God's Judgment on homosexuality.

reply to post by PurpleSun


Church fleaders maintain that the when God refers to "us" he means himself and only himself. His eternal self that has always existed and his infinite self that creates and is inherent in all that he has created. The trinity is a concept of Christianity. The word trinity is not used in any Bible, it is a creation of church figures of the 16th century to piece together confounding New Testament scriptures ; it is a combination of the Holy spirit, Yeshua , and Yahweh. Though Yeshua is the word of god in the flesh, there's nothing to conclude that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God.
Many scriptures actually assert that they are indeed seperate, but in the end the word of Yeshua trumps all.

Within in the old testament Yahweh is always portrayed as a physical, earthly presence; this idea of an invisible magical power is a complete fabrication by gross mistranslations from a secondary source, and the perpetuation of ignorance by the leading authorities throughout time.

reply to post by PurpleSun

Wrong!!! God's name is NOT Jesus and if you think that you REALLY don't know your bible at all and show your ignorance. God's name is the most precious tetragrammaton:" יהוה " which closely translates to (YHWH) which Christians pronounce as Yaweh.

The son of the Messiah's name is Yeshua. Never once did he hear the name "Jesus". Not only that, "Jesus" is not a Hebrew name which according to Old Testament Law the Savior must have had as a Jew. Geeze people, you really are brainwashed and do not know facts, do you?

This is all fabricated hokum from the likes of the sacred name people who say these things with no real understanding of history or languages and just want something to make them feel special.
There is no law that people who were Jews had to have Hebrew names. That was a dead language that died off soon after the exodus from Babylon and people in Judea spoke Greek and Aramaic where the similarity between the two (Aramaic and Hebrew) was the use of the same characters of the Alphabet. Just like today you can look at a page with Spanish and English, to someone not familiar with either, they could hardly tell them apart by casual observation.
Galilee was called Galilee of the Gentiles and they spoke Greek. Jesus lived, during the early part of his life, in Egypt where Alexandria had more Jews than in Judea, and they spoke Greek. This is where the Septuagint comes from, not gentiles wanting to read the Old Testament, but Jews who did not know Hebrew.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

this idea of an invisible magical power is a complete fabrication by gross mistranslations from a secondary source, and the perpetuation of ignorance by the leading authorities throughout time.

Is this from the Church of Perpetual Paranoia?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by CaptainNemo

 

this idea of an invisible magical power is a complete fabrication by gross mistranslations from a secondary source, and the perpetuation of ignorance by the leading authorities throughout time.

Is this from the Church of Perpetual Paranoia?

It's critical thinking and objectivity.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Yes nobody is denying that Jesus is a false name, it's a translation, however screwed up it may have been. Some people would just prefer to call him by his real name.

A distinctive usage emerged in Middle High German.[3] Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478–1550) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds, in his Ɛpistola del Trissino de le lettere nuωvamente aggiunte ne la lingua italiana ("Trissino's epistle about the letters recently added in the Italian language") of 1524.[4] Originally, I and J were different shapes for the same letter, both equally representing /i/, /iː/, and /j/; but Romance languages developed new sounds (from former /j/ and /ɡ/) that came to be represented as I and J; therefore, English J, acquired from the French J, has a sound value quite different from /j/ (which represents the sound in the English word "yet").

You see it would've have been an impossibility for the messiah to have been called Jesus.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


No, there are historical records from the time of Christ, of people named Jesus, and that goes back even before the Jesus we know about, it was a common name. Jesus is the Greek version of an older language people did not speak except for rabbis who were especially trained in that dead language.
The old name from which Jesus' name was derived was the name we think of as, Joshua. What people are actually doing is back translating Joshua to the Hebrew or Aramaic. They are not translating Jesus because the name Jesus is the actual name, and not a translation of anything but an adaptation of a word from one language to another to use the idea of the name but not the actual name itself, thus creating a new name in its own right.
Jesus is the name given in the New Testament and there is no legitimate reason to believe that the Apostles got it wrong. So, in summery, people who don't believe in Jesus do not believe the testimony of the Apostles and are not Christians and are damned to Hell.

You see it would've have been an impossibility for the messiah to have been called Jesus.

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier: Do you really think that for millions of years no one ever made a sound that is similar to today's J ?
What you are quoting is one person's opinion and you should read my thread on the subject:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jmdewey60

Do you really think that for millions of years no one ever made a sound that is similar to today's J ?

Of course they did, writing it is a different story, and it only dates back 5000 B.C. And the letter 'g' and a few other combinations make the same sound as J. So you see, that doesn't mean the apostles were writing down that sound. They wrote in Greek, that doesn't mean they were writing 'J' sound or something similar. If you did a little more thinking into what you're trying to say you'd realize how WRONG you are.

And yes Yeshua is derived from the name Joshua

Pause and take a look at the etymological history of the word Jesus:

Jesus: Hebrew/Aramaic yeshu‘a became Greek Iēsous, then Latin Iesus, passing into German and then, ultimately, into English, as Jesus.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

You're contention would be based on the idea that English is derived from Greek, which it is most obviously NOT.

