ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

How Jesus, and The Bible did affirm, not condemn homosexuality. Gay biblical heroes. David and Jonathan

Updated on February 10, 2013

Contents.

Bible and Homosexuality.

Homosexuality in The Old Testament.

Jesus and his Homosexual Friends.

Another Homosexual Bible Hero, and Conclusion.

Jesus and Homosexuals.

A small addition.

Isaiah 53:3. A most important scripture.

Love, with God's blessing. Deal with it.

Source

Gay scriptural icons.

Destruction of Sodom. Nothing to do with homosexuality.
Destruction of Sodom. Nothing to do with homosexuality.
David and Jonathan. Rather sweet really.
David and Jonathan. Rather sweet really.
Ruth and Naomi. What do you think?
Ruth and Naomi. What do you think?
Jesus with His Homosexual friend.
Jesus with His Homosexual friend.

Bible and Homosexuality.

One of the strangest things about Christians, especially the more Bible reading fraternity, is that the more they devour "The Good Book", the less they seem to understand the real messages contained in it. Stories that are about one thing are usually completely misunderstood. The obvious meaning is discarded, and some totally inaccurate interpretation is put on the words, purely to accommodate their own peculiar prejudices.

Take the subject of homosexuality, and homosexual sex, as written about, and depicted in The Bible. A large amount of ink has been spilled on this subject, and an enormous amount of hot air has been exhaled by various preachers, in efforts to prove that God dishes out an extra bit of "Hellfire" to men who love men, and women who love women. Their spewing on this subject has even managed to become an international scandal recently, when we consider the effect it has had on the polity of some countries in Africa, most especially Uganda.


Homosexuality in The Old Testament.

It is a misrepresentation of Sacred Scripture to say that it condemns homosexual practices. It never does as such. Take the most commonly mentioned one of "the sin of Sodom". It was not homosexuality, but a disregard for the ancient laws of hospitality, and contempt for the poor and needy. The connection with homosexuality wasn’t made until the sixth century AD, and that was just a political thing by a corrupt Byzantine emperor, to do with blackening his opponents. Nothing to do with The Bible.

And what are we to make of the story of David and Jonathan, two fit young men, if ever there were. In 1st and2nd Samuel their story is related in exquisite detail. Plenty of disrobing there, and what about the "love that surpasses the love of women"? Don’t try to fool yourselves that that pair were not, at least bisexual. It is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the accounts.

Let us not exclude the "fair sex". Ruth and Naomi, almost undoubtedly lesbians. The vows that they made to each other are the basis of the marriage vows repeated in every Christian church today. Ironic isn’t it that "Mr and Mrs Bigot" used the same vows as a pair of lesbians when they got hitched.

All those "abomination charged" laws in the Book of Leviticus are equally meaningless. They were designed to discourage idolatrous pagan practices as done in the temples of Egypt and Canaan. These included ritual sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. It wasn’t "gay sex" as such that was being condemned, just doing it as part of a pagan worship ritual. Even if the Leviticus rules did say that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, the same punishment was prescribed for children who cheeked their parents, and for people who wore two types of cloth at the same time, or planted two types of seed together in the same field or garden. If you have tulips and daffodils growing alongside each other, you are certainly going to Hell.


Jesus and his Homosexual Friends.


In the New Testament, St Paul's Epistle to The Romans is used to condemn "Gays". But again this was really directed against Temple Rituals, and idolatry, exactly like in The Old Testament. Once again anything he might have had to say about other subjects, like the position of women, are ignored. Just the poor old homosexuals get hammered again, by his false interpreters, and only just to reinforce their own bigoted attitudes. People should really understand The Bible before spouting it. Since St Paul was a Roman citizen, and probably had plenty of Gentile friends, some of them were probably homosexuals. It was rife in his time anyway.

The feelings of Jesus on the subject are best found in the story of the centurion's servant/lover. The roman centurion is constantly held up to us as an example of great faith in Jesus. But the plain fact that he was homosexual is generally ignored. It didn’t bother Jesus Christ. Why should it bother his followers?

Then there is the curious one about the three categories of Eunuch. The term eunuch does not just mean a man without "his bits". It actually means a man without sexual interest in women. Jesus refers to three types of eunuch. One is a eunuch that has been that way from birth. Since most scientific opinion believes in homosexuals being born that way, what Our Lord meant should be pretty obvious. There is also a story in The Acts of the Apostles, in which St Philip baptises a eunuch. That one needs to be thought about as well.


Another Homosexual Bible Hero, and Conclusion.

There are also a lot of less well defined examples of probable homosexuals as heroes in The Bible. What about Joseph? I don’t see any reference to him being married. Perhaps "the coat of many colours" was symbolic of him being gay. It would explain a lot.

Then there was the strange story of Joseph's encounter with Potiphar's wife.

When Joseph was brought to Egypt, he was sold to Potiphar, a married eunuch. Potiphar must not have been satisfying his wife sexually, as she made several passes at Joseph, who manfully resisted her charms. The scorned woman accused him of rape, and he was put in prison. The subtext here is that Joseph and Potiphar were, most probably, both homosexual men. Not what the conventional expect, but most likely the truth.

One other thing. In ancient Canaan a “coat of many colours” was the garb of the Canaan temple male prostitutes. No wonder Joseph’s homophobic brothers attacked him.

Anyway folks, to wrap up. There may be some among you who wish to persist in the notion that homosexuality is an "abomination". But if you are looking to The Bible for evidence to back you up, you are wasting your time, and deluding yourself. The Bible simply oozes homosexual affirmation. But then what else would you expect from A Book that was inspired by an all loving God.


Jesus and Homosexuals.

A small addition.

I feel it is appropriate, in view of all the negative comments that this hub has attracted, and no doubt will attract in the future, to post this video. The prophecy is being fulfilled again in our own day, in the attitude that certain Christians adopt towards God's own homosexual children.

Isaiah 53:3. A most important scripture.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 7 months ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      If you read the Bible correctly, it doesn't. People misinterpret it to suit their prejudices. The word "homosexuality" wasn't even invented then.

    • GalaxyRat profile image

      GalaxyRat 7 months ago from The Crazy Rat Lady's House

      Wanted to say:

      The Bible states against homosexuality. That belief is final...not meaning to start a war here, I'm a Christian and I'm against gay and lesbian courting and marriage. God told us to not judge Andy love our enemies, but not to hold a belief that we think it is wrong.

      Peace to you.

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 12 months ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      Thanks for the positive comments PinoyWitch. I don't get too many of them here.

    • PinoyWitch profile image

      Jude Ian 12 months ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Wow Christopher, we all know this is a very touchy subject and all I can say is YOU ARE ONE BRAVE MAN! I haven't had the pleasure to finish reading your hub yet(that includes the comments), but you got me on the title already. I have nothing against mainstream religion, but you were right, the more they twist and turn to find out the true meaning of the Bible, they just do not realize how far they are from it.. Because let's just be honest, most people would rather face the lies and hypocrisy than the truth. Have a nice day and congrats on your hub.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      bradmasterOCal,

      If you are going to argue using the Bible for reference, then you should also know that man was created before woman, and that man and animal were in existence long before God decided to bring woman into the picture. Thus, we could argue that bestiality is biblically correct, and relations between men and women were introduced long after.

      Furthermore, since men and animals came first in the order of Creation, and their existence predated the "invention" of women, men had relations with men and animals for a long time before the introduction of women into the human race...according to the Bible.

      Brian

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      God didn't create anyone. He merely allowed us to evolve and he allowed our sexuality to evolve also. There never was any Adam and Eve and Genesis is another creation myth.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      Then Jesus is not God, as God is God according to your bibles.

      God created Man and Woman, not Two men.

      Supporting homosexuals can be construed as failing in his creation, to say otherwise is inconsistent with his creation.

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      Jesus is God and is neither heterosexual or homosexual. He just didn't and doesn't have any problem with humans being homosexual.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      Are you trying to imply that Jesus was homosexual?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Which means you are admitting that you guys make mistakes on your interpretations of the Bible!

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      And the "ink" clearly shows that these were not prophecies because we've never claimed to be prophets with the ability to foresee the future:

      "1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. ***However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.****"

      "1930s: ***We are not a prophet; *** we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended"

      Try again.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Well, the world is still here...in spite of all those false "prophecies" by the Jehovah's Witnesses. You guys like to claim you didn't make those "prophecies," but the record is written in indelible ink. You are a false cult, plain and simple.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      Argumentum assertio. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Prove your claim. Prove that these are all false teachings.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Some interesting Jehovah's Witness theology that goes contrary to the Bible:

      Christ is not equal to God because He is a creature.

      Christ was first of God's creations

      Christ died on a stake, not a cross

      Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person

      Christ's presence is in spirit

      Kingdom under Christ will rule earth in righteousness and peace

      Kingdom brings ideal living conditions to earth

      Earth will never be destroyed or depopulated

      God will destroy present system of things in the battle at Har-Magedon

      Wicked will be eternally destroyed

      The human soul ceases to exist at death

      Hell is mankind's common grave

      Only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ

      The 144,000 are born again as spiritual sons of God

      And God forbid your child should need a blood transfusion, because Jehovah's Witnesses will let that child die.

      Brian

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      The earliest Christians were likewise thought of as a cult - in the same way that we have been in modern times . Jewish leaders maintained of the early Christians : “truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.” ( Acts 28 :22 ) Paul together with Silas were charged of having “overturned the inhabited earth ,” operating “in opposition to the decrees of Caesar .” ( Acts 17 :6 , 7 ) These kinds of bogus charges failed to stop the ancient Christians from accomplishing their commission to preach the good news of the Kingdom . In 60-61 C .E . , Paul spoke about the “good news” which had been “bearing fruit and increasing in all the world” and ended up being “preached in all creation under heaven.” ( Col . 1 :5 , 6 , 23 ) Today, Jehovah’s Witnesses are falsely accused, even as the first-century Christians were. Yet, the work of preaching the Kingdom message prospers and brings to those who share in it much happiness.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      More about Jehovah's Witnesses and their false prophecies:

      "In 1876, Russell became interested in time prophecy, after reading a copy of Barbour's publication Herald of the Morning. The end had not come in 1874, as the Adventists had predicted. However, Barbour explained that Matthew 24:27 meant Jesus' invisible presence commenced in 1874, the rapture would be 1878, and the end of the world was to occur in 1914. (see Watch Tower, 1906 July 15 for a detailed account.)"

      "In Russell's doctrinal chronology the most important dates were 1874 and 1914:

      "The chapter in SCRIPTURE STUDIES, Vol. II, showing the parallels between the Jewish and Christian Dispensations, makes prominent four dates, viz., (1) October, 1874; (2) April, 1878; (3) October, 1881, and (4) October, 1914;" Watch Tower 1911 June 15 p.190

      "The careful student will have observed that the period designated 'The Time of the End' is very appropriately named, since not only does the Gospel age close in it, but in it, also, all prophesies relating to the close of this age terminate, reaching their fulfillments. The same class of readers will have noticed, too, the special importance of the last 40 of these 115 years (1874-1914), called 'The End' or 'Harvest.'" Studies in the Scriptures Series III - Thy Kingdom Come p.121 "

      "THE "Time of the End," a period of one hundred and fifteen (115) years, from A.D. 1799 to A.D. 1914, is particularly marked in the Scriptures. "The Day of His Preparation" is another name given to the same period " Studies in the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come p.23"

      It is amusing to see the lengthy list of inventions The Harp of God used as proof that the 1800's was the time of the end; cream separators, fireless cookers, Darkest Africa, shoe-sewing machines, the telegraph, the telephone, the great increase in knowledge and vacuum cleaners. The locomotive, where people could travel at a rate of 100 miles an hour and the 'flying machine, which is a very modern invention' were considered fulfilment of the 'day of God's preparation' spoken of in Nahum 2:1-6.

      "The running to and fro of people is without question a fulfilment of the prophecy testifying to the "time of the end". These physical facts can not be disputed and are sufficient to convince any reasonable mind that we have been in "the time of the end" since 1799."

      Then as now, the Watchtower resorted to insult, with Rutherford indicating above that a person is not of "reasonable mind" if they do not believe the time of the end started in 1799. Today, a Witness that does not believe 1914 was the start of the end is labelled "the Antichrist" and disfellowshipped.

      1844 - This was a key date for the Adventist movement. In the early 1800's John Aquila Brown taught that the Daniel chapter 8 prophecy of 2,300 days ended in 1844. Miller took up this theme and said that the end of the world would come in this year. When it did not Miller renounced his teaching but the Adventists stuck to it. They reinterpreted it to be the start of the time of the end and that the end would be 1874. This did not occur either.

      In the 1870's Russell became interested in time prophecy. He followed Barbour's concept that the 1700 and 1800 dates put forward by the Adventists were correct; it was the understanding of what was going to happen that was wrong. Studies in the Scriptures Series 2 p.240 discusses Russell's understanding of 1844.

      Initially, Russell felt that the battle of Armageddon started in 1874, based on his understanding that this was a social upheaval

      "The date of the close of that "battle" is definitely marked in Scripture as October 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874." Zion's Watch Tower 1892 Jan 15 p.23

      In 1904, Russell changed the start of Armageddon to be 1914.

      "Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy shows beyond a doubt that he did appear in 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and these facts are indisputable." Watchtower 1922 Nov 1 p.333

      "Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of God that the Lord Jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" Watchtower 1924 Jan 1 p.5)

      "“The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D.”" Prophecy 1929 1,589,000 ed. p.65

      1874 was not dropped as the start of the second coming until the 1930’s, when articles such as the following started to be released.

      "The prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfilment thereof, shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914." What is Truth? (1932) p.48

      The Society generally glosses over its history and wrong interpretations. However, some of the excuses it provides for these errors are quite shocking;

      "“According to an inaccurate chronology that had been worked out from the King James Authorized Version Bible, Russell calculated Christ's "presence" had begun in the year 1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of faith.”" Man's Salvation Out Of World Distress At Hand (1975) p.287

      Is indicating that God allowed the Bible to come down to us incorrectly really the best way to exonerate Russell’'s wrong teachings? Doesn't this raise more problems than it answers?"

      Jehovah's Witnesses...what a colorful bunch! What a false cult!

      Brian

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      "Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and his apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text. In the past, few people disputed that conclusion. Now that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures dating back to the first century have been discovered near Qumran, the point has been proved beyond any doubt.

      In the days of Jesus and his apostles, the Tetragrammaton also appeared in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. For centuries, scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, in the mid-20th century, some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day were brought to the attention of scholars. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters. So in Jesus’ day, copies of the Scriptures in Greek did contain the divine name. However, by the fourth century C.E., major manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, such as the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, did not contain the divine name in the books from Genesis through Malachi (where it had been in earlier manuscripts). Hence, it is not surprising that in texts preserved from that time period, the divine name is not found in the so-called New Testament, or Greek Scripture portion of the Bible.

      Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done in his “Father’s name”

      The Christian Greek Scriptures themselves report that Jesus often referred to God’s name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done in his “Father’s name.”—John 5:43; 10:25.

      Since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah’s name from the text would seem inconsistent. About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) It would not be logical for James to make such a statement if no one in the first century knew or used God’s name.

      The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Christian Greek Scriptures. At Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, the divine name is embedded in the word “Hallelujah.” This comes from a Hebrew expression that literally means “Praise Jah.” “Jah” is a contraction of the name Jehovah. Many names used in the Christian Greek Scriptures were derived from the divine name. In fact, reference works explain that Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”

      Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws that was completed by about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: “The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from a fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are, they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.” This same source quotes Rabbi Yosé the Galilean, who lived at the beginning of the second century C.E., as saying that on other days of the week, “one cuts out the references to the Divine Name which are in them [understood to refer to the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns.”

      Some Bible scholars acknowledge that it seems likely that the divine name appeared in Hebrew Scripture quotations found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” Scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”

      Recognized Bible translators have used God’s name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Some of these translators did so long before the New World Translation was produced. These translators and their works include: A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter (1863); The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson (1864); The Epistles of Paul in Modern English, by George Barker Stevens (1898); St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford (1900); The New Testament Letters, by J.W.C. Wand, Bishop of London (1946). In addition, in a Spanish translation in the early 20th century, translator Pablo Besson used “Jehová” at Luke 2:15 and Jude 14, and nearly 100 footnotes in his translation suggest the divine name as a likely rendering. Long before those translations, Hebrew versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures from the 16th century onward used the Tetragrammaton in many passages. In the German language alone, at least 11 versions use “Jehovah” (or the transliteration of the Hebrew “Yahweh”) in the Christian Greek Scriptures, while four translators add the name in parentheses after “Lord.” More than 70 German translations use the divine name in footnotes or commentaries.

      Bible translations in over one hundred different languages contain the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Many African, Native American, Asian, European, and Pacific-island languages use the divine name liberally. (See the list on pages 1742 and 1743.) The translators of these editions decided to use the divine name for reasons similar to those stated above. Some of these translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures have appeared recently, such as the Rotuman Bible (1999), which uses “Jihova” 51 times in 48 verses, and the Batak (Toba) version (1989) from Indonesia, which uses “Jahowa” 110 times.

      Without a doubt, there is a clear basis for restoring the divine name, Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures. That is exactly what the translators of the New World Translation have done. They have a deep respect for the divine name and a healthy fear of removing anything that appeared in the original text.—Revelation 22:18, 19."

      http://bit.ly/1JWXfaf

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      The fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’ (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen. Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasize that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God:

      With regard to 1874: It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876! So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction.

      With regard to 1914: : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).[2]

      With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year."[3]

      With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.[4]

      It’s obvious, therefore, that the situation was by no means as clear-cut as Watchtower opposers would have us believe. By omitting these more cautionary statements, many of which are in the same articles as the quotations they like to print, enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses give a misleading picture of events and endeavour to make a suggested interpretation look like a prophecy.

      Not to be overlooked is the larger context of the role of the Watch Tower publications. Whereas Watchtower writers undoubtedly pray for God’s blessing on their work and sincerely believe that God answers these prayers, they make no pretensions of being inspired, infallible or perfect. Consider the following extracts from Watch Tower publications, which prove that this is the case. (This is just a small selection of examples. Many more could be cited, but care has been taken to include at least one example for every decade since The Watchtower began to be published.)

      1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."

      1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy.”[5]

      1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.[6]

      1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.[7]

      Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?[8]

      1910s: However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.[9]

      1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.[10]

      1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended[11]

      1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.[12]

      1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.[13]

      1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it[14]

      “Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975“ F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.

      1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time.[16]

      It’s therefore quite clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses make no claim to divine inspiration for their publications.

      http://bit.ly/qWK8dm

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Jehovah's Witness a false cult - here's some interesting details:

      The organization "prophesied" the "End" in 1925 and 1975. Many Witnesses left the faith immediately afterwards. They lost roughly three-quarters of the movement between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after 1975, when the end didn't come as they had implied over and over again, according to Jim Penton, an ex-Witness who writes entries on Jehovah's Witnesses for the Encyclopedia Americana.

      If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament? If men edited out the name of God, "YHWH" when they copied the New Testament, as only the Watchtower organization claims, then how can we have any confidence in any of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the Watchtower organization as unreliable?

      If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12 say, "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name [v10 Jesus Christ] under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been the logical place for God to have used the name "YHWH"?

      Since the Jehovah's Witness organization currently rejects most of the teachings of its founder Charles Taze Russell (who was president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject "Judge" Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916 - 1942, how can we be sure that in 25 more years, Jehovah's Witnesses won't also reject the current president, Milton G. Henschel (1992 - present), as they did Russell and Rutherford?

      What kind of confidence can anyone have in an organization that rejected its founder and first two presidents for the first 63 years of its existence? This represents about 53% of the time they have existed!

      Since the Watchtower organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that "passed the torch of God's Spirit" to C. T. Russel when he founded the organization? What was the name of this individual?

      The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" as "Jehovah" more than 25 times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not appear in the Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah" in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)?

      1877 'The End Of This World; that is the end of the gospel and the beginning of the millennial age is nearer than most men suppose; indeed we have already entered the transition period, which is to be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation Dan. 12:3." (N.H. Barbour and C.T. Russell, Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, p. 17).

      1879 "Christ came in the character of a Bridegroom in 1874.... at the beginning of the Gospel harvest." (Watchtower, Oct 1879, p. 4)

      1886 "The outlook at the opening of the New Year has some very encouraging features. The outward evidences are that the marshaling of the hosts for the battle of the great day of God Almighty, is in progress while the skirmishing is commencing. … The time is come for Messiah to take the dominion of earth and to overthrow the oppressors and corrupters of the earth, (Rev. 19:15 and 11:17, 18) preparatory to the establishment of everlasting peace upon the only firm foundation of righteousness and truth." (Zion's Watchtower, January, 1886;Watchtower reprints I, p. 817)

      1888 "In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that the date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove; Firstly, that at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, Thy Kingdom come, will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be set up, or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." (The Time Is At Hand, 1888, p. 76, 77)

      1889 "Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14) which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's word." (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, The Time Is At Hand, 1889 Ed., p. 101. The 1915 Edition of this texts changed "A.D. 1914" to read 'A.D. 1915'

      1889 "In the coming 26 years, all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved." (C.T. Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 98-99, 1889)

      1889 "Remember that the forty years' Jewish Harvest ended October A.D. 69, and was followed by the complete overthrow of that nation; and that likewise the forty years of the Gospel age harvest will end October, 1914, and that likewise the overthrow of 'Christendom,' so-called, must be expected to immediately follow." (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2, p. 245)

      1894 "A few more years will wind up the present order of things, and then the chastened world will stand face to face with the actual conditions of the established Kingdom of God. And yet the course of the Church is to be finished within the space of time that intervenes." (Watchtower p. 56, 1894)

      1897 "Complete destruction of the 'powers that be' of 'this present evil worlds - political, financial, ecclesiastical - about the close of the Time of the Gentiles; October A.D. 1914." (C.T. Russell, Studies in the Scriptures, IV, p. 622, 1897)

      1897 "The distillery, the brewery, the saloon, the brothel, the pool-room, all time-killing and character-depraving business will be stopped; and their servants will be given something to do that will be beneficial to themselves and others. "Similarly, the building of war-vessels, the manufacture of munitions of war and defense will cease, and armies will be disbanded. The new Kingdom will have no need of these, but will have abundant power to execute summary justice in the punishment of evil doers... "The banking and brokerage business, and other like employment's, very useful under present conditions, will no longer have a place; for under the new conditions the human race will be required to treat each others as members of one family, and private capital and money to loan and to be needed will be things of the past. Landlords and renting agencies will find new employment also, because the new King will not recognize as valid patents and deeds now on record. "...namely, that with present conveniences, if the whole people were put to work systematically and wisely, not more than three hours labor for each individual would be necessary." (Studies, Vol. IV, pp. 633-635, 1897)

      1902 "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914." (The Time Is At Hand, 1902 edition, p. 99)

      1914 "Even if the time of our change should not come within ten years, what more should we ask? Are we not a blessed, happy people? Is not our God faithful? If anyone knows anything better, let him take it. If any of you ever find anything better, we hope you will tell us." (Watchtower, Dec 15, 1914, p. 376.)

      Want more? There's plenty.

      Brian

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      Prove it.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph,

      I love this line, "It's only rot to you because you're gay." Using that logic, the truth is rot to you, because you're in a false cult.

      Brian

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Strawman. Try again.

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      So now I'm being compared to a murderer by someone, who believes God is going to destroy millions of children, just because they haven't signed up to a weird cult by Armageddon. I will wear your opinion of me like a badge of pride.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      It's only rot to you because you're gay. That's no more meaningful than a murderer excoriating the justice system.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Christopher,

      A hearty "Amen!" When someone has to dig into the past cultural ethics of ancient nomads to find their reality for the 21st Century, they are lost indeed.

      I wonder how many bulls a year Joseph sacrifices? After all, he must be a practicing nomadic Israelite living under the edicts of the post-Exilic Babylonian captives.

      Nothing he says squares with the teachings of Jesus. And he continues to quote theologians who mis-translate the word porneia. I have a degree in language, and I would be ashamed if I ever wrote a book and translated that word to mean illicit sex. I wonder why Joseph is afraid to read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality," since the complete and full treatment of the word porneia is given in this book. I guess he is just afraid of truth. He'd rather keep on cutting and pasting that Watch Tower cult pablum that has his brain twisted in false knots.

      Brian

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      Joseph. Your version of God makes Islamic State seem like Mother Teresa or Gandhi. I'm glad I don't live my life by the absolute rot you preach.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Except that fornication absolutely means "illicit sex relations outside of Scriptural marriage. The Hebrew verb za·nahʹ and its related forms convey the idea of harlotry, immoral intercourse, fornication, or prostitution. (Ge 38:24; Ex 34:16; Ho 1:2; Le 19:29) The Greek word translated “fornication” is por·neiʹa. Regarding the meanings of por·neiʹa, B. F. Westcott in his book Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (1906, p. 76) says: “This is a general term for all unlawful intercourse, (I) adultery: Hos. ii. 2, 4 (LXX.); Matt. v. 32; xix. 9; (2) unlawful marriage, I Cor. v. I; (3) fornication, the common sense as here [Eph 5:3].” Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker, 1979, p. 693) defines por·neiʹa as “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” Porneia is understood to involve the grossly immoral use of the genital organ(s) of at least one human; also there must have been two or more parties (including another consenting human or a beast), whether of the same sex or the opposite sex. (Jude 7) The unlawful act of a rapist is fornication, but, of course, that does not make the person who is forcibly raped also a fornicator.

      When God performed the first human marriage he said: “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” (Ge 2:24) Here the standard set for man and woman was monogamy, and promiscuous sex relationship was ruled out. Also, no divorce and remarriage to another was anticipated.

      In patriarchal society God’s faithful servants hated fornication, whether between single, engaged, or married persons, and it was considered a sin against God.—Ge 34:1, 2, 6, 7, 31; 38:24-26; 39:7-9.

      Under the Law. Under the Mosaic Law, a man committing fornication with an unengaged girl was required to marry the girl and to pay her father the purchase price for brides (50 silver shekels; $110), and he could not divorce her all his days. Even if her father refused to give him the girl in marriage, the man had to pay the purchase price to the father. (Ex 22:16, 17; De 22:28, 29) However, if the girl was engaged, the man was to be stoned to death. If the girl screamed when she was attacked, she was not to be punished, but if the engaged girl failed to scream (thereby indicating consent), she was also put to death.—De 22:23-27.

      The sanctity of marriage was emphasized by the law that punished with death a girl who married under the false pretense of being a virgin, having committed fornication secretly. If her husband falsely charged her with such a crime, it was regarded as bringing great reproach on her father’s house. For his slanderous action, the man was to be “disciplined” by the judges, perhaps by beating, and fined 100 silver shekels ($220), the money then being given to the father. (De 22:13-21) Prostitution of a priest’s daughter brought disgrace on his sacred office. She was to be killed, then burned as something detestable. (Le 21:9; see also Le 19:29.) Fornication between married persons (adultery) was a violation of the seventh commandment and merited the death penalty for both parties.—Ex 20:14; De 5:18; 22:22.

      When the mercenary prophet Balaam could not bring a curse upon Israel by divination, he found a way to bring them under God’s displeasure by appealing to wrong desire for sexual relations. By means of the women of Moab he seduced the Israelites into practicing the filthy phallic worship of the Baal of Peor, for which 24,000 of the sons of Israel died.—Nu 25:1-9; 1Co 10:8 (likely 1,000 heads of the people were killed and hung on stakes [Nu 25:4] and the rest were destroyed by the sword or the plague)." http://bit.ly/1PK0feM

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph,

      Your errors and ignorance of proper biblical translation just continue to compound. You go from just being ignorant of correct translation to intentionally building on that ignorance. A house built on sand is still a house built on a false foundation, and that is all you do. You have been shown that the Bible does NOT say "sexual immorality," yet you continue to push that false doctrine and methodology for which the Jehovah's Witness cult is famous. The Jehovah's Witness motto is, "We refuse to face the truth, standing, instead, on our ignorance and biblical misinterpretation, because our misinterpretations back our bigotries."

      That is all you brainwashed zombies do at those "Kingdom Halls," swallow pre-digested vomit from other bigots who tell you what to think and how to parrot the totally ignorant and incorrect logic of biblical misinterpretation. Your kind are the very ones who justify their racism by abusing the Bible, who justify the subjugation of women as unequal by abusing the Bible, and who let innocent children die from lack of medical attention, because, once again, your ignorance that you try to back by abusing the Bible. The sins of your cult go way back to the times when your leaders told everybody that Jesus was coming back to Earth on a set date known by your leaders, and like a bunch of ignorant sheep, idiots went out there to find out by being made stupid what they could have simply deduced by being intelligent. I see that all the years since then have not changed a thing about the Jehovah's Witness Cult, because they still demand that you check your brain at the door.

      Porneia does not mean sexual immorality. It means the lowest level of the common Greek and Roman occupation of prostitution. Paul knew what this meant, everyone in the time of Christ knew what this meant, and just because you do NOT know the correct meaning of Paul's words does not change the fact: Paul cannot be forced to say what he did not. The lowest caste of prostitutes (pornoi) and their customers shocked Paul's Pharisaic sense of modesty and decency, and Paul condemned the occupation for that and more. Nowhere does Paul use the Greek word "eros" and a description of the types that are healthy, or the types that are possibly unhealthy. Koine Greek had no lack of descriptive words, and Paul had all of them at his disposal. For him to rail against the profession of the lowest class of prostitutes and NOT against eros, speaks volumes, especially as I have said before, since Paul NEVER spoke against the higher classes of prostitutes, all of these classes being completely well-known to all citizenry. The fact that the word "fornication" has been inserted here erroneously only shows the original bias of the King James translators who bowed to the political whims of their time in the 1600's. They did this more than once, such as not translating the Greek word "baptidzo" properly as "immerse." Their was a schism within the Church at that time, and some argued that sprinkling was just as valid or correct a method of baptism as immersion in water. So, the neutral word "baptize" was inserted erroneously to make both factions right in their Theology. But, the original Greek word "baptidzo" came from the trade of the dyers who would "baptize" a piece of white cloth into a vat of dye to change its color. It does NOT mean to sprinkle. This is how idiots "loosely" translate the original words and insert unforgivable translations to suit their agendas.

      You cannot make Paul say what he did not say, and Paul NEVER said sexual immorality. Most importantly, Paul NEVER condemned homosexuals. Only cults like yours like to deal in such gross distortions of the Bible.

      And your ignorance of Christ's numerous affirmations of ALL good relationship, homosexual included, does not make your prejudice against relationships other than heterosexual the norm. It simply makes you a bigot who cannot see the light of truth. Keep demonstrating your mindless bigotry, Joseph. You are a poster child for cults and the darkness therein. More and more, you demonstrate the very real reason why I would NEVER visit a Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Unlike you, I don't live in a cave. I dwell in the freedom of light and truth, logic and reason, correct translation and genuine knowledge, all of which, as Christ pointed out, leads to being set free from such things as the bigotry by which you are bound. I feel sorry for the innocent people you corrupt with your poison.

      Brian

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Except that in this case, if you actually believed what the Bible taught about sexual immorality you'd either have to renounce homosexuality or become an Atheist especially since Christ affirmed cishet marriage. (Matthew 19:4,5)

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      That's like saying that, because I am White, I can't discuss issues of being White. Absurd. Facts are facts, and the Bible clearly does NOT condemn homosexuality. Furthermore, you act like anything BUT a Christian, spewing your anti-gay bigotry and calling it "love." You're a bigot, plain and simple. Face the facts. True translation of the Bible clearly shows your ignorance.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      You're also gay which means you have a biased interest in the debate. Your "research" is nothing more than confirmation bias.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph,

      Christ was under Roman law, ordered crucified by a Roman ruler. Paul was a Roman citizen by right of birth in Tarsus, thus, since it was illegal to crucify a Roman citizen, Nero had him beheaded. You should study history a bit more.

      If you are still waiting for me to prove that porneia does NOT mean sexual immorality, then apparently you don't understand language and historical context, since a word cannot mean what it does not mean. In the time of Paul, the pornoi were the lowest class of common prostitutes. The word was pornoi for the male prostitutes, porneiai for the female prostitutes. Any person who wants to substitute the words "sexual immorality" for the proper words "male prostitute" shows they have a problem with truth. I have a degree in biblical languages, and I have spent decades studying the history of the Early Church, the life of the Christian in Corinth and Rome, and much more. You should do the same and stop trying to defend bigotry....plain and simple. Porneia simply refers to the occupation of these prostitutes.

      I mention Emperor Hadrian, because he was the first Roman Emperor to take up for the Early Christians when persecution of the religion was the norm. He ordered that anyone who persecuted Christians for anything other than genuine violations of standard law would face his wrath. Funny how the very Roman ruler who helped protect Early Christians would be persecuted by the descendants of those he supported. The Early Christians had no problems with the fact that Hadrian and Antinous were love partners.

      Brian

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Forgive me if I take the opinion of our Creator over yours ...

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      One person's "sexual immorality" is another person's loving relationship. It just depends on where you look at it from.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      "Study the emperors of Rome, such as Emperor Hadrian and his lover Antinous, and you will see how common and accepted this was."

      Which is completely relevant because Christ was Roman ... oh ... wait ...

      "It means that prior to the categorization of the varieties of sexual orientation by Karoly Maria Benkert in 1869, the word homosexual did not exist"

      So they weren't called homosexuals before then, so what? It just means that other terminology was used to describe homosexual acts. (cf. Lev. 18:22 & 20:13)

      Btw, I'm still waiting for you to prove that πορνεία does not mean "sexual immorality."

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph,

      It means that prior to the categorization of the varieties of sexual orientation by Karoly Maria Benkert in 1869, the word homosexual did not exist, therefore, the word cannot be placed in the Bible. It was not in existence at the time of Christ, was not used by anyone in the Bible, and whenever it is used to wrongly translate another word in Greek or Hebrew in the original texts of the Bible, the person who inserts this word commits a grave error of bigotry and prejudice.

      At the time of Christ, people understood sexual attraction as a fluid concept, and they certainly were not homophobic, since the majority of men had a male companion for sex and intelligent conversation. Study history of that era, and you will see that men having sexual and loving relationships with other men was the norm. Emperor Alexander the Great had Hephaistion, a male he loved so much, that when Hephaistion died, Alexander the Great grieved to death soon after. Study the emperors of Rome, such as Emperor Hadrian and his lover Antinous, and you will see how common and accepted this was. Hadrian was one of the most popular and respected of all the Roman Emperors, and his homosexual relationship with Antinous was never an issue.

      Brian

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      Is that the best you can come up with Joseph?

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      "The word homosexual did not exist in the time of Christ or Paul, as it was invented by a Hungarian physician, Karoly Maria Benkert, in 1869"

      Does that mean gays didn't exist until 1869?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph,

      As one of my professors wisely said many years ago, "Rat poison is 99.9% edible corn feed, but it's that one-tenth of one percent poison that will kill you." The same goes for scholarly research. Accepting something just because some "scholar" says so is like swallowing rat poison, because all one sees is the edible corn feed. Strong's Concordance may be a place to start, if one is looking for a quick reference, but it bears about as much weight among true scholars as Wikipedia does with Oxford professors. All it takes is one mistake, and the entire volume is corrupted with the possibility that more errors are therein, and once anyone inserts the word "homosexual" into any passage in the Bible, they show bigotry, unwarranted bias, and a complete lack of knowledge of the historical context of the very word they supposedly are translating. They are not translating, they are inserting their prejudices, and such is totally without merit. One does NOT translate correctly by trying to make the text that is being translated say what the translator wants it to say, but by translating the exact meaning of the original text. The word homosexual did not exist in the time of Christ or Paul, as it was invented by a Hungarian physician, Karoly Maria Benkert, in 1869. Before that time, no one had ever thought to classify sexual orientations. Dr. Benkert was the very first to do so. At the time of Paul's writings, sexuality was very fluid, men commonly had a male lover, even though they had a wife, children and slaves to form the "familia." Wife, children, slaves and cattle were "property," over which property the male was the "pater familia." There was a saying about Julius Caesar that "he had every woman's heart, and every woman's husband." If you don't study ancient history and culture, you are trying to read the Bible in a vacuum, and that just does not work. Further, without studying the usage of such words as are commonly mistaken for being anti-homosexual by such as those "theologians" who edit Strong's, you will be inserting the mistakes of those bigots who came before you and have taught you their "poisons." There is NO excuse for not researching further than just what you got out of a Strong's Concordance, absolutely NO excuse! Shoddy, lazy and flawed!

      Read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." Every word in the Bible that has EVER been mistranslated to be anti-gay has been properly translated using historical manuscripts dating to the times of Jesus and Paul, as well as all other tools available to linguistic scholars. You would do well to read this book and study those passages.

      Brian

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      The Hellfire doctrine is a perverse Antichrist mendacity that defames God. As a God of justice and love he would never prescribe infinite punishment for a finite crime no matter how wicked: http://bit.ly/17fVMYm

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      Remind me again, why should I take your word over that of the scholars who compiled Strong's?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph,

      Jesus did not issue any proscriptions against homosexuality. The word that you keep misusing here is from the word for prostitutes, pornoi, and in the instance in Mark, it is the plural feminine construct, porneiai, but it most certainly does not mean, nor has it ever meant, homosexuals. Further, one cannot cherry pick these two verses to make them seem to say more than they do. These passages list a series of problems that people have that can lead them away from spiritual perfection. They are not a list of sins, otherwise pride and foolishness would be strange reasons to condemn someone to Hell for eternity, which is what most Fundamentalists are want to do with homosexuals. They love trotting out this series as if this condemns homosexuals, especially when they wrongly translate porneiai as homosexual. Christ NEVER condemned homosexuals, and He knew many.

      Brian

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      This is the passage Joseph.

      21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,

      22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

      23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

      I don't see any reference to homosexuality here. It can't be counted as a type of sexual immorality, otherwise how do you account for His words of praise for the obviously gay centurion?

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      How does any of this change Christ's proscription against all forms of sexual immortality, including homosexuality, at Mark 7:21,23?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph O Polanco,

      Since I have a degree in biblical languages, as well as Theology, I can read the Koine you posted quite easily without need of your interspersed English, although that is helpful for the casual reader who finds your post. Briefly, the pornoi were the lower class of prostitutes in ancient times. Paul would have been quite familiar with all of the various levels of prostitution, as they were commonplace and an integral part of society in his day. The lowest class of prostitutes were the pornoi (males) and porneiai (females). This class of prostitute was looked down on, because they had sex in the streets and for barely enough money to buy a small meal. They lived in filth, were considered outcasts, and died horrible deaths. Naturally, of all the known classes of prostitution, this is the only one that Paul railed against. The next class of prostitutes were auletrides. These prostitutes were purchased at a young age, selected for their above-average good looks, and trained by their owners as performers and entertainers for the parties of the wealthy class patrons. Notice that Paul never mentions the auletrides, even though he would have seen them daily. The highest level of prostitutes were the hetairoi (males) and hetairae (females). This category of prostitutes consisted of men and women with exceptional physical beauty, very educated and possessed of great mental wit. This level usually had six or seven lovers who paid them a monthly sum, and they attended to each of these lovers at separate times of the week. This level could also own land and servants of their own. An example would be the famous Hephaistion, the male lover of Alexander the Great. Notice, once again, that Paul never mentions this class of prostitutes, either.

      Paul was so familiar with the commonality of prostitution in his society, that he used the example in his sermons, telling Christians that they were, like the prostitutes, "bought with a price." Prostitution was the largest single business enterprise in all of Corinth at the time that Paul wrote these words, including dealing in the enormous trade of kidnapping and selling of slaves for sex.

      So, whenever we see the word "fornication" erroneously inserted into the Bible, the word used by Paul is always "porneian," which only refers to the lowest class of the prostitutes, and their lives were something that Paul warned people to flee. Porneian does NOT mean sex outside of marriage. It cannot mean what it did not mean at the time of Paul's writing these words.

      Your "definition" of "illicit sex" reads like something right out of a training manual for the Taliban, since it is a judgment made by someone who is obviously not homosexual. Your definition of illicit bears about as much weight and validity as someone who is homosexual making a list and declaring "heterosexuality" as such. Pure and unadulterated bigotry!

      This often misinterpreted passage was trotted out by you, so I will comment on it:

      When you state:

      "As is readily apparent, with just a rudimentary comprehension of the Koine Greek concept of πορνεία , it's clear what exactly is and is not normal human sexual conduct in our Creator's sight."

      ...you truly show that that is ALL you have, a "rudimentary" comprehension of Koine Greek. Read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." ALL of Paul's writings that have been misinterpreted are completely and exhaustively translated and explained with more than just the Koine, but historical and cultural analysis, as well. If you want to know the truth, you'll read the book. If all you want to do is maintain your bigotry, you'll arrogantly proclaim that you have no need of this book, even though the book represents forty years of intense scholarly research and unbiased fact.

      You trotted out this often misinterpreted passage:

      “Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.”

      The word "homosexual" was not invented until A.D. 1869. How, then, do you account for finding a word that did not exist in the vocabulary of Paul inserted in the Bible? The words that are used in the original are the words used in the time of Paul for the male temple prostitutes, the mallakoi, and the men who went to the pagan temples during the fertility rites and had sex with the temple prostitutes, the arsenokoitai. It does NOT mean homosexual, and any attempt to misinterpret those two words to mean otherwise is absolutely unscholarly and unforgivable.

      You copied and pasted:

      "Further along in the Christian Greek Scriptures we find, “Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὁ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει.” -1 Corinthians 6:18"

      “Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν." This states, "Flee (male form of the verb) the pornoi (lowest class of prostitutes). And Paul warns the patronizer that he is not innocent when he does frequent these prostitutes, because he exposes his male genitalia in public, something no righteous Jew would ever think of doing. Thus, when having public sex with the pornoi, the patron commits a "sin against his OWN body."

      Lastly, the first chapter of Romans is one of the most often abused passages for the anti-homosexual bigots. For a complete and through explanation of this passage, read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth." Suffice it to say, anyone who studies history knows that Paul was speaking in the Past Tense. Why? Because he was not warning about future homosexual arguments. He was warning the Jews of Rome at that time in history that they were condemning the Gentile converts for the very same practices they once committed themselves, that being the sexual rituals in the pagan temples with the temple prostitutes.

      You really need to read the book I have mentioned. It would help you to stop making such blatant anti-homosexual blunders. And I would recommend throwing away that Strong's commentary you are relying on, since it commits far too many errors with regard to semantics. Get outside of your comfort zone and do some real studying. (Of course, I already know exactly what your next post will say.)

      Brian

      A Child of God

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      @Hanavee

      Jesus taught, "For from inside, out of the heart of men, come injurious reasonings, sexual immorality [πορνεῖαι.] All these wicked things come from within and defile a man."-Mark 7:21,23 (Bracket mine.)

      Further along in the Christian Greek Scriptures we find, “Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὁ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει.” -1 Corinthians 6:18

      "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but whoever practices sexual immorality is sinning against his own body."

      “ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; Μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.” - 1 Corinthians 6:9,10

      “Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.”

      "Their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error." -Romans 1:26,27

      Notice that those passages utilize conjugations of the key phrase πορνεία. Precisely what is πορνεία?

      The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

      Strong's Number: 4202

      Transliterated Word - Porneia - Phonetic Spelling - por-ni'-ah

      πορνεία

      Definition:

      Illicit sexual intercourse -

      1.1 adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

      As is readily apparent, with just a rudimentary comprehension of the Koine Greek concept of πορνεία , it's clear what exactly is and is not normal human sexual conduct in our Creator's sight.

      http://bit.ly/1ckFtZt

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      For all,

      I have just written an article here at HubPages titled: "Sodom and Gomorrah - The Myth, The Truth." I hope this helps some people in their need for answers.

      Brian

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Joseph,

      You really need to read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." This book represents forty years of intense scholarly research and PROVES with verifiable and irrefutable FACT just what the title of the book states. There is an entire chapter in this book which deals with the relationship of Jonathan and David, and it explores every passage in the Bible dealing with their relationship. Using direct translation from the original language, we find that Jonathan and David indeed DID have a loving sexual relationship with one another. Further, the "rules" you quote regarding sexual relationships are taken from Leviticus, written long after the times of David and Jonathan, and not only were these rules NOT applicable to the tie and culture of Jonathan and David, these rules were not authored by God, as is obvious by a large number of self-contradictory lines. For example, Leviticus claims to be authored by Moses, when in fact, Moses was dead thousands of years before Leviticus was written. Had Moses still been alive, Leviticus also makes it impossible for Moses to enter the temple that the Babylonian exiles were rebuilding, since the manner of his birth (his father had sex with his deceased brother's wife) would render him an outcast. Leviticus was written by power-hungry Israelites who were sent back to Jerusalem by Cyrus of Persia to rebuild the temple there, and it reads exactly as it was, a manual by a group of people who resembled today's Taliban - bigoted zealots who thought they had a right to rule the known world. Leviticus is irrelevant to anyone who claims to be a Christian, and even you do not observe ONE single "rule" written in that book. Why cherry pick one verse in that entire book to trot out in defense of your anti-gay bigotry, since you absolutely do not follow any other verses in that book? Hypocrisy!

      The Bible NEVER condemns ANYONE'S sexual orientation, and it NEVER praises one sexual orientation over another. The book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth" will give you all the proofs you need, PROOFS, to know that the Bible never condemns homosexuality, and you have a choice: continue in your ignorant bigotry, or take the antidote and study. If you are spiritually lazy, you will cling to your prejudices and shun the light of Truth. Nonetheless, ignorance is inexcusable, especially when that ignorance harms others, and anti-gay propaganda is most definitely NOT of God, is divisive and destructive of human happiness, and it must end.

      Brian

      A Child of God

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      I'll approve your comment Joseph, while totally disagreeing with it.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Except there were no provisions for gay marriage in ancient Israel. This meant David and Jonathan could never have gotten married and, in fact, never did.

      This is significant because fornication - that is, sexual relations outside of marriage - were proscribed under pain of death in ancient Israel. It was treated as a violation of that which is sacred and rightly so.

      While the Bible is candid in its account of David’s faults, it never reveals that David engaged in homosexual fornication nor that he even had such perverted inclinations.

      Truth be told, not a single homosexual relationship is ever referenced favorably the way cishet relationships are. To the contrary, they are always portrayed as unnatural, perverted, offensive, filthy and loathsome. (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:24-27)

      Against this backdrop, any exegesis in favor of homosexuality exists wholly in a vacuum; permanently disconnected from the reality that no loyal worshiper of God ever practiced homosexuality with God's approval.

      Does this mean that those with homosexual or bisexual inclinations must forever be a slave to their lust? Not at all! Unalike irrational beasts, human beings are more than capable of adapting their sexual behavior and limiting it to its proper place. (Even those struggling with sexual deviations have benefited greatly from medical advances designed to help them regain their good health.)

      Withal, there are many loyal to God who refuse to engage in any kind of porneia. They happily prefer to remain celibate until such time as they find a fitting heterosexual partner to marry and build a natural family with, as our loving Creator originally purposed. Such ones not only enjoy the benefits of having a clean conscience but the wonderful blessings reserved for those who persist in maintaining a close, personal relationship with the Sovereign of the Universe, Jehovah God. (Psalms 83:18; Psalm 97:10; Psalm 145:20; 2 Samuel 22:26; 1 Samuel 2:9)

      http://bit.ly/1ckFtZt

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      They were probably independent city states, if they existed at all.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      I guess that Sodom and Gomorrah were part of the Holy Land.

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      I deleted your last comment Deborah because it has little or nothing to do with the subject of the article. It's just a cheap attack on St Paul.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      For those who think Paul's word "fornication" was what Paul was using, think again. The word Paul uses every time the word "fornication" is inserted is actually the word "porneian." What has developed as the definition of fornication over the many years, sex outside of marriage, is actually incorrect. Nowhere in the Bible is sex outside of marriage condemned as sin, and what Paul refers to when he uses the word "porneian" will become clear once a person looks at the true meaning of this word.

      Life Among The Street Prostitutes Of Corinth

      The streets of Corinth were filled with every sort of activity. There were lawyers publicly working their trade, jugglers and gymnasts performing, philosophers yelling their views as if street preachers while their disciples fought those of other philosophers, fortune tellers and street peddlers, and there were the prostitutes using every means to get passersby into their brothels. Prostitution, the world’s oldest profession, was most likely the biggest trade in Corinth. There were various levels of prostitution. At the lowest level were the pornoi or porneiai, male prostitutes or female prostitutes (pornos—singular form, male, and porne—singular form, female), who worked the streets and sat in cubicles, oikemata, that were open to the street and displayed themselves in such ways as to be evident with regard to their interest. Some would work in brothels as well as oikemata. The pornoi/porneiai were considered the low of the low and had the most pitiful of lives, often dying from disease or worse. Prostitutes at this level were also referred to as deichtrides. They were the unskilled of the prostitutes, offering the customer sex because the customer needed a human being with whom they could satisfy a sexual urge. More often than not, their payment was barely enough to equal a meal, and most of what they took in went to their pimps or madams. These poor people lived in the districts where everyone knew the purpose of the street—sex for sale. They were held in contempt, even though they fulfilled a need. Laws were passed in Corinth that forbade these prostitutes from showing themselves in the regular streets during the daylight hours, lest they corrupt the common citizenry. There was no hope for these people, since children born to prostitutes were either put to death as infants, or they would be sold into the profession themselves, perpetuating a prison of no escape in which each day brought the filth of the most destitute of living standards, living like rats in a world where life was not respected and death was the only release. This was the sewer of humanity, and since Paul must have walked through these streets at some point during his stay in Corinth, it would be the reason he condemned the practice of porneian, this level of prostitution. No respect for the body, no respect for the bodies of others, no respect for the family, no respect for life, no respect for death and the dying, in this profession the only respect was for the temporary relief that came through sexual intercourse or a meal. To Paul, this was inhuman, and he condemned it often. One has to study the life of the low-level prostitutes, the pornoi and porneiai, to know that Paul was not referring to sex outside of marriage when he spoke using this word. He was referring to this subculture, this degraded and debased segment of the populace, and it is a shame that people do not know the history of this subject when trying to translate porneian to mean fornication, and by extension, fornication to mean all sex outside of marriage. Paul knew all the words for all the levels of prostitution in Corinth, and he only condemned the one version that seemed to degrade, demoralize and rob the individual of all hope, that being porneian.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      When silver was refined, the ore would be melted and two by-products would result—refined silver, which was highly prized, and the dross, the reprobate silver, which is worthless and to be thrown away. Therefore, those Israelites who chose to ignore God’s calls and walked, instead, according to their own desires were considered worthless. God would be unable to use them. Paul is using the same metaphor as Jeremiah to say that the temple prostitutes were useless to God. I don’t think Paul’s disgust with temple prostitutes can be made any clearer. We also have to understand why Paul deals with this allusion to the mind in the first place. Paul most certainly studied Aristotle, and Aristotle taught that moral virtue was a settled and stable disposition of the mind, a state of character, a “hexis” in Greek. The person who always did right had a mind that was rightly divided, strong-willed, and such a person was ἐγκρατής “egkrates.” The “good” side of his brain was stronger. By contrast, the person whose brain fought against itself was ἀκρατής “akrates,” weak-willed, and was prone to making bad decisions. Therefore, how much more wrong the decision coming from a mind that has been turned over to “useless,” or reprobate? Such a person would be incapable of making any decisions that would result in right action.

      “Convenient . . .” what is Paul saying with this word? “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” The word used here is καθήκοντα “kathekonta,” the Stoic term for “the duties,” or the “proper actions.” And just what are “the duties,” the “proper actions?” According to the Stoics, each of us is born with a path, so to speak, that is set by forces beyond us, which path, if followed properly, will give that person the best life. It is thus termed the “natural” path, or one’s nature, and the actions of the person on that path then must follow what is “natural” for the best use and fulfillment of that person’s destiny. Perfect actions would result in a perfect life, and insane actions, ἁµαρτήµατα “hamartemata,” would lead to an imperfect life. Everything you did, every choice you made, had a right action and, thus, a right result, or a wrong action and, thus, a wrong result. This is an intentional over-simplification of the Stoic concept of kathekonta, so while I know that I will set the teeth on edge of those experts of Philosophy and Stoicism, so be it. Nonetheless, Paul’s discussion is about living in agreement, therefore, with your nature. Let’s look, then, at some of Paul’s revealing uses of this philosophy. Galatians 2:15:

      “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the nations.”

      Romans 2:14:

      “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:”

      What Paul meant when he used the word “nature” is only what can be meant here. It does not, nor can it be made to be, sexual nature, or Mother Nature. There is no one word in English that can be translated to suffice, a word that conveys all that this Greek word kathekonta includes. I remind people constantly about the difficulties of translating, and what should be paramount in seeking the truth is being true to one thing, what the original writer meant, as opposed to striving to stick to a one-word-for-one-word methodology.

      While we are looking at the word “nature,” let’s listen to Paul on something that I think is relevant to the subject of homosexuals versus heterosexuals receiving the love of God. In Romans 2:13-15:

      “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

      For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

      Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;”

      Now look at Galatians 5:14:

      “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      One thing can be said about the Apostle Paul, he generated controversy. But, I have studied Paul for decades, and I still am not sure I have reached any concrete conclusions. There are entire sects of Christianity in parts of Eastern Europe that teach that Paul was to be shunned, all of his writings purged from their Bibles. Why?

      Paul saw himself as a Jew first, a convert to the teachings of Jesus second. Raised in the city of Tarsus, son of extremely wealthy parents, he had the best education money could buy, studying with some of the greatest Stoic philosophers of that era. For his secular and Roman tutelage, Paul was second to none. Then, he was shipped off to Jerusalem where he studied under the very prestigious Gamaliel. Paul was an erudite, multi-lingual scholar, extremely well-read, a habit he continued right up to his death. Paul, in his own words, was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a zealot beyond fanatic, which is why he pursued the Early Christians, putting them in prison, torturing them, and even having them put to death. The more you study of Paul's life, the more you have to wonder at his tenacious faith. Paul never married, believed that he was living in the End of Time, and never gave up his Stoic leanings, as many of his writings and utterings are taken directly from the classics of the greatest philosophers of the day - Athenodorus, Zeno, Antipater and Nestor. Athenodorus, the teacher of Emperor Augustus, was from Tarsus, and because of this special relationship, the city and all of its citizens were exempt from taxation. Paul had Roman citizenship, because of this status, and Athenodorus was one of Paul's teachers. Tarsus was the equivalent of Alexandria, Egypt, when it came to institutes of higher education. In Acts 21:39, Paul almost seems to brag about the status of Tarsus when he says: "I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city..." (which means no insignificant city). Tarsus was famous, and Paul was born and raised there. When we read Paul, we are quite often reading the writings and quotations of the Stoic philosopher, Athenodorus, and later, the writings of the Stoic philosopher, Seneca, the philosopher who was advisor to Emperor Nero. We all know who Emperor Nero was, the very man who ordered the beheading of Paul. Stoicism ruled the dialogue of the day in Paul's time in history. But, to judge Paul, there is much more to understand.

      Paul's zealotry was brought on by his sect in Judaism, the Perushim (Pharisees in English). The Perushim taught that the oppression brought on the Jews by foreigners was caused by their failure to follow the Torah. Thus, the Perushim strongly believed that a devotion to complete obedience to every detail contained in the law and a total separation from outside influences was necessary for Israel's salvation. Thus, they lived up to their name, Perushim, which means "separated." (We can see this "separation" influence when Paul later recommends shunning people who don't follow the letter of the law laid down in the new teachings that were becoming Christianity.) They Perushim were zealots for God, fanatics to the letter of the law of the Torah. The influences of Stoicism, the religious upbringing of being Pharisee, all would lead Paul to assume that righteousness before God was obtained by self-deprivation and the ritual following of man-made rules and regulations. Philippians 3:4-9, we read:

      "Though I might also have confidence in the flesh, if any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless, But what things were gain to me, those I count loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

      Paul paid later for his switch to the teachings of Jesus Christ. In II Corinthians 11:24-27, we read of his travails:

      "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep; I journeyings often, in peril of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness."

      I cannot complain about my simple perils when I consider what Paul endured for what he believed to be truth. How many of us would go through what he did? And why did he? There is so much I can say about Paul's life. When he arrived in the city of Corinth the first time, he was so physically and mentally destroyed, that for a long time, he was silent, speaking only with great timidity and fear. What changed him back into the bold zealot he had once been for the Perushim?

      One thing we have to be careful of when quoting Paul is to remember that much of what he taught was Stoic, Pharisaic, and not always of the correct teachings of Jesus. Paul was not a direct student of Jesus, having never actually met Jesus. He was, instead, a student of the disciples of Jesus, so Paul was "second generation." This explains why he locked horns with the Apostle Peter. Peter studied directly under Jesus for many years, Paul never did, and Paul was going to tell Peter he was wrong? So, one can see right away there are some problems with the writings of Paul.

      Further, People like to think that Paul spoke against homosexuals, but this is actually error. Paul, because of his Perushim life and dedication, was against all forms of pagan temples and their rituals involving sex. Some do not even know the customs of the pagan fertility rituals and temple sex when they quote Paul:

      “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

      Let’s look at Mark 12:30 for a moment:

      “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”

      The temple prostitutes are guilty of violating the first commandment, the number one commandment, and practically nothing could be worse. Loving God was considered the greatest of all commandments, yet these people loved the creature instead of the Creator. These people, according to Paul, did not like to retain God in their knowledge, thus, God gave them up. It is not the Roman senator with his centurion lover that Paul is talking about here. It is not the hetaera with her Corinthian politician attending the festival games. It is the temple prostitutes, and Paul is using them for an analogy.

      The words, “Gave them over to a reprobate mind,” ἀδόκιµοννοῦν, are much debated and most often used to condemn homosexuals by saying that they have been given over to reprobate minds. What is a reprobate mind? In Jeremiah 6:30, we read:

      “Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.”

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      In my last post I made a typo when I said " He then instructed his church, that when they had all come together, in the power of Yahshua (Jesus), that they are to take the one who had committed incense, and destroy his flesh, so his soul would be saved."

      It should have said

      "He then instructed his church, that when they had all come together, in the power of Yahshua (Jesus), that they are to take the one who had committed INCEST, and destroy his flesh, so his soul would be saved. "

      All of my post will be for Chris, and for those interested in Knowing the truth, and no one else.

      For anyone who has been attacking me, I want you to know that I will no longer be reading your comments, so don't waste your time. You need to stop slandering me, because I don't forget what I, or anyone else says, and I have copies of everything

      Saying I don't believe something is not slander, because I don't

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Paul was against many things, which could have been good, except for the way he handled his people who sinned

      The whole 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians is a letter Paul wrote to his church saying he had heard there were some among them who had committed incest.

      He then instructed his church, that when they had all come together, in the power of Yahshua (Jesus), that they are to take the one who had committed incense, and destroy his flesh, so his soul would be saved.

      Does this sound like God, or something Yahshua (Jesus) would do? Is this love? I don’t think so.

      Paul’s and most of the New Testament should be avoided.

      Read below what Paul told them. Paul wanted his church to separate from sinners, and backsliders. Yahshua embraced them.

      1 Corinthians 5 (KJV)

      1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

      2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

      3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

      4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

      5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

      6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

      7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

      9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

      11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

      13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

      Yahshua said:

      Mark 2:17

      When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      The False Apostle Paul, Did Indeed Speak Against gay men and women in Romans 1

      I have a few hubs on Paul and his lies

      Paul even spoke against Yahshua (Jesus).

      Paul couldn’t kill all the Christians, though he killed his share, so he led the Gentiles away from God, by pretending he was of God, and teaching his own doctrine to those who trusted him, not God’s.

      Romans 1:25-27

      25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

      26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

      27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

      My hubs on Paul’s deception

      Chris delete this if you don’t want me to post these links, and I will post this without them. Please reply with a post if you delete this

      The New Testament is not a reliable source of God’s word.

      Paul’s writings were simply letter’s to his churches, never meant to be part of the bible. Just letters

      Apostle Paul The Deceiver Teaches A New Gospel

      http://deborah-sexton.hubpages.com/hub/Apostle-Pau...

      Apostle Paul The Deceiver Teaches A New Gospel and The Number 666

      http://deborah-sexton.hubpages.com/hub/Apostle-Pau...

      Apostle Paul Vs Yahshua Messiah's Teaching

      http://deborah-sexton.hubpages.com/hub/Apostle-Pau...

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah,

      The subject of this blog is proving that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuals. You have been so way off topic that it is not worth my time to continue answering your stupid requests. You falsely called me a liar when I referred to my degree in language and my work with the Dead Sea Scrolls, issuing asinine and childish tests for me to complete before I am to be believed (with a simple look at my latest book, you would have all the proof you needed). Not once have I called you a liar for your claims of being anything you say that you are. Why? Because who you are, or what you are, is totally irrelevant to any discussion of the subject matter on this blog. If I am a fraud, then comment academically on every Hebrew word that I have used in my presentations, and show where there is error (which you have NEVER done). Instead, you falsely, and without merit, malign my character. Then, like some shrill child on the playground, you yell that I am "slandering and libeling" you, when if you look back with a good legal assistance, you will find that I never said the allegedly slanderous things you attribute to me (look at them VERY closely). What gives you the right to call me a liar? What gives you the right to make a false accusation? Are you the only person in the world who can translate Hebrew? What arrogance! I'm sure my Hebrew professor would chuckle. You never stop to look at your comments to see how childish they are. If you think the Bible condemns homosexuality, or does not condemn homosexuality, you can do so without attacking my credentials. It would not matter if I were a fraud or a professor of Hebrew , if I made a point which involved parsing a Hebrew verb, then you should comment on whether that parsing was correct or inaccurate. Instead, you completely ignore a discussion of my citations, and go right into calling me a liar. How academic!

      To your claim that your husband is an attorney in civil law, then he should take a look at all of your erroneous claims that I have libeled and slandered you, and if he had truly studied law, he would be warning you. I will not comment any further on your false accusations, am not impressed with your hypothetical salary (I make much more than that), and have answered your little "tests" one time too many, as far as I am concerned. If you doubt my Hebrew and Koine Greek, then show academically where my translations are incorrect (which is impossible), and stop getting off topic by slandering me.

      I am working on my latest book, spend long hours at my corporate headquarters daily, and I absolutely do NOT have the time to be answering childish dribble on line from the likes of you. If you are a scholar, such as you constantly claim, then refute my theological discussions with fact and academic process. I will no longer waste my time, nor abuse the space that this blog was intended for, to allow you to act so childish and divert the subject.

      Once again, the point of this blog is to support gay people, and if you are against gay people in ANY way, then you will hear me expose the error of your arguments. If you cannot take having your opinions challenged, then you do not need to be here. I am a gay man who just happens to be a child of God, single, and any sex I have outside of marriage does NOT preclude me from the love of my Creator. When you feed the anti-gay homophobes by anything you say, I, for one, speak for all of us gay people who are sick of the heterosexuals who condemn us at every turn. We do not have to keep defending our right to exist, our right to love equally as you do, and our right to being treated with respect.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      You said Quote “ You might want to take the time to research on those little links you pasted to your recent comment. It might just save you a fortune. When I take legal action, you can guarantee that I am not bluffing. The last party that did not take me serious ended up paying $100,000.00 in legal fees and $80,000.00 in punitive damages. I ALWAYS keep my word. If you want to play these kinds of games and make these kinds of threats, you have just been warned that you are getting into serious territory, and I suggest, as I have before, that you tone it down.“ End Quote

      Me tone it down? Yes, right, it’s me, you say.

      Hanavee, you don’t frighten me in the least.

      I went to school for six years to get my MSN, I went to school even longer getting my RN, and DNP.

      $80,000.00 is what I make in six months give or take a month. I am an ordained licensed minister, and a Jewish Rebbe.

      Joel has his, MSc, MBA, MCL. He is an attorney in Civil law, and he is a Jewish Rebbe. If any judge convicts me for defending myself, after you came in here looking for a fight with anyone you could find, and have continuously attacked me, by calling me names, such as calling me a bigot, having a split personality, saying I said things I didn’t say, and addressing me in the third person, instead of speaking directly to me, well, bring it on…

      You just don’t frighten me, sorry.

      I also don’t believe what you said in your quote, and I don’t believe you translated the dead sea scrolls..sorry, and I never will

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Chris please deny my post that I emailed you about. I think once you deny it, you can then delete it forever.

      My last post is relevant, and enough for him to translate. The first one is too much Phonetic Hebrew. The last one is simple

      Please deny this one too, and my other note to you, so it doesn't show..Please...Thank you

      Please don't believe I am against gay people, I'm not.

      I campaign for gay, and transgendered people.

      One of my female friends, is transgendered, and comfortable as a male, and I could never be against her.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Okay, disregard the third one above and just translate the last one above,

      that says:

      YHVH vaydabber mosheh lemor. dabber benei yisrael, veamarta YHVH eloheichem. Taasu kemaaseh uchemaaseh eretz mitzrayim, asher yeshavtem lo taasu eretz kenaan

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Those who constantly doubt the veracity of others show that they have doubts about themselves.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Chris, the comment I am speaking of is the third one above

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TANAKH, which is the entire Jewish bible.

      In its earliest form, the Hebrew Bible existed as an oral tradition passed on from one generation to another by the Priests and Scholars. In its written form, it is known as the Tanakh (Hebrew: תַּנַ"ךְ‎, pronounced as təˈnax). This name is used in Judaism for the entire canon of the Hebrew Bible. The Tanakh is also known as the Masoretic Text or the Miqra. The name is an acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Masoretic Text's three subdivisions: The Torah (Teaching, also known by its Greek name the Pentateuch, The Law, or the Five Books of Moses)…Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; The Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuv’im (Writings)—hence TNK or Tanakh. The name Miqra (מקרא), meaning that which is read, is an alternative Hebrew term for the Tanakh. Since the ancient language is widely known, the Hebrew scriptures were easily understood, by the Hebrews. No outside forces were brought in to translate.

      DEVELOPING THE CANON OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

      Biblically speaking, a canon, from the Greek kanon meaning rule or measure, is a list of books considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community. According to the Talmud much of the contents of the Tanakh was compiled by the Men of the Great Assembly in 450 BC. They examined the oral traditions as well as written copies of the various books and from them developed a definitive text.

      Now they had the books, but a canon had yet to be decided upon. There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was finalized. The Torah was canonized circa 400 BC, the Prophets circa 200 BC, and the Writings circa 100 CE.

      THE HEBREW BIBLE OR THE OLD TESTAMENT?

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Anyone can call themselves a preacher, a priest, a rabbi, a minister, but calling oneself such titles does not confer extra wisdom, knowledge, or even special powers. In many cases that I confront daily in my travels, people would do well to remember the slogan of Zenith: "The quality goes in, before the name goes on."

      I feel like I am fighting a one-armed midget, especially when that midget cannot see the forest for the trees. I feel sorry for the midget. As anyone who knows me can attest, I am degreed and have had a wonderful academic career. When people give themselves titles fraudulently, they are prone to attack others as fraudulent, since they assume all others arrived at their titles in the same manner. Anyone with any common sense can go to Amazon and look up my latest book (yes, I have authored many), read it and see that my credentials are published therein. I hear a shrill shreaking, "He can't be real, because I'm not!" My book is being used by college professors for their lectures, so I think their endorsement speaks enough. My book is filled with enough Hebrew and Greek to keep any serious student busy. If I did not know what I was talking about, the book would not be selling extremely well around the world.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Since some feel that they are "ordained reiki masters," thus making them "extra-special," I thought I would post a quote from "Live Science" magazine:

      "Reiki is a spiritual practice developed in Japan in the early 20th century that, in the hands of Westerners, has evolved into a new-age healing practice. Popular in Hawaii and California by the 1970s, reiki has since become a staple at health spas and in granola-loving cities across the United States.

      Reiki involves a practitioner (that is, someone who has taken a couple days of training) who places her hands on or just above a patient's body to transmit healing energy — the "ki" or reiki, better known as qi in Chinese traditional medicine. Reiki has all the trappings of new-age healing: restoring balance and instilling life energy through mysticism and/or vibrational energy. Akin to a hands-off massage, reiki is said to relieve stress, fatigue and depression and promote self-healing for just about any disease, including cancer.

      The two largest scientific reviews of reiki, published last year in International Journal of Clinical Practice and in November 2009 in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, reveal that reiki is not an effective treatment for any condition. Also in 2009, the U.S. Catholic Church weighed in, stating at a March meeting of bishops that, "since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence, it would be inappropriate for... Catholic health care facilities... to provide support for Reiki therapy."

      Reiki is not an outright scam; the practitioners seem to believe in what they are doing. In the end the soft music and whispery speech of the practitioners during the reiki sessions merely helps one relax."

      I will trust the opinion of the prestigious International Journal of Clinical Practice.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      If you really know Hebrew, and you are using a Hebrew bible (not a translation) you would know what this is really saying.

      Read this which is in the true Hebrew bible, but I have written it in phonetics (sounds of the Hebrew words)

      What does it say Hanavee? (it’s related to this hub) quickly, don’t look it up

      YHVH vaydabber mosheh lemor. dabber benei yisrael, veamarta YHVH eloheichem. Taasu kemaaseh uchemaaseh eretz mitzrayim, asher yeshavtem lo taasu eretz kenaan

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      You did not write my Hebrew sentence the way it is written, and you changed the meaning by putting a condition on it by saying, If I keep Shabbat, which it doesn't say

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      LOL First you say you learned Hebrew and Greek in school and got a degree in it. Now you are saying when you were a child you sang

      "Vay yo chel chi vo di”

      That’s not even how you say it.

      It is “Vay yo chi chi vo di”

      Tell me what this says. It is phonetic Hebrew. If you post it in about ten minutes, and don’t look it up, I might believe you speak Hebrew, although once I read where you said you don’t speak it, and just read Hebrew. Since you say you know the bible supports gay sex outside marriage, cause you read Hebrew, surely you can read this which isn't about being gay

      le·chi im·ri le·ya·ra·ve·'am koh-a·mar ha·shem e·lo·hei yis·ra·'el, ya·'an a·sher ha·ri·mo·ti·cha mit·to·vch ha·'am; va·'et·ten·cha na·gid, al am·mi yis·ra·'el.

      va·'ek·ra et-ham·mam·la·chah mib·beit da·vid, va·'et·te·ne·ha lach; ve·lo-ha·yi·ta ke·'av·di da·vid a·sher sha·mar mitz·vo·tai va·'a·sher-ha·lach a·cha·rai be·chol-le·va·vov, la·'a·so·vt rak hai·ya·shar be·'ei·nai

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      You said Quote “ So, what Deborah is admitting is that gays are born gay, though she has said that homosexuality is a choice.“ End Quote

      The part that is libel is you saying this: Quote "she has said that homosexuality is a choice " End Quote

      So no, you are not saved from being sued.

      That is libel, so prove that I said homosexuality is a choice. Go ahead post my comment and direct me to it, or admit you are lying

      You act ignorant, and very hateful, who could like you

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      I guess you are so unlearned, or so it seems to me, that you can't understand what I am saying in simple English.

      You said that I posted somewhere that I think gay people ARE NOT born gay..and I've never said that

      You know exactly what I meant, and you are harassing me on purpose, which is against the rules.

      I won't continue posting my defense over and over, God will defend me, because I stand for his word and truth.

      To have sex outside marriage whether you are straight or gay, is a SIN. A DIRTY sin, and it makes you mad because the bible does not support the carnal minded. That's between God and you.

      Ask forgiveness, and don't sin again, and God may forgive you.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Just because I am healthy, take care of myself, am beautiful, and young looking, doesn't mean I am a child because I'm not. Although my age is not your business, I have a son in his late twenties. So I am not a child.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Rules for Authors and commenters

      The Terms of Use

      Section four of the HubPages terms of use is all about what's NOT allowed in Hub content or what sort of conduct is prohibited. Here are just a few of the points specified. As a HubPages user or Author, you may not create

      Content or links that is pornographic, defamatory, libelous, tortuous, vulgar, obscene, invasive of privacy, racially or ethnically objectionable, hateful, promotes or provides instructional information about illegal activities, or promotes any act of cruelty to animals.

      Harass, threaten or intimidate Authors or others who use the Service.

      Overly Promotional - 2 or more links to a single site, purely promotional, or teasers that require you to follow a link to read the full story.

      Hate Speech or Personal Attack - Contains a personal attack, racist content, or hate speech. This can be either in the Hub or in the comments.

      "Plays well with others" is the name of this game. Self-promoters also need not apply.

      Asking For Honest Feedback, and Interpreting Every Reply As A Personal Attack

      If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you ask what's wrong, people are going to tell you.

      Stick to the topic. Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread.

      Keep it civil. Debate and disagreements on points of substance are okay, but personal attacks, petty bickering, trolling, and thread hijacking are not tolerated.

      Be helpful and supportive. We’re all here to learn, so please be constructive when providing feedback.

      Self-promotional link-posting. We encourage you to avoid posting promotional links, be they to Hubs or external sites in which you have a vested interest. The three places where we do encourage you to post links to your Hubs are in the HubChallengers section, Extreme Hub Makeover section, and in Weekly Topic Inspiration threads.

      Do not post Feeding The Trolls

      In mythology, trolls are somewhat nasty creatures that hide under bridges, are sort of hairy and smelly and they throw rocks. On the Internet, the term applies to people who like to make inflammatory statements to start arguments or get attention. For whatever reason, they just really enjoy making other people get really angry. It's usually a power trip connected to feeding their own egos, and they'll argue from positions they don't even personally support just to watch everyone else get upset. and include a link to another site. A link to your profile page is included with every post, and you can put information about yourself and links to sites you'd like to promote on your profile page.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      You said Quote “ So, what Deborah is admitting is that gays are born gay, though she has said that homosexuality is a choice.“ End Quote

      I didn’t say that , and I want you to prove it, otherwise it is libel (published slander)

      Three weeks ago, Deborah wrote: "That is true, the bible does not condemn homosexuality nor gay people. They are as much of God as anyone.

      They have found new thoughts on not so new events that occur and that

      may be responsible for people being born gay and transgender. I just wrote about it"

      Oh, my God! There it is...Deborah did indeed use the words "born gay"! Wow! I guess I'm saved from being sued. Boy, I was sweating it at first. (Giggle)

      Your own words, Madam, now sue me for libel. You really love throwing that word around. Let me give you a little legal advice. Slander is saying something about someone that is not true, and doing so with malicious intent, the end result which causes physical or mental harm and financial loss. If you could even get an attorney for one second to listen to your childish prattle (being libeled in a chat room, please) without breaking into uproarious laughter and ordering you out of his office, he would begin asking you, "How much money has this cost you? How has this impinged on your ability to work? Have you lost your job? Have you lost your home?" He might even ask, "Have you lost your mind?" (giggle) Your threatening is boring, childish prattle issued by a frustrated mind, someone incapable of proving a point intellectually and academically. If anyone reads back through all of my posts, I have successfully challenged every one of your wrong statements, done so with Hebrew and proper translation, all of which you avoid and do not even attempt to academically challenge. Instead, you absolutely falsely call me "liar" while not even responding to the Hebrew passages and exegesis that I professionally posted. You keep trying to shoot the messenger, instead of facing the truth. What a weak position...just keep on threatening people, Deborah. How very intelligent....NOT!

      Here's another of Deborah's little gems:

      She wrote: "Hanavee You said Quote " I will comment on your little missive about the blessings of "preserving shabbat"" End Quote

      You forgot to add what I also said, and that was that I would translate your little missive when, and not until, you actually commented on what I had written about Jonathan and David (because you kept ducking the issue), and, to this date, you have not. But you perjure yourself later with what you continued to say.

      Youcontinued:

      "LOL Hahahaha............I said nothing about preserving Shabbat..GUESS again.

      I knew if I said something that contained the word Shabbat, it would cause you to guess something like that."

      Guess? I didn't have to guess. Even your own translation was all about this common Jewish prayer which I memorized as a child. When I was singing "Vay yo chel chi vo di...." in 1968, you weren't even a glimmer in your father's eye, so don't tell me I don't know what that prayer says. Maybe you need to get some authentic Hebraic help. I knew what the prayer was, even with your horribly mangled attempt at sounding out the Hebrew. (You obviously don't know much about phonetics systems.) Nonetheless, the actual translation was all about Shabbat and the blessings that come from preserving its function, that being an eternal sign between God and man. But your false attempt to say, in your own words, "that it had nothing to do with preserving Shabbat,"proves you a phoney. Maybe that is why you think everyone else is. Ask any Orthodox Jew why they observe Shabbat, and they will tell you that it is to preserve the custom, to preserve the people of Israel, and to preserve the blessing that come from that divine union with God. Maybe you're just not Orthodox, but to lie about the meaning of that prayer speaks volumes about you and your intentions.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah wrote:

      "One thing you are doing on this Hub is promoting your book, and that’s not allowed. Better read the rules. You mention your so called book in just about every post."

      Wrong again. As a published author with more than just one book to my published resume, I am free to quote and mention any of my books any time I so deem it worthy of inclusion to make a valid point. I don't have to "promote" my book, since Amazon does a much better job, and my publisher does that in the first place. Quoting from my book is NOT promoting my book, and is certainly not forbidden by even the wildest stretch of the imagination with regard to HubPages rules. You just can't stand the fact that someone who is actually what they say they are is on here with the academic backing to debunk the myths you call fact. You deal in hearsay and rumor, prejudices handed down from one person to the next, and because you cannot win an argument with facts, you resort to threats and shrill rantings. Shows that I am not having a debate with an intellectual.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      When I wrote this I forgot to Quote you so

      You said Quote “Moses was speaking to the Israelites about their sins “ End Quote

      Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Hebrews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!

      God was speaking to Moses, not to do what the Egyptians, Canaanites, and pagans did

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Hanavee

      One thing you are doing on this Hub is promoting your book, and that’s not allowed. Better read the rules. You mention your so called book in just about every post.

      ______________________________

      You said Quote “ So, what Deborah is admitting is that gays are born gay, though she has said that homosexuality is a choice.“ End Quote

      I didn’t say that , and I want you to prove it, otherwise it is libel (published slander)

      __________________________________

      You said Quote “ And what an extreme prejudice to erroneously think that God was sorry that He made gay people! “ End Quote

      I didn’t say that, and I want you to prove it, otherwise it is libel (published slander)

      I posted scripture saying God repented He made PEOPLE, after Chris said God never made mistakes Genesis 6:6

      ___________________________________

      You said Quote “ More of Deborah's inconsistencies. Deborah wrote:

      "Just one last thing. Hanavee you said quote " keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay." End quote“ End Quote

      I was Quoting you LOL, you told me to keep telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay..etc.

      Talk about someone who can’t keep up with what he said

      Here’s all you said about it. Look at the third sentence from the bottom, that you wrote

      This is you speaking to me and not conversely. You wrote it 2 weeks ago, better read your comments

      Quote You said:

      Hanavee 2 weeks ago from Pennsylvania

      “Deborah Sexton,

      You really show your total and arrogant ignorance. I was not quoting someone else's translations, but my own. I have studied ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek for nearly fifty years, and I have a degree in both. And just because you are Jewish does not mean squat to any erudite and scholarly discussion of ancient texts. If being Jewish made you an expert, then you wouldn't have need of a rabbi. I worked on translating the Dead Sea Scrolls while you were probably still in diapers, so save your arrogant, unspiritual, condescension for someone who is easily impressed. All of your arguments are extremely flawed, based on readings from authors who are equally unscholarly. Your defense of anti-gay bigotry is tiring. You need to read the book "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." If you did, you would see how terribly flawed your kindergarten arguments really are. But, true bigots would rather cling to their bigotries than to ever learn the truth, so stick your head in the sand and keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay. You will answer to their Creator someday, and I only wish I were there to watch. God did not make any mistakes, no one is a zero, and woe to those who go around condemning other people whom God made for His divine purpose.End Quote

      You are calling me a bigot here also libel

      ___________________________________

      You said Quote “ Hmmm? Here's what Deborah (with her split personality) just wrote: "Then they try to condone their sin by saying the bible teaches that it’s okay."“ End Quote

      Diagnosing me as having a split personality, this is definitely libel, and impersonating a doctor.

      ___________________________________

      You said Quote “ Then, Deborah, the author of the Bible, wrote:

      "This does not exempt brother with brother-in-law."

      Would the "authoress" kindly quote chapter and verse in either the Old Testament or the New Testament" that says that? I'll be waiting for this answer with sheer delight.“ End Quote

      God doesn’t allow some to sin, and others not. He does not have respect of persons, that is how you interpret scripture, nationally, not personally

      Acts 10:34

      Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

      We also are not to have respect of persons (I hope you understand what that means)

      James 2:9

      But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

      ________________________________

      You said Quote “ “ End Quote

      Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Hebrews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right!

      God was speaking to Moses

      1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

      God was speaking to Jacob’s aka Israel’s Children, which were the twelve tribes. No Gentiles were mentioned, and Moses was not told to tell the Gentiles anything. As a matter of fact, the twelve tribes weren’t suppose to go near the Gentiles

      He was instructing them, not chastising them.

      2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.

      The message delivered to the children of Israel, was to not do the things the Egyptians, and Canaanites (pagans) did, not to perform their rituals, and not to obey their laws

      Leviticus 18:3-4

      3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

      4. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.

      ________________________________

      After I told you what I said to you in Hebrew, you said you already interpreted it,

      But you didn’t you said Quote “

      "If (I, Deborah) keep (preserve the true meaning of) the Sabbath (for more than just the one day a week that I currently observe its spiritual applications), God will keep me (from being an arrogant ass). (And if I start acting like a spiritual person instead of a religious person, and love my neighbor as I love myself) It is a sign forever between God and me (that living His tenets actually has benefits.). End Quote

      Take away the extraneous stuff, and you said Quote “ If I Keep the Sabbath God will keep me, it is a sign forever between God and me“ End Quote

      The way you worded it, it changed the whole me. And it took you a week of searching to find what I wrote

      What I really said

      "Just as I keep Shabbat, God will keep me. It is a symbol for all eternity between Him and me"

      Just one last thing

      Hanavee you said quote " keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay." End quote

      I never once said this. At least, unlike you, I'm not a liar

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Thanks, Chris. I must have closed out before hitting the "Post Comment" button. The fact that Deborah is acting in the manner that she is speaks volumes. She comes to this page and posts comments that would be taken as offensive by homosexuals, then she can't stand that anyone would challenge her views and condescends with such arrogant statements as: "I have studied ancient Hebrew history. They taught it in school and I'm Jewish," which is supposed to make us think that she is an expert on everything she claims, then when I mention, with all honesty and fact, that I am academically qualified to make the points I made by having studied biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek at my university, she slanders me and calls me a liar. Then, when I point out her inconsistencies, she threatens me with legal action. In every instance, I have cut and pasted her comments, so I have not made up her statements, and yet she says that I am slandering her. And she throws out legal threats of court action as if that will silence me from disagreeing with her comments, now even posting links to law sites (what on Earth THAT is supposed to prove?). Wow, she even knows how to Google search! What's next? Is she going to research how to file a court brief? Maybe check the spelling of subpoena? What a wild and reckless tangent.

      Deborah, if you had any credibility before this, you have certainly blown it all now. What a childish attitude. If you think you have a case for legal action against me, I have already invited you to do so. I am more than ready to seek retribution in court for any frivolous lawsuit you may file. And be forewarned, there are retributive monetary courses at my disposal to punish frivolous lawsuits. If you doubt that, pay close attention to this quote from an attorney:

      "Frivolous lawsuits are those filed by a party or attorney who is aware they are without merit, because of a lack of supporting legal argument or factual basis for the claims. Frivolous lawsuits waste time, money, and judicial resources, and FINES and/or SANCTIONS may be imposed upon a PARTY (that's you, Deborah) or their attorney FOR FILING SUCH A CLAIM."

      You might want to take the time to research on those little links you pasted to your recent comment. It might just save you a fortune. When I take legal action, you can guarantee that I am not bluffing. The last party that did not take me serious ended up paying $100,000.00 in legal fees and $80,000.00 in punitive damages. I ALWAYS keep my word. If you want to play these kinds of games and make these kinds of threats, you have just been warned that you are getting into serious territory, and I suggest, as I have before, that you tone it down.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      You should make that your last email to me Hanavee.

      Chris obviously moderates his hub, meaning all comments have to be approved before they actually post. You can see your comment for five minutes in case you want to change something, then it disappears even from you, until Chris allows it.

      There you go erroneously accusing Chris, as you are me.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      My very first statement was that David and Jonathan were not gay.

      My second statement was that the bible does not condemn homosexuality, and that there are new findings on this, and I said that I had just made a new hub about it.

      I said “That is true, the bible does not condemn homosexuality nor gay people. They are as much of God as anyone.

      They have found new thoughts on not so new events that occur and that

      may be responsible for people being born gay and transgender. I just wrote about it”

      I took screenshots of all statements about me that is not true

      http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-medi...

      http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_...

      http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-medi...

    • christopheranton profile image
      Author

      Christopher Antony Meade 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

      I didn't delete any of your posts. Something else must have happened. You are one of the good guys.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah,

      I am going to post this here, and if Chris once again deletes this, then I will also send it to you via the private HubPages channels. I answered your silly legal threats before, and he deleted the post. So, let me make some points very clear here:

      I am not in the least bit intimidated by your childish and ridiculous threats of legal action against me.

      I have not at any time committed any tortious offenses on this website, including "slandering" you. You most definitely need some proper legal advice, because they would then tell you that you are making a fool of yourself by issuing such asinine threats. You would have absolutely NO standing in any court.

      At all times that I have quoted you, all quotes have been taken directly from your posts, so if doing so is slander, then you have slandered yourself; once again rendering your rantings as ludicrous.

      And how do you think people see you when you say that you are going to take this matter to your husband who handles the legal matters for your business? Really? That is supposed to intimidate me? Sweety, I have lawyers on retainer for my corporation, and I can call on the most powerful law firm with a press of my speed dial. I have litigated in the past, most successfully, and have no qualms about going to court to quash any attack, but yours is absolutely hollow, because any lawyer in his right mind would throw you out of his office for wasting his time with your childish pursuit of baseless litigation, even more so for even daring to think that your case has merit in any court of respectable law for the alleged crime of slandering you on a website chat room. Not only would that attorney find you ludicrous, he or she would not destroy their personal credibility by even daring to bring such laughable litigation before a competent judge.

      If you cannot argue cogently, leave...oh wait, you did that before. You said "So long," and we all thought we were finished hearing your diatribes. But, no, you came back. So, when you resort to insulting my academic credentials by calling me a liar, that is slander, and it is libel because you printed it here. I'm not here to prove my credentials, nor should I have to. I am fully capable of producing ample proof of my degrees and academic accomplishments, but they are not the point. Facts are what we should all be dealing in. If you want to simply resort to name calling, you have definitely proven yourself worthy of that task. But to threaten me with legal action for a crime that you have committed is the height of absurdity...and you call yourself a rabbi?

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      I don't care about winning or losing an argument, I do care about you calling me names, and slandering me.

      You keep saying I am against gay people, and that I think being gay is a choice.

      You'll not find anywhere that I have stated this. I even wrote a hub saying it is in the genes, and everyone needs to stop judging gay people.

      I think you are so insecure that you came in ready to fight. Well, if you want to fight, we'll do it legally if you keep on, and if the hub staff won't help..

      Your arguments are stale, and wrong

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      here are at least three meanings for repent.

      One meaning to be sorry for

      One to change your mind

      One to ask for forgiveness for sin, and stop sinning.

      God is not a man that He should repent of any sin.

      God did repent (was sorry) he had made man.

      This is all stated in scripture.

      God Himself does not change.. but He has changed His mind several times, as seen in scripture

      Question:

      The following text from just before the flood seems to imply that G‑d did something wrong, was sorry for it, and surprised by its happening:

      "And the L-rd repented that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart. And the L-rd said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air, for I repent that I have made them."1

      How could that be when He knows the end before the beginning?

      Answer:

      Here's what the ancient Midrash2 has to say on these verses:

      A heretic asked R. Joshua ben Korchah: "Don't you Jews say that G‑d knows the future?"

      Rabbi Joshua answered, "Yes."

      "Why then," continued the heretic, "is it written that 'grieved Him in His heart'3?"

      Responded R. Joshua, "Was a son ever born to you?"

      "Yes," said the heretic.

      "What did you do?"

      "I rejoiced."

      "But didn't you know that one day he will die?"

      Replied the man, "One rejoices when it is a time for rejoicing, and one mourns when it is a time for mourning."

      Said R. Joshua, "So it is with G‑d."

      Rashi, the classic commentator, cites this Midrash and adds a few words to explain further. He adds, "Although it was known to Him that they will sin and be destroyed, He nevertheless created them for the sake of the righteous who will descend from them."

      Meaning that G‑d created humankind because He wanted righteous human beings. So when He created them, He rejoiced. He knew there would be wicked people, for there cannot be righteousness without wickedness, good without bad. But now was a time to rejoice. Later, when the wicked would arise, that would be the time to mourn.

      If you wish to go a little deeper, ponder this: Is G‑d involved in His creation, or does He stand beyond it? On the one hand, to be the Creator of all that exists out of nothing, He must be entirely beyond all the creation contains. On the other hand, He must be here right now in every event that occurs.

      So we say that He is both—in the language of Chassidut, He is within all things and yet encompasses them all at once. To be G‑d, He must, so to speak, be of two minds at once:

      He must see things from beyond and from within at the same time.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah, if that is how you defend your position on things, throwing out threats of lawsuits (your husband and your "law department") and going to the administration of HubPages to get me deleted, you need to stop posting. If you cannot win an argument by simply stating facts, not hearsay and rumor, but facts, then you are really not someone to be arguing any point. I am not frightened by your threats, but you may want to review all the times you slandered and libeled me by calling me a liar simply because I referred to my education and academic career. You have no basis for calling me a liar, because you have no idea of my credentials, so if anyone needs to be deleted, it would have to be you. And as for your frivolous threat of legal action, please...really? I have never misquoted you, so take a long hard look at all those statements you say I falsely made. They are, every last one, taken verbatim from your posts.

      Stop slamming other people, then running for help from hubby when you let your mouth overload your plate. You have arrogantly tried to trash other people on here, so I think it only fitting that you get some of it served right back to you. If you can't take it, then tone it down.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah wrote: "Of course gay people do not have to prove their existence, but I’ll never understand how you got that from my statement saying you are trying to prove your point."

      I did not say that they are trying to prove their existence. I said that gay people should not have to prove their RIGHT TO EXIST. You need to learn to read better. Constantly told that they are sick, perverted, equal to drunkards thieves and liars, denied housing, medical treatment and even employment, all because of their genetically predisposed sexual orientation, gays have had enough of even the subtle, "well-intentioned" gay-bashing.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Numbers 23:19

      God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent.

      Malachi 3:6

      For I am the Lord, I change not.

      וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה כּ־עָשָׂה אֶת־הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל־לִבּוֹ

      Veyinachem means that God regretted that He had made humans, sort of groaned over what He was seeing. Our current word "repented" shows you how language evolves over the centuries, one of the points I have repeatedly made here. But, regardless, of how much we read into what nacham means then and now, if God is all-knowing, then He would have known what His creation would become, and there would be no need to later change His mind. This would mean that God is capable of making mistakes. Thus, what we are reading is ancient mankind trying to describe God just like they did with all other man-made renderings that explained the universe. When they see God as some old man sitting on a throne with hands and feet and prone to all of the weaknesses of man, such as jealousy and anger, they really are speaking anthropomorphically. God is a spirit, a force that energizes all that is and has ever been, and this force is not reduced to petty human emotions. This Force created gay people just as equally as this Force created the other sexual orientations. None of us is a curse of God.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Hanavee said Quote “ Deborah wrote: "They spoke a little differently in the bible days then they do now. Their metaphors, euphemisms, etc, were those of the Hebrews, from ancient times. So their language is nothing like ours."

      Deborah recently wrote:

      "Languages do not change that way"

      I was not speaking of slang when I said language doesn’t change.

      I was saying languages do not mean lover in one century and son in another. These words are not metaphors, euphemisms, or slang.

      You said Quote “Hmmmm....? Does Deborah have a split personality? ‘ End Quote

      More slander Hanavee, or are you impersonating a doctor? or is it you with this type of personality?

      You said Quote “So, what Deborah is admitting is that gays are born gay, though she has said that homosexuality is a choice. Hmmm? “ End Quote

      I have always said it is not a choice that they are born this way. Why do you think I wrote the hub about it not being a choice??

      Choice or Genetics

      Please point this statement out that I said.

      You said Quote “ And what an extreme prejudice to erroneously think that God was sorry that He made gay people!“ End Quote

      I said that God said he repented that he made all PEOPLE , because he did say it.

      My statement

      “ But God does say he is sorry after he created humans, in Genesis 6 He even grieved over it.”

      You said Quote “ God is perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing, incapable of fault, then He never has to "repent" of any error He made. "And the Lord repented of the evil He thought to do." ??? Is God capable of evil? Can He make a wrong decision? Would He have to "repent?" Change His mind? Oh, so He's indecisive now? The Bible is MAN'S attempt to explain the universe. It is NOT a flawless textbook of facts dictated by the Creator.“ End Quote

      If you knew Hebrew, you know really, than you would know the word “repent” in this context means that he was sorry he made man. Not that he needed to repent..from some wrong doing.

      But it’s there in Genesis, saying God was sorry he made mankind.

      You said Quote "Just one last thing. Hanavee you said quote " keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay." End quote

      I never once said this. At least, unlike you, I'm not a liar"

      LOL Wow! that is me quoting you, quoting me quoting you.

      Better read over the things said, because you just looked really silly in your mistake

      I am sick of you telling lies on me, and misquoting me

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Awful still means inspiring reverential, wonder, even though it is very old fashion.

      broadcast still means to scatter (seeds) by hand or machine.

      All the other stuff you’ve written, cite your sources

      You said Quote “Homosexuality is NOT a sin. For proofs, read the book, Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." All the proofs are contained in that book - I know - I wrote it. “ End Quote

      You know that it is the “act outside marriage” I am speaking of, and if you haven realized it yet, then why are you acting as though you know anything about languages, if you can’t understand what I’ve written?

      You said Quote “You wrote: "To prove their point?" As if gay people HAVE to prove their existence is permitted? Their point being that homosexuality is normal sexual behavior? Homosexuality IS normal behavior...except to people who are as warped and ignorant as you. You keep flying in the face of fact with nothing but your stupid bigotry. “ End Quote

      Of course gay people do not have to prove their existence, but I’ll never understand how you got that from my statement saying you are trying to prove your point.

      Again you can’t understand what I said, and I speak a simple language

      See there again, you can’t possibly understand languages, since you can’t understand me. Or you do understand, and

      you’re trying my patience, and trying to make me buckle. I won’t, I will always stand for God, and his word, and truth.

      If you keep keep calling me names, and saying I said something I didn’t, I will first go to the Hub Staff, and if that doesn’t fix the problem, my husband runs the legal department of our business, and I will bring it to him

      Dear Hanavee, it is you who is acting in a bigoted way, we as people usually do think what we believe is right, but you have shown complete prejudiced, and intolerance toward anyones opinion different from you own, reverting to belittling and name calling.

      My statement that You Hanavee, and Chris

      are using whatever was being said to prove your point is not saying you have to prove you exist, of course you exist, you’re writing stuff aren’t you.

      I do not speak against gay people. As a matter of fact I fight for the rights of all transgendered and gay people. But, regardless, if straight or gay people have sex outside marriage, they are sinning.

      According to scripture you do have to answer to God about any sex act, and lust that is in your heart, when it occurs outside of marriage.

      What you hate most about me is that I show the true word of God, to which you can’t seem to stand, or else can’t stand. There’s two words to think about

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah wrote:

      "Can anyone make you stop desiring who you desire? No"

      Then why your constant harangue against gay people solely because they don't have the same desires as you?

      Deborah wrote:

      "My job as a Jewish person is to teach the truth, and to be a light."

      Then why deal in unfounded bigotry and prejudice? When shown the truth by facts, you cling to your "hand-me-down" prejudices as if they are truth, when they are nothing more than the fears of the ignorant made manifest through lack of genuine concern for what is God's reality. Homosexuality is no more a choice than is your sexual orientation. You cannot remember a time when you were of the opposite orientation that you are now, and you made a conscious choice to become the orientation that you are now. Such a ridiculous thought is exactly what you and Pedro subscribe to, that gays chose their sexual orientation. The American Medical Association and The American Psychiatric Association, just to name a few, would find your comments ludicrous, since they have better evidence than you, and their statements are that homosexuality is NOT a choice, and is unchangeable. I will take their erudite research over your unfounded and ignorant bigotry any day of the week. I like to deal in facts, not a bunch of "my daddy told me so" prejudices.

      I love looking at Deborah's self-contradictions. Here's another one:

      Deborah wrote: "They spoke a little differently in the bible days then they do now. Their metaphors, euphemisms, etc, were those of the Hebrews, from ancient times. So their language is nothing like ours."

      Deborah recently wrote:

      "Languages do not change that way"

      Hmmmm....? Does Deborah have a split personality?

      Deborah wrote:

      " I am not saying God made a mistake when gay people were born.

      But God does say he is sorry after he created humans, in Genesis 6 He even grieved over it.

      Genesis 6:6

      “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

      Exodus 32:14

      “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people”.

      So, what Deborah is admitting is that gays are born gay, though she has said that homosexuality is a choice. Hmmm? Fascinating. How long has this condition of yours existed, Deborah - that inability to keep track of things you say? And what an extreme prejudice to erroneously think that God was sorry that He made gay people!

      And on a theological point, anthropomorphism, man creating God in man's image, complete with man's imperfections and weaknesses, shows why ancient Israelites wrote their foibles into their attempts at explaining Nature. If God is perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing, incapable of fault, then He never has to "repent" of any error He made. "And the Lord repented of the evil He thought to do." ??? Is God capable of evil? Can He make a wrong decision? Would He have to "repent?" Change His mind? Oh, so He's indecisive now? The Bible is MAN'S attempt to explain the universe. It is NOT a flawless textbook of facts dictated by the Creator.

      More of Deborah's inconsistencies. Deborah wrote:

      "Just one last thing. Hanavee you said quote " keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay." End quote

      I never once said this. At least, unlike you, I'm not a liar"

      Hmmm? Here's what Deborah (with her split personality) just wrote: "Then they try to condone their sin by saying the bible teaches that it’s okay."

      Wow, Deborah, you've got more flip-flops than a dying fish.

      I love Deborah's selective Theology. She wrote: "In Leviticus where male homosexuality is first mentioned. Though it wasn't referring to adult male to male relationships or the common man. The rule about it was given to the Levite priests, not to the world."

      Funny, because (regarding the very beginning of Leviticus 18) my Tanakh says: "The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them..." and nowhere after that does the verse suddenly insert, "Oh, and don't forget...this is just for the Levites." In fact, nowhere in this chapter is there any mention of the Levites, because these were edicts being declared to the people as a whole. I love your selective Theology...cute.

      And Leviticus 18:22 is NOT about homosexuality. It refers to the fertility rituals of the temple of Molech, and the new admonition to the Israelites that those who engage in the sexually-oriented fertility worship in the temple of Molech will be rendered "unclean" (toevah), and, as such, will not be permitted into the temple in Jerusalem until purified. Remember the tikvah? This verse says absolutely NOTHING about Heaven or Hell, judgment of God, the afterlife, or men's sexual love for one another. It refers solely to the fertility rituals of Molech and the new admonition to the tribe of Israel that they may no longer participate.

      Then, when Deborah doubted that I had studied Hebrew, she left me a childish test of translating a common Jewish prayer that I have recited myself many times, and she lied in a stupid effort to make the simple translation seem indecipherable to all but her. Here's what she wrote:

      "You sort of tried to translate what I said when you wrote this: Quote " I will comment on your little missive about the blessings of "preserving shabbat"" End Quote"

      I "tried?" I stated that I would answer her stupid question when she answered my question regarding Jonathan and David, which she never did, by the way. So, I had yet to "try" to translate her little missive.

      She continued:

      "And you were wrong about that. I said nothing about the blessings of Shabbat."

      She said "nothing" about the blessings of Shabbat? Really? The prayer says that if I preserve or keep the holiness and values of the Shabbat, God will keep me. What is not a blessing in that observance? Deborah needs to go back to school. The blessings of God on our lives from observing Shabbat are the underlying foundations of that promise. Or, is Deborah too busy lying?

      And here is the one that makes me wonder if Deborah has a split personality, or is just such a liar that she gets off calling other people liars. Here is what she wrote:

      "I also know being gay is no more wrong, in God's eyes, than being straight."

      Okay, Deborah, you called me a liar when I said that I had studied Koine Greek and biblical Hebrew, which was such a stupid claim on your part, because you know absolutely nothing about my education and academic career, only proving that you deal in hearsay, rumor and bigotry. If you disagreed linguistically with some point, you could have cited fact for your conclusions instead of resorting to such baseless accusations. Your constant claim to fame has been that you are Jewish, and your conduct certainly makes me glad that I am not. Care to explain all of your self-contradictory comments on here? The whole world is waiting, Your Highness.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      I have to laugh at what Deborah wrote:

      "Hanavee, you are always saying you write what you post, but I see you have copied the above from here (then she lists a link to my book "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality).

      You're not quoting, just copying."

      Deborah, sweety, if you realized how stupid your comment is, you would stop making yourself look so foolish. It would not matter if I was copying facts from the dictionary. Your point? Oh...right...that copying facts to share in a discussion makes them non-facts. Wow! That's a new one for making your point. If you will look at the picture on the back cover of that book, then look at the picture posted next to my posts, you might "get the picture." I am the author.

      And, another point I need to make here - You have continually tried to bully the author of this hub by continually making the point that you are Jewish, therefore, you know all things Hebraic. And you make the point that you learned Greek (modern Greek) from living somewhere among some Greeks. You then proceed each time to point out how that makes you the "last word" on everything, which is tantamount to my saying that, because I am an American, I am an expert on the U.S. Constitution. What crap, and what arrogant crap at that. If being Jewish made you an expert on the torah, then that would make every Jew in every synagogue so self-sufficient, they would not need to be taught anything. Further, the sheer fact that there are so many different sects of Judaism with extremely different beliefs should be enough to demonstrate the fact that just being Jewish does NOT give you indisputable claim to know it all. Your "know-it-all" arrogance that relies on the simple claim that you are Jewish is one of the most ignorant things you can keep touting. Stick to facts, and prove your points through facts, not arrogant and empty bullying.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah is now the author of the Bible. She wrote:

      "Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)" as in, this is a "sin." (Love that word "sin." What is "sin"? Hmm...a later discussion.)

      Then, Deborah, the author of the Bible, wrote:

      "This does not exempt brother with brother-in-law."

      Would the "authoress" kindly quote chapter and verse in either the Old Testament or the New Testament" that says that? I'll be waiting for this answer with sheer delight.

    • Hanavee profile image

      Brian Gray 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Deborah wrote: "Languages do not change that way."

      Really?! Do you even know the definition of etymology? I am not going to define it for you. Go look it up. You might learn something, because if language did not evolve, there would be no science of etymology. Here's a few for you:

      Abandon - We use the word to mean “give up completely”, like abandoning hope, abandoning a baby or surrendering ourselves to emotion. But, in 14th century Middle English it meant “to subjugate or subdue” someone or something – coming from the French phrase “mettre a bandon” meaning “to give up to a public ban”.

      Addict - In Roman times addicts were people who were financially ruined given as slaves to the people they owed money to. It comes from the Latin addictus, which meant “a debtor awarded as a slave to his creditor”.

      In the 1600's it was used in the sense of giving yourself to someone or some practice. Only in the early 1900's did it become associated with dependency on morphine and later other drugs.

      Awful - In the 1300's, it originally meant “inspiring wonder” and was a short version of “full of awe”. But now the word has purely negative connotations.

      Broadcast - The way television spreads the news, but in 1767 “broadcast” meant sowing seeds with a sweeping movement of the hand or a “broad cast”. Its media use began with radio in 1922.

      Cute - Cute was a shortened form of acute, meaning “keenly perceptive and shrewd” in the 1730's. But, by the 1830's it was part of American student slang, meaning “pretty, charming and dainty”.

      And, the original sense of “dainty” was “worthy and substantial”.

      Decimate - We use the term to mean “totally destroy” but the original definition was “to kill one in 10”. The brutal practice was used by the Roman army in the fifth century BC as a way to inspire fear and loyalty.

      Lots were drawn and one out of every 10 soldiers would be killed by their own comrades. If one member of a squad acted up, anybody could pay the ultimate price.

      Nervous - In the 1400's, a nervous person was actually “sinewy and vigorous” – as the Latin word nervus applied to both sinews and nerves.

      By 1665 nerves were better understood, and by 1734, the term meant “suffering a disorder of the nervous system”.

      By 1740, it meant “restless, agitated, lacking nerve” and it then became a widespread euphemism for mental illness – forcing the medical community to coin “neurological” to replace it in the older sense.

      “Nervous wreck” was first used in 1899.

      I have quoted just s few of the thousands of words that have changed, and every language on the planet has undergone the same evolutionary process. I am a degreed linguist, but I don't expect everyone to have that same advantage. Still, you should know this simple fact about language. So, when you wrote: "Languages do not change that way," you demonstrate that you obviously are not as educated as you portray yourself.

      Next on our list, you wrote:

      "This is a scheme intended to deceive, and to prove their point."

      Where have I heard that argument before? Hmmm? Like every time an ignorant person had to face facts? If you can't face reality, then you start swinging ignorance as your basis for having bigoted and prejudice views.

      When Copernicus tried to explain why the sun does not revolve around the Earth, people like you could not let go of their Flat Earth cosmology and just knew that Copernicus had a "scheme." You wrote: "To prove their point?" As if gay people HAVE to prove their existence is permitted? Their point being that homosexuality is normal sexual behavior? Homosexuality IS normal behavior...except to people who are as warped and ignorant as you. You keep flying in the face of fact with nothing but your stupid bigotry.

      You wrote:

      "They want to teach that God's word allows gay people to do what they want, and sin all they want."

      Homosexuality is NOT a sin. For proofs, read the book, Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." All the proofs are contained in that book - I know - I wrote it.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Pedro

      You Said Quote “ I cannot leave without calling attention to your last argument without any logical basis. God created homosexuals, really; why, just because they exist? That is your only basis for such a claim. Well did God created addicts, drunkards, people with cancer, children with disabilities? I think not. Let us stop blaming God for everything wrong. Homosexuals decided to have sex with people of their own sex for whatever reason; do not use as an excuse now that God made you like that and take responsibility for who you are. “ End Quote

      I agree with you Pedro..God put mankind on earth to have dominion over it, and everything in it..and this is the way man runs the earth. Is God happy with the things mankind has done..I don’t think so. God doesn’t like any kind of sin. Mankind wants all the pleasure he can find. Sin, sin, sin.

      Then they try to condone their sin by saying the bible teaches that it’s okay.

      This world is full of carnal minded people.

      Genesis 1:26

      And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      One sin in Leviticus 18:16 is:

      Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

      This does not exempt brother with brother-in-law

      Gay people are not exempt.

      Since David was Jonathan's brother-in-law, had they engaged in this sin, Jonathan and David would have been stoned

      It would have been as though Jonathan slept with his sister Michal since she was David’s wife, and Jonathan’s sister

      Leviticus 18:6

      6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

      Leviticus 18:16

      16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

      1 Samuel 18:20

      And Michal Saul's daughter loved David:

      1 Samuel 18:27….And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

      1 Samuel 18:28

      And Saul saw and knew that the Lord was with David, and that Michal Saul's daughter loved him.

      You can hope it says it is Okay, but it doesn't.

      When you are allowed to marry a member of the same sex, then, and only then will it be okay, and only with your spouse.

      To turn God’s word into something it’s not, is blasphemy…and I ask God to give a great sign to Chris and Hanavee, that what I am saying is truth.

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Hanavee, you are always saying you write what you post, but I see you have copied the above from here

      You're not quoting, just copying

      http://books.google.com/books?id=w2GQO8CbBMgC&...

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      Like I said, In case you say differently, here I am writing Greek phonetically, about three years ago, on Hubpages forum

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/35982

    • profile image

      Deborah Sexton 3 years ago

      I didn't get the meaning of pais from a dictionary.

      I do not speak ancient Greek, but modern Greek, however the word pais did not go from meaning lover, to meaning son, and it does mean son.

      Languages do not change that way

      This is a scheme intended to deceive, and to prove their point.

      They want to teach that God's word allows gay people to do what they want, and sin all they want. Yet those who do God's will, are not allowed