynde wrote in message
>
>> >Tell me about this "heyoka"? I have not heard the term.
>>
>> I know this question was directed to Brenda, but I
>> feel that I must share my answer as well.
>>
>> I first learned of the Heyoka in the book, "Black Elk Speaks".
>> If you do not already own this book, then you have a
>> lot of studying to do. It is a standard, introductory
>> text.
>
>Introductory text to what specifically?
Sorry, I assumed everyone knows who Black Elk is; it
is a standard introductory text to Black Elk and the
Oglala Sioux Indians of North America.
>Thanks for the info though.
You're welcome.
- Chive
Chive Mynde
The strange thing is that it's not even a complete list. I have
a few books on my shelf that are devoted to the "trickster"
mythologem, and they are not listed on that that site.
- Chive
True
Chive Mynde wrote in message
> >Introductory text to what specifically?
>
> Sorry, I assumed everyone knows who Black Elk is; it
> is a standard introductory text to Black Elk and the
> Oglala Sioux Indians of North America.
Tsk tsk, assumptions are bad things *chuckles* ;) Actually I am sure it is
something I would like to read at some point however I have not been overly
drawn to Native American spirituality although I have immense respect for
it.
True
Chive Mynde wrote in message
> >Chive Mynde wrote in message
> >
> >> >In regards to Unitarians they are not Christians, imo.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> From the web page:
> >>
> >> They are called 'Unitarians':
> >> - because of their traditional insistence on divine unity,
> >> the oneness of God.
> >
> >Which web page? Please provide reference b/c I have been a member of my
> >local Unitarian church for many years and there is no requirement to
believe
> >in one God or Christ.
>
> www.unitarian.org.uk
Checked the site out and it would seem that we might be talking about two
different things. The Unitarian link I put in my post was for Unitarian
Universalism and there has never been any connection to Christianity other
than it's roots.
> Did I say that there was a requirement to believe in one God or Christ?
No, but you did state that Unitarianism was a sect of Christianity and it is
not as I understand it or at least my local parish is not *chuckles*.
> The statement, They are called 'Unitarians'...because of their
> traditional insistence on divine unity, the oneness of God,"
> does not imply that there is a requirement to believe in one
> God or Christ, just that God itself manifests itself as a
> divine unity, or oneness.
>
> A whole can and does have many parts.
That is a belief which is accepted in Unitarianism but the belief that that
there are many gods is also accepted. Divinity does not have to be one.
The Divine can be made up of many divine beings. Again, it seems, it is a
matter of interpretation.
"Love is the doctrine of this church
The quest for truth is its sacrament
and service is its prayer,
To the end that all souls shall grow
into harmony with the Divine. "
Harmony with the divine could be one or it could be many. Unitarians would
not suggest one or the other. They accept all faiths.
True
Cardinal Fang wrote in message
> Heh...there are Christians in this world that call other Christians
All very true. It's unlikely anyone will start agreeing on whether or not a
person can be a Christian witch but for me, I feel that they can be.
Chive Mynde
<OHko6.2108$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>> A whole can and does have many parts.
>
>That is a belief which is accepted in Unitarianism but the belief that that
>there are many gods is also accepted. Divinity does not have to be one.
>The Divine can be made up of many divine beings. Again, it seems, it is a
>matter of interpretation.
>
>"Love is the doctrine of this church
>The quest for truth is its sacrament
>and service is its prayer,
>To the end that all souls shall grow
>into harmony with the Divine. "
>
>Harmony with the divine could be one or it could be many. Unitarians would
>not suggest one or the other. They accept all faiths.
Thanks for saying that, as it proves my point. :)
"They accept ALL faiths".
How many parts in a whole? *All*. What does *all* represent?
"...To the end that all souls shall grow into harmony with the Divine."
*All* souls shall grow INTO harmony with the Divine.
How many parts in a whole? *All*. What does *all* represent?
Oneness. Unity.
Take out a US coin. What do you see?
"E PLURIBUS UNUM". "Out of Many, One".
While it is true that this motto is an exoteric reference
to the thirteen colonies, which were united into one nation
"under God", it is also a refernce to the underlying esoteric
truths of unity under God. It can also be applied to
religious faith as well, since many people worship under
many different faiths, and yet, the many faiths are simply
representative of the harmonious unity of the Divine.