Also Hell does not exist, it too is also an invention to keep simple minded mind-slaves such as yourself in line; but I can forsee how the debate between you and I would go on the topic so I will spare myself the energy.

reply to post by CaptainNemo

I can forsee how the debate between you and I would go on the topic so I will spare myself the energy.

No, don't, because you don't know anything about what you are talking about.
You are just repeating some nonsense from propaganda people tell each other to get all puffed up about how they are somehow smarter than other people and will lead you straight to hell.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by CaptainNemo

 

I can forsee how the debate between you and I would go on the topic so I will spare myself the energy.

No, don't, because you don't know anything about what you are talking about.
You are just repeating some nonsense from propaganda people tell each other to get all puffed up about how they are somehow smarter than other people and will lead you straight to hell.

No, I'm using the amazing brain that God gave me to figure it out for myself. Everybody is entitled to find salvation through themselves and YESHUA. Not your church, you or anybody else. You sir are simply repeating centuries of regurgitated explanations with obvious transparansese and for lack of better words: S*** that don't make sense. I accept the messiah as my Lord and savior, but that doesn't mean I should listen to another man's interpretation of him. The 'hell' you speak of is propaganda. I'm much better off learning through independent study and cross-referencing through people that have more credentials then the men who are better at ignoring the truth, upholding tradition and keeping the masses in order, then actually reading what is there in an analytical sense. It's called fear mongering.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


So you know better than Jesus and God and the Apostles?
Well, have a good time saving yourself with your invented savior after rejecting the real one.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Ok, make your case for Hell. Don't tell me your pastor told you so.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


I have been there.
I died two different times on account of really horrible health issues.

reply to post by halfoldman


Interesting post. I knew some guys just like you in college. They were very skilled in arguing different points at length. They would pick the points they felt they could refute and ignore the rest. Their answers were always excessively wordy with lots of vague references and high level language. If they couldn't refute a point but they thought it was important, they would simply dismiss it as ridiculous. And of course the whole discussion was peppered with subtle jabs and put-downs that I was obviously to dumb to catch. The intent was clear. They considered themselves my intellectual superior and were trying to enlighten me. Sound familiar?

I only posted on this thread because the gentleman in the OP's videos is a personal friend. I know him well and he has love in his heart. I see him get attacked for his views from all angles. He is simply reading the Bible and trying to interpret it. My personal beliefs are that every person is free to make their own choices in every aspect of their lives. If you choose to be a murderer(the most extreme choice),you face the consequences for your actions. Could be jail, guilt, retribution, etc. What you choose is up to you. I have a huge problem with HYPOCRISY and LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY. If one, JUST ONE, gay person said "I choose to love men/women because it makes me happy", I have no quarrel. What can you say to that without looking like a dick? Does that happen? Hell no!! Blame God for making you that way, blame religious nuts for making you feel bad about it, attacking religion because it makes you feel bad, blaming others for outlandish behavior, endless attacks, but that's not your fault either, just defending yourself. It goes on and on and on and on...... Excuse, excuse, excuse, excuse, attack, attack, attack, attack. Do Christians attack you? Absolutely! Do you attack Christians? Absolutely! It is hypocritical to call their attacks "bigotry" and your attacks "Self Defense". If you choose to live this lifestyle you can't demand that everyone accept it. You don't accept heterosexuality since you did not choose it. I understand that and I am fine with that. Make your choices and live with them. Quit crying and calling everyone stupid when they disagree with you. Their is so much hypocrisy with this issue on both sides, it just makes me sick.

The only other problem I have with this issue is this:

"Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a 'Gay Rights Platform" that included the following demand: "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." David Thorstad, a spokesman for the homosexual rights movement and NAMBLA, clearly states the objectives: 'The ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual freedom for all - not just equal rights for 'lesbians and gay men, but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children." This goal has not changed since it was articulated in 1972."

www.moneyteachers.org...

Have you ever wondered how an open pedophile website such as NAMBLA can be allowed to exist? The only bright side I can see to this horrifying scenario is that my daughter will still be protected. Sexual liberation will only apply to Man/Boy love.

Originally posted by PurpleSun

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by PurpleSun

 

"i pray to a God but I don't know his name"

God's name is Jesus.
Do you really think that for millions of years, people never said anything that sounds like what we call today, a J ?

edit on 3-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Wrong!!! God's name is NOT Jesus and if you think that you REALLY don't know your bible at all and show your ignorance. God's name is the most precious tetragrammaton:" יהוה " which closely translates to (YHWH) which Christians pronounce as Yaweh.

The son of the Messiah's name is Yeshua. Never once did he hear the name "Jesus". Not only that, "Jesus" is not a Hebrew name which according to Old Testament Law the Savior must have had as a Jew. Geeze people, you really are brainwashed and do not know facts, do you?

