The Conspiracy To Twist Bible Verses To Suit Their Antigay Agenda - Romans 1:26-27

Hi ATS Watcher

No, the name is YE-HO-SHU-AH. If you really want to get technical.

Go on, roll it over your tongue a few times, it won't bite you...

The full name (totally unknown to American Fundamentalists today) being consistent with 1st century Rabbinical nomenclature-designations in Palestine, viz. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (these gangly titles were used to separate this particular Yehoshua from other Yehoshua's running around)

Yehoshua (or Joshua) = Gk: Iesous from whence the Americans get 'Jeezuzz' or some such foreign pronunciation...

Bar - Aram. 'son of' (placed before the first name of a man's father)

Yosef - Aram. 'Joseph' ('may yahweh add to' [his seed])

the Galilean - from the Aramaic 'Ha GilGal Ha Goyim', meaning 'circle of Pagans' - denoting the area from whence he came---often the town from where they originated is placed here in the nomenclature.

Nazir - meaning 'The Branch' (sometimes written in Aramaic as Nasi) from Zechariah 6:9 'Behold the Man, called the Nazir...he shall rebuild the Temple of YHWH' used typically for members of the Daviddic line meaning a 'Descendant of David according to the Flesh", i.e. a kingly title of sorts.

If you want to get REAL technical !

I take it by your rather confused comments that you are not fluent in Koine Greek or Galilean Aramaic...oh well, not too many American English speaking 'bible believing' fundamentalists are. More's the pity, I say !

Maybe you did NOT know that: 'Yehoshua' is also expressed sometimes in English as 'Joshua' or even Yoshua or Yehsu'a or Yeshu if you like all those fancy shortened forms (I've even seen it written as Isaiah if you want to allow a little fluidity with ancient Hebrew etymologies !) - the meaning being roughly in all these cases 'Yah[weh] is my Salvation...'.

Now admittedly, nobody today (scholars, that is, who use little things like EVIDENCE to guide their belief system !) is quite sure if this was an actual birth name or some sort of Messianic Title, (based on Exodus 23:21) considering the Tetragrammaton YHWH being used as the unpointed name for post exilic clan god of Yisro'el and with the NT you have midrashic clues guiding the contents of all the stories being told: e.g. 'I shall place my name in him' we could see the Hebrew Letter SHIN being added to the 4 letters of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) to form . Y H [Sh] W H = 'Yehoshuwah' - Hebrew has no written vowels, in case you didn't know...maybe you should think about taking a Hebrew class, and later something along the lines of Galilean Aramaic, then maybe you can REALLY get technical !

Take a quick look at the writer of the 4th Gospel's sometimes revealing Greek in John 1:45 : (in English, if that's all you can read !)

'We have found the Messiah--Iesous, son of Yosef !"

These revealing Greek words placed into the mouth of Phillipos (thought to be one of the 12, Greek name or not) telling Nathaniel (whoever he was, possibly another follower who went by the name of bar-Ptolomy?) by mentioning his fuller name.

It seems 'Yohanon the Elder' who apparently died in Ephesus 'at a great age' (i.e. around 92) may have been 'one of the 70' and had met this Iesous person 'in the flesh'--at least Polycarp as an 17 year old claimed to have met this Yohanon 'a disciple of Iesous' when the old man was over 91 'being carried into the room on a stretcher.'

Either way, the writer of this 4th canonical Nicene (barely) Approved 'Go
spel' in chapter 1:45 actually mentioned his name in a more correct format--but that is only if you want to get technical.

As for this Yohanon/Yonathan boy-toy looking up to Iesous as a child, the Greek terms and overall setting ('reclining at dinner' recalls Greek philosophers 'reclining' with their boy-lovers) are curiously similar to the kind of language used in Plato's Symposium--but you would have to be over 21 to be able to read all that racy man-boy-love !

All that typing didn't proove his name isn't Yahoshua so you wasted time with babbling.

Hi ATS Watcher

Go look up the word 'SHEWA' in a Hebrew-Aramaic lexicon if you can lay your hands on one . It might turn on a few lights for you...or maybe not ...

no one has posted anything on this for a while but i wanted to make a point against deaf alien's "Scholar" argument. For centuries scholars believed that the earth was flat it was until a few hundred years ago that scholars would say that the earth was round...just a thought to consider. typically using smart peoples "opinion" do not always make the strongest agruements especially when there are scholars on the other side of the argument.

Simple answer.

Homosexuality is an abomination to God......end of subject....over...done...

You can twist all the weasle words you wish, it doesn't change the facts.

reply to post by heliosprime


Better answer:

Homosexuality is an abomination to some.


What evidence is there of God's viewpoint? The Bible?
If so, what evidence is there that the Bible is God's word? Faith?
If so, does this mean faith equals facts?

Hi Heliosprime.

I suppose if male homosexuality is TOQ'EBAH, i.e. ritually destestible to YHWH the clan-god of Israel, such as wearing cotton and linent together in the same garment or cutting your forelocks (you CAN read paleo Hebrew can't you?) then what about female homosexuality being TOQ'EBAH? Cross dressing is one thing, but what about females lying with females as with a male. I don't see that phrase in any of your contradictory copies of the Torah floating around since antiquity (e.g. the Samaritan Pentateuch from around 480 BC, the Hebrew Vorlage Underlay to the Greek Septuaginta, or the targums, or the various contradictory text copies found in Caves 1-11 at Qumran or the much much later pointed Masoretic text of that single MSS found in Leningrad called the MT..nothing about female homosexuality being TOQ'EBAH there...

So I could just as easily say : IF YOU CUT YOUR FORELOCKS, or EAT A CHEESEBURGER ('you will not boil a goat in its mothers milk, it is ToQ'ebah !) IT IS AN ABOMINATION...

What about DIVORCE? Didn't that sword weidling Rebbe on the hill say that DIVORCE was UNTHINKABLE, and tantamount to ADULTERY which was punishible by STONING in those days? If you follow his words to the letter there will be alot of dead Christians laying the street killed by large rocks, it seems to me..

Maybe you need to get out more (or learn to read Greek and Aramaic) !

reply to post by Sigismundus


I grow so tired of the "stupidity" of the same old answers from those who have no understanding of scripture.

Matt 5:17,18

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Choose your own path to destruction from ignorance.

The law of God is unchanged. Point fingers and scoff, but all that you state is from ignorance not fact....

Hi Heliosprime--

Maybe you need to take a paleoHebrew class and another one in Galilean Aramaic, and then one in Koine Greek so you can actually read the words and ideas in which you profess to believe.

Right now, you're not in a position to discuss these matters when the best you can do is throw random quotes from the KJV on this thread that have nothing to do with the discussion of post-Exilic Ritual Toq'ebah, which you have never even heard of.

It's never to late to learn new things...even Cato learned Greek at the ripe old age of 90 ! And be very very very very very careful of calling persons on these discussion fora 'stupid'---this is against the policy of the ATS and I would warn you to avoid using such crass pejoratives in future, if you would please, especially ad homines who are more conversant with this material in the original languages than you are at present.

ATSWATCHER
As a Orthodox Xristiano (Christian) I can assure you that an "Effeminte" person is a heterosexual that physically moves and acts feminine, which is a sin, both in the Old/New Covenant.


[edit on 30-7-2009 by ATSWATCHER]

Oh yah, they know that they're not gay...they only act like they are...??

Anyone confused yet?

No surprise. Welcome our new member, ATSWATCHER.

Good clean and wholesome he/she/it is.

lmao.

grapesofraft

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by grapesofraft

 

Like I said, those verses have pretty much been debunked in other threads. The focus is on Romans 1:26-27. If you want, we can discuss those verses you mentioned.

BTW, the verses in Leviticus is also about pagan worship. Read the whole context.

Well the only way you can debunk them is to make up a bunch of BS and try to twist the meaning. They are as clear as day. There are no exceptions in those verses. I am sure if God wanted there to be exceptions he would have had them put in there.

You can believe what you want, but it isnt going to make it come true. The Bible clearly states OVER AND OVER AGAIN that Homosexuality in any form is a detestable sin. It never once mentions it in a positive light.

Please, dont get mad at me. I didnt write it. The issue is between homosexuals and God. I dont care what people do, but the Bible is pretty clear on this matter.

I would say the only way it would become right for a homosexual to become Christian is to stop engaging in the sexual behavior, but still love the person. The issues seems to be more with the sexual act than the love feelings.

[edit on 7/22/2009 by grapesofraft]

Thats funny. Havent Christians twisted the bible enough to fit their agendas? You know, the agendas that hate people not like them and killing them if they dont comply?

Talking about twisting something already twisted, then twisting it again and again. Twist it anymore and the blood will be squoze out it! That book, that WHOLE book should be debunked trashed, and writen again. Lets face it, its on its 700th or 800'th rewrite anyway.

Tylerdurden1
Talking about twisting something already twisted, then twisting it again and again. Twist it anymore and the blood will be squoze out it! That book, that WHOLE book should be debunked trashed, and writen again. Lets face it, its on its 700th or 800'th rewrite anyway.

The bible has not been rewritten. The books of the New Testament have stood as they are since the days of Irenaeus and his writing of “Against Heresies”, within a century of the death of Christ. This is why even the Roman Catholic Church was unable to “change” the Bible to fit their agenda through much of history leading up to the Protestant Reformation. Instead, they had to use tactics such as keeping the Bible out of the hands of the common man, and writing complex cannon law, to hide the “liberties” they were taking with its translation.

reply to post by defcon5


Catholics or christians, they use it to control the masses. We all see it, and it makes us laugh. That book that people hold so dear, has rape, inceste and murder. Its a joke. The worst part? The jokes on you.

Tylerdurden1
Catholics or christians, they use it to control the masses.

A religion with grace based salvation can never be used for control. This is old communist teaching, and its not any more true today then when it was when Karl Marx wrote it. Karl Marx apparently knew as little about religion as those who seek to repeat his ignorant quotes today.

Catholicism did at one point use Christianity as a means of control, but they do not believe in a “grace based” salvation, they teach salvation through both “grace and works”. This is why many protestant Christians do not consider Roman Catholicism a Christian Religion, and why all the original protestant reformers taught that the “Pope is the antichrist”, and the Catholic Church the Beast.

Tylerdurden1
That book that people hold so dear, has rape, inceste and murder.

God does not condone such behavior (for example Cain was punished by God for murdering his brother), however there are certain specific things that did happen back then that are considered socially unacceptable in today’s world. For example slavery was considered socially acceptable back then, but today it's not.

Murder in particular is not defined in the way that many today would consider it. There is a difference in the Bible between “murder” and “killing”. While “Murder” is never acceptable, under certain circumstances “killing” is. For example, killing in a “just” war, or as part of a “just” government enforcing its laws. God understands that the world is not perfect, and there are times when these things must be allowed. The main difference between biblical “murder” and “Killing” is if its done for personal reasons, such as Cain killing over envy, or if its done by a society or government as a whole.

Additionally, you cannot seek to judge God by mans standards, God is as foreign to our understanding as we would be to an ants.

A bit more on communism, and why communists dislike religion.

Communism only really works if everyone under the system is on the same page “belief” wise, and all are working to serve a “higher power”. That is why religious communes have existed in harmony throughout history. As each person in a religious commune is serving a “higher power”, they don't seek personal gain and self needs are secondary to that of the “higher power”. However, that presents a bit of a problem for a communist country, as people will see Gods laws as being of a higher authority than the states laws. So what communists did was to eliminate God, and replace him with the state itself. Thereby making the state the highest authority, with no laws higher then the states, and everyone working/sacrificing for the state.

See how that works?