Chive Mynde
<NHko6.2107$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "True" wrote:
>
>
>Chive Mynde wrote in message
>
>> >Introductory text to what specifically?
>>
>> Sorry, I assumed everyone knows who Black Elk is; it
>> is a standard introductory text to Black Elk and the
>> Oglala Sioux Indians of North America.
>
>Tsk tsk, assumptions are bad things *chuckles* ;)
Quite true, quite true.
> Actually I am sure it is
>something I would like to read at some point however I have not been overly
>drawn to Native American spirituality although I have immense respect for
>it.
It is always good to research, discover, and experience things you
are *not* drawn to, and in the case of world religions, it is
important to immerse yourself in every culture and every religion.
In the case of the Oglala Sioux Indians, the cosmogony, mythos,
images, and stories behind the tribe resonant with Wicca to an
extreme degree. As a very simple example, the name and image
of the man "Black Elk" indirectly alludes to the Shamanic and
Wiccan concept of the "horned god" and hunter god. This is
not a coincience. "The ceremonies of the Cult of the Horned god
were first found in the Paleolithic cave paintings of Ariege
which depicted a dancing figure in the skin of a horned animal."
It is not too much of a leap to see how ancient beliefs
spread around the world with the migration of humanity from
one continent to another.
Also of (coincidental? X-files theme, please...) interest:
"August 17: Festival of Diana. Every year on this date, the goddess of
chastity, hunting, and the moon was honored by the ancient Romans.
This is a special day of feasting, mirth, and magick-making for
many Dianic Wiccans, since Diana is the most sacred goddess of
their tradition. On this date in the year 1950, Oglala Sioux
mystic and medicine man Nicholas Black Elk died in Manderson,
South Dakota. He was known for his great powers of prophecy and
healing, and was an adherent of the Ghost Dance, a short-lived
Native American religious movement which ended in a tragic massacre
at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, in 1890."
True
Chive Mynde wrote in message
> It is always good to research, discover, and experience things you
> are *not* drawn to, and in the case of world religions, it is
> important to immerse yourself in every culture and every religion.
Oh, I agree, I just haven't gotten to it yet. As I said it sounds like it
would be a good thing to read at some point. I am trying to educate myself
on some other areas first and all this takes time although it is enjoyable
:)
> In the case of the Oglala Sioux Indians, the cosmogony, mythos,
> images, and stories behind the tribe resonant with Wicca to an
> extreme degree. As a very simple example, the name and image
> of the man "Black Elk" indirectly alludes to the Shamanic and
> Wiccan concept of the "horned god" and hunter god. This is
> not a coincience. "The ceremonies of the Cult of the Horned god
> were first found in the Paleolithic cave paintings of Ariege
> which depicted a dancing figure in the skin of a horned animal."
> It is not too much of a leap to see how ancient beliefs
> spread around the world with the migration of humanity from
> one continent to another.
The Wiccan concept seems to be drawn from some Celtic or rather European
pagan ceremonies of old so I am aware that. The reading I have done on Hern
has associated him with Cernunnos and the existance of Cernunnos seems to be
one of the older deities which means He has touched many cultures.
Thanks for the info :)
True
Chive Mynde wrote in message
> >That is a belief which is accepted in Unitarianism but the belief that
that
> >there are many gods is also accepted. Divinity does not have to be one.
> >The Divine can be made up of many divine beings. Again, it seems, it is
a
> >matter of interpretation.
> >
> >"Love is the doctrine of this church
> >The quest for truth is its sacrament
> >and service is its prayer,
> >To the end that all souls shall grow
> >into harmony with the Divine. "
> >
> >Harmony with the divine could be one or it could be many. Unitarians
would
> >not suggest one or the other. They accept all faiths.
>
> Thanks for saying that, as it proves my point. :)
*chuckles* I do believe it proves both of our points ;) Which is what that
particular church is all about.
> "They accept ALL faiths".
>
> How many parts in a whole? *All*. What does *all* represent?
Depends on your interpretation of the word "divine" in their doctrine, no?
Does "all" necessary assume that they are a facets of ~one~ thing or could
it be one type of thing?
> "...To the end that all souls shall grow into harmony with the Divine."
>
> *All* souls shall grow INTO harmony with the Divine.
Again, it's the interpretation of "divine". Is divine one being? Or a
group of beings?
> How many parts in a whole? *All*. What does *all* represent?
>
> Oneness. Unity.
Oneness and Unity are two different things to me. You can have unity with
more than one being where oneness suggest only one being.
> religious faith as well, since many people worship under
> many different faiths, and yet, the many faiths are simply
> representative of the harmonious unity of the Divine.
You believe that the ppl following other faiths are actually following a
facet of the divine. My opinion differs in that I believe that ppl
following other faiths are actually following a "divine" being and not a
facet of one divine being.
Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways
"cerista and/or Mortality" <twowi...@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:MIOn6.831$L26.17...@den-news1.rmi.net...
>
>
>
> "True" <trut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gvOn6.642$OS1.5...@nntp2.onemain.com...
> > This topic has appeared in a few different threads and it has
caused me to
> > ponder some. I believe that when a person refers to Jesus as a
witch they
> > do so in regards to the fact that it appears that his miracles
were an act
> > of magic. However, that is not what most Christian would call
Jesus.
> > The problem
> > appears to be word usage. When you take that away basically you
are left
> > with an individual that used magic (either knowingly or unknownly
is not
> > clear). In terms of those of us that are Wiccan or Pagan (etc),
that
> would
> > suggest that he was indeed a witch (by our definition of the word)
> although
> > most Christians would not accept
> > this word usage.
> >
> > I take this a step further when looking at Moses and what he did
when
> > leading the Israelites out of Egypt. I saw a very interesting
documentary
> > about how there is supported evidence that Moses took many aspects
of
> > Egyptian
> > magic with him since he was educated so heavily there. In fact
this
> > particular documentary suggested that Moses was indeed a very
powerful
> > magician. Again we come back to word usage and how each of us
defines the
> > word "witch". Some ppl may accept that Moses was a witch due to
his use
> of
> > magic and some may not b/c witch has such negative connotations
within
> > Judaism and Christianity.
> >
> > Also as a side note, is the translations "will not suffer a witch
to live"
> > correct? For some reason I recall a translations of "will not
suffer a
> > sorcerer (or sorceress) to live". Could someone correct me on
this?
> Witch
> > may have been used in more recent translations of the bible (i.e.
King
> > James) but I believe (and I could be wrong so please correct me if
this is
> > the case) that the Torah does translate it differently. During
the time
> of
> > King James it would not be surprising that the translation
> > became "witch". What I get from both the bible and the Torah is
that
> > basically that statement is merely stating that a Jew or Christian
will
> not
> > suffer a magic practioner to live, or at least not one duly
accepted by
> God
> > to pratice magic. There are magic practioners within Judaism and
> > Christianity and they are accepted (although obviously not called
> witches).
> > The big thing in the Torah and OT
> > (typically the same except for some translation differences) is
that their
> > God did not want them to be worshipping some other deity other
than
> > Themselves.
> >
> > I do believe you can be a Christain witch however most
> > Christains do not accept the term "witch" b/c of their phobia and
> > misunderstanding of the translation. If one is Christain and
following
> God
> > then most likely He wouldn't have a problem with someone
practicing magic
> as
> > long as that
> > person did not worship another God. That is all it seems to come
down to
> > for me. It becomes more complex when ppl become too rigid in
their
> > definitions of the words in the text (written by other humans,
btw, and
> > subject to many interpretations, which I guess is 95% percent of
the
> problem
> > *chuckles*).
> >
> > Anyway that's my 2 cents or perhaps 4 or 6 *g*.
> >
> > darkness, laughter and light,
> > True
> >
> I am of the humble opinion that anyone who practices witchery (Term
used in
> Appalachia to mean magic) is a witch, no matter what other word
usage is
> associated with them. I prefer the term witchery to magic for two
reasons.
> The first is obvious, I grew up with it. The second is because
David
> Copperfield, et al., does not use it, he uses "magic".
>
>
> --
> Mortality
>
> "As long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise
> is ignorance, bigotry, and hate,
> I say the hell with it!"
> --Spencer Tracy as Col. Drummond
> Inherit the Wind
>
>
True
Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways wrote in message
> Isn't that why we often spell magic as "magick"???
My opinion is that spelling magic "magick" is just for looks. I prefer to
just spell it "magic". I am sure there are ppl who will disagree with me
though.
cerista and/or Mortality
--
cerista and/or Mortality
"As long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise
is ignorance, bigotry, and hate,
I say the hell with it!"
--Spencer Tracy as Col. Drummond
Inherit the Wind
"Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways" <theol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:H2fp6.41750$sD.29...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
> Isn't that why we often spell magic as "magick"???
Not all of us do so. I avoid the term, because in my opinion, it makes one
look illiterate. The word is and was spelled "magic". Witchery is a valid
word that describes the act of creating magic. Sorcery or witchcraft are
synonyms.
To me, it describes both the magic and the means used to attain it, even
mundane means.
Witchery is using one's mind to obtain one's goals, by any means available.
Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways
recognizable and distinguishable from stage-magick. And easier to type
than "sorcery", etc. In real life (where both "magic" and "magick"
sound exactly the same) I simply use terms like "Crafting" or
"Spellwork" or "Witchcraft". My ex-girlfriend would say "invoking the
craft".
Personally, I prefer the word "Crafting", because wearing a pentacle
around my neck and dressing in mostly black (what can I say - I'm a
stereotype *L*) leaves little doubt as to what type of "craft" I am
referring to! =)
Blessed be,
-Corvun Saepius
"cerista and/or Mortality" <twowi...@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:YDhp6.375$MZ1.22...@den-news1.rmi.net...
>
>
> --
> cerista and/or Mortality
>
> "As long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise
> is ignorance, bigotry, and hate,
> I say the hell with it!"
> --Spencer Tracy as Col. Drummond
> Inherit the Wind
> "Corvùn Sæpius of The Old Ways" <theol...@hotmail.com> wrote in
Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways
Sorry! =)
Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways
to be healed. I've seen incredible feats of magick being worked within
churches - they just happen to (exclusively) honor and invoke a single
deity from the ancient canaanite pantheon. It's just another form of
witchcraft, as far as I'm concerned.
"True" <trut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MTUn6.1464$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
>
> Demon-X-Streem wrote in message
>
> > I don't know if you could call them a witch...but Christans did
use magic
> or
> > "miracles" as the Christan belife would call it....I have actualy
read a
> > book called "Anchint Christan Magic" now what truth this held i do
not
> > know...but it wus intersting never the less....
>
> I am a firm believer that there are ppl within the Christian church
who can
> and do use magic. They typically do not call themselves witches due
to the
> stigma associated with the title. I would imagine they don't call
> themselves anything per se. The point being, though, is that those
of us
> that are comfortable using the word "witch" and do not see anything
negative
> in it's definition can use it to describe a person who uses magic,
from any
> faith. A person like Brenda obviously feels comfortable using the
word
> witch and still remain a Christian and I don't see that as a
problem.
>
> >The Christan religon is
> > actual made up of many pagen religons....if fact on of its magor
hollidays
> > is based on the selabration of the Goddess " Eostre " the goddess
of
> spring,
> > Witch sometimes wus symbolized by the rabbit. Her name is still
retaind in
> > the Christian lunar-based festival of "Easter".
>
> Aye, very true although She is more appropriately associated with
the Pagan
> holiday of Ostara which occurs in March and not April. I have a
feeling
> that Easter was a combination of both Ostara and Beltane.
Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways
give him with respect to his own faith is better than what he gets
from his fellow Christians. Reminding him that he loves God and that
God loves him (etc) and that his heart is in the right place, rather
than pithing him shit about eating red meat on fridays and the like --
he's even said that I'm a better Christian than most Christians.
I guess Pagans do make the best Christians after all... ;)
"True" <trut...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UX_n6.1539$K66.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
>
> The Last Church wrote in message
>
> > >I do believe you can be a Christain witch however most
> > >Christains do not accept the term
> >
> > Most christians don't even except other christians.
>
> Very good point but you find that within any major religion. You
even find
> it within Paganism *chuckles*.
>
> > How ever, anyone who understands love and compassion is
> > Christ-like,,,Christian. You can be christian and claim no
religion
> > or any......
>
> Heh, a co-worker of mine says that both myself and her son (who is
also
> Pagan) are better Christians then most actual Christians she knows
> *chuckles*.
David Honigsberg
> correct? For some reason I recall a translations of "will not suffer a
> sorcerer (or sorceress) to live". Could someone correct me on this?
Witch
> may have been used in more recent translations of the bible (i.e. King
> James) but I believe (and I could be wrong so please correct me if this is
> the case) that the Torah does translate it differently. During the time
of
> King James it would not be surprising that the translation
> became "witch". What I get from both the bible and the Torah is that
> basically that statement is merely stating that a Jew or Christian will
not
> suffer a magic practioner to live, or at least not one duly accepted by
God
> to pratice magic. There are magic practioners within Judaism and
> Christianity and they are accepted (although obviously not called
witches).
> The big thing in the Torah and OT
> (typically the same except for some translation differences) is that their
> God did not want them to be worshipping some other deity other than
> Themselves
The translation is correct; it's the interpretation that sometimes leaves
something to be desired. I wrote this some years ago in answer to a similar
question
One of the most controversial passages in the Jewish Scriptures is found in
the book of Exodus, chapter 22, verse 17. The verse most often rendered, in
translation, as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Over the years this
mis-translation has caused no end of problems between Wiccans on one hand
and Jews and Christians on the other.
Most alternate translations which I have seen are not much better, although
some remove the offending word "witch" and replace it with "sorceress." The
version of the bible published by The Jewish Publication Society renders the
verse as follows: "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
Neither of these translations is acceptable; and while they have certainly
become part and parcel of our culture, the verse is not, in my opinion,
properly understood. According to the well-respected THE TORAH: A MODERN
COMMENTARY, published by The Union of American Hebrew Congregations (c)
1981, the verse is more properly translated as "Thou shalt not telerate a
sorceesss." It should be noted that, no matter how the phrase is translated,
the typical Hebrew phrase translated as "put to death" does not appear in
this verse.The commentary, written by W. Gunther Plaut says, "The female
example ('sorceress') was used probbaly because the practitioner was most
likely a woman. No particiular type of sorcery is noted; the regulation
appears to aim at local practices. Other Near Eastern laws also opposed
sorcery." Certain types of magic are quite acceptable in Judaism (such as
the magic necessary to create Golems) but it does not appear that any of the
practitioners thereof were women.
To complete an understanding of this verse, it is important to look at the
Hebrew word used, m'ka-shay-fah. Almost all Hebrew words can be reduced to a
3-letter form. In this case, the three letters are K-SH-F (the SH sound in
Hebrew being represented by a single letter, the 'shin.') The roots of this
word, in both Arabic and Syrian have the meaning of "cutting up," or
"cutting oneself." However, the Syraic root also has the meaning of "to
pray." This would indicate to me that there is a connection between sorcery,
in the mind of the rabbis, and prayer. If so, the proscription against
sorcery might also be a proscrption against praying in other, non-Jewish,
ways. The basic noun form of the word is "sorcery," and the basic verb form
is "to practice sorcery." Nowhere in proper translations should this word be
translated as "witches" or "witchcraft." The knee-jerk reaction to these
words is probably what translators of the Bible were looking for when this
translation was first used. I do not know when it was first used, but it
wouldn't surprise me if the King James Version (KJV) were the first to do
so.
I have also heard Wiccans mention that the verse has been grossly
mistranslated and that the original translation was "poisoner." I can find
nothing in the text which substantiates this claim.
I will be happy to share my references with any interested parties; and I
would welcome references to other instances of this type of proscription so
that I can look further into them, time permitting.
Rabbi Honigsberg
True
Corvůn Sćpius of The Old Ways wrote in message
> A christian fiend of mine has often told me that the encouragment I
> give him with respect to his own faith is better than what he gets
> from his fellow Christians. Reminding him that he loves God and that
> God loves him (etc) and that his heart is in the right place, rather
> than pithing him shit about eating red meat on fridays and the like --
> he's even said that I'm a better Christian than most Christians.
>
> I guess Pagans do make the best Christians after all... ;)
That's got to rub some Christians the wrong way *g*
True
David Honigsberg wrote in message
> The translation is correct; it's the interpretation that sometimes leaves
> something to be desired. I wrote this some years ago in answer to a
similar
> question
Which translation is correct? The "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
> One of the most controversial passages in the Jewish Scriptures is found
in
> the book of Exodus, chapter 22, verse 17. The verse most often rendered,
in
> translation, as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Over the years
this
> mis-translation has caused no end of problems between Wiccans on one hand
> and Jews and Christians on the other.
Agreed.
> Most alternate translations which I have seen are not much better,
although
> some remove the offending word "witch" and replace it with "sorceress."
The
> version of the bible published by The Jewish Publication Society renders
the
> verse as follows: "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
>
> Neither of these translations is acceptable; and while they have certainly
> become part and parcel of our culture, the verse is not, in my opinion,
> properly understood. According to the well-respected THE TORAH: A MODERN
> COMMENTARY, published by The Union of American Hebrew Congregations (c)
> 1981, the verse is more properly translated as "Thou shalt not telerate a
> sorceesss."
My local Jewish Synagogue recommended the "Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures", the
new JPS translation according to the traditional Hebrew text, put out by the
Jewish Publication Society. The verse is translated as "You shall not
tolerate* a sorceress" (* Lit. "let live"). This seems to make more sense
then most other translations that I have seen.
> It should be noted that, no matter how the phrase is translated,
> the typical Hebrew phrase translated as "put to death" does not appear in
> this verse.The commentary, written by W. Gunther Plaut says, "The female
> example ('sorceress') was used probbaly because the practitioner was most
> likely a woman. No particiular type of sorcery is noted; the regulation
> appears to aim at local practices. Other Near Eastern laws also opposed
> sorcery." Certain types of magic are quite acceptable in Judaism (such as
> the magic necessary to create Golems) but it does not appear that any of
the
> practitioners thereof were women.
Very interesting and my studies have supported this as well. Although in
the definition that I have access to, in this version of the Torah, it does
suggest that the sorceress should not be allowed to live. Or is that not
the correct translation hence the reason it was not actually translated and
was foot noted?
> To complete an understanding of this verse, it is important to look at the
> Hebrew word used, m'ka-shay-fah. Almost all Hebrew words can be reduced to
a
> 3-letter form. In this case, the three letters are K-SH-F (the SH sound in
> Hebrew being represented by a single letter, the 'shin.') The roots of
this
> word, in both Arabic and Syrian have the meaning of "cutting up," or
> "cutting oneself." However, the Syraic root also has the meaning of "to
> pray." This would indicate to me that there is a connection between
sorcery,
> in the mind of the rabbis, and prayer. If so, the proscription against
> sorcery might also be a proscrption against praying in other, non-Jewish,
> ways. The basic noun form of the word is "sorcery," and the basic verb
form
> is "to practice sorcery." Nowhere in proper translations should this word
be
> translated as "witches" or "witchcraft." The knee-jerk reaction to these
> words is probably what translators of the Bible were looking for when this
> translation was first used. I do not know when it was first used, but it
> wouldn't surprise me if the King James Version (KJV) were the first to do
> so.
I could be mistaken but I do believe it was King James that made that
translation common and widespread.
> I have also heard Wiccans mention that the verse has been grossly
> mistranslated and that the original translation was "poisoner." I can find
> nothing in the text which substantiates this claim.
I have heard that here and in a few other places. A Jewish friend stated
that he had heard it referred to as poisoner but it is not nearly as common
as witch or sorceress. I can not find this to be supported in the Torah I
am reading either.
> I will be happy to share my references with any interested parties; and I
> would welcome references to other instances of this type of proscription
so
> that I can look further into them, time permitting.
Thank you for your information and well thought out post :)
True
Corvųn Sæpius of The Old Ways wrote in message
> Look at the pentacostals, or those revivals where they pray for people
> to be healed. I've seen incredible feats of magick being worked within
> churches - they just happen to (exclusively) honor and invoke a single
> deity from the ancient canaanite pantheon. It's just another form of
> witchcraft, as far as I'm concerned.
I have a tendency to agree.