Do you enjoy attempting to make people look stupid? I have read a few of your posts and you are very disrespectful, even as you are claiming not to be. You appear to have a very high opinion of yourself, just don't beat people over the head with it. You are obviously very young, as humility and respect usually come with age. There is a huge difference between knowledge and wisdom. You yourself said "I haven't always been this smart". Maybe someday you will add some wisdom to that massive intellect of yours.

Originally posted by scully222
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Interesting post. I knew some guys just like you in college. They were very skilled in arguing different points at length. They would pick the points they felt they could refute and ignore the rest. Their answers were always excessively wordy with lots of vague references and high level language. If they couldn't refute a point but they thought it was important, they would simply dismiss it as ridiculous. And of course the whole discussion was peppered with subtle jabs and put-downs that I was obviously to dumb to catch. The intent was clear. They considered themselves my intellectual superior and were trying to enlighten me. Sound familiar?

I only posted on this thread because the gentleman in the OP's videos is a personal friend. I know him well and he has love in his heart. I see him get attacked for his views from all angles. He is simply reading the Bible and trying to interpret it. My personal beliefs are that every person is free to make their own choices in every aspect of their lives. If you choose to be a murderer(the most extreme choice),you face the consequences for your actions. Could be jail, guilt, retribution, etc. What you choose is up to you. I have a huge problem with HYPOCRISY and LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY. If one, JUST ONE, gay person said "I choose to love men/women because it makes me happy", I have no quarrel. What can you say to that without looking like a dick? Does that happen? Hell no!! Blame God for making you that way, blame religious nuts for making you feel bad about it, attacking religion because it makes you feel bad, blaming others for outlandish behavior, endless attacks, but that's not your fault either, just defending yourself. It goes on and on and on and on...... Excuse, excuse, excuse, excuse, attack, attack, attack, attack. Do Christians attack you? Absolutely! Do you attack Christians? Absolutely! It is hypocritical to call their attacks "bigotry" and your attacks "Self Defense". If you choose to live this lifestyle you can't demand that everyone accept it. You don't accept heterosexuality since you did not choose it. I understand that and I am fine with that. Make your choices and live with them. Quit crying and calling everyone stupid when they disagree with you. Their is so much hypocrisy with this issue on both sides, it just makes me sick.

The only other problem I have with this issue is this:

"Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a 'Gay Rights Platform" that included the following demand: "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." David Thorstad, a spokesman for the homosexual rights movement and NAMBLA, clearly states the objectives: 'The ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual freedom for all - not just equal rights for 'lesbians and gay men, but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children." This goal has not changed since it was articulated in 1972."

www.moneyteachers.org...

Have you ever wondered how an open pedophile website such as NAMBLA can be allowed to exist? The only bright side I can see to this horrifying scenario is that my daughter will still be protected. Sexual liberation will only apply to Man/Boy love.

What points have I not addressed?
Well I'm glad you feel I at least addressed some, because you haven't addressed any of mine.

I live honestly and openly.
But yeah, just insult and attack people without making a single cogent point, and then try and convince us with some amazing powers of knowing stuff about people.

When did Ellen ever attack Christians? Who started it?

I cried to nobody, and in fact I pity you. I pity people who believe that homosexuality in nature shows that animals are capable of sexual deviancy.
Frankly, that sounds delusional.

I'm well aware of NAMBLA, and discussed them before on ATS and how they were booted out of gay pride parades and the gay movements when their true objectives became known.
To link gay objectives to pedophilia is just another lie. I also don't consider rense.com a reliable source of information.
Be that as it may, I like people my own age, and luckily I've never been confronted with pedophilia.
But it is wrong, wheresoever it exists, and I've only heard accounts from friends of how they were molested by family members, and it took a terrible toll on their lives.
Often religion plays a part from what one sees on the news, not because religion justifies it, but simply because churches are a space where adults do have access to children.
Due to the undeserved respect given to thugs who infiltrate religions, people are also slow to question, because they find the gibberish these hypocrites sprout highly impressive for some reason.

Religions (including some so-called Bible-based sects in the USA today) are known to marry girl-children to aged adult men.
It's not even forbidden by the Bible.
So straight pedophiles don't need sexual liberation - they justify it by religion.

I am attracted to the same gender, but I could be a self-loathing, dishonest homosexual.
But no - I choose to love men!
Yes I choose to celebrate my sexuality and my identity!

Anyway, those are the only real arguments I could tangle out of that post.

Pastor sires children with own daughter and quotes Genesis 19 www.iol.co.za...
God-fearing uncle and church elder accused of raping 15 children, some as young as 3 www.timeslive.co.za...
Suffice to say that when it comes to pedophilia, religion has a lot to answer for, and except for such cults I cannot think of a single accepted group in "sexual liberation" that currently proposes the normalization of child/adult relationships. What sexual liberation wants is the equality of all adult relationships, precisely because it draws a clear line between acceptable and illicit sexuality.

Actually I find that many people feel accountable, except for some religious fundies that view themselves above the social order.
They find themselves accountable only to their version of God (whom they've never proven or shown to anybody, so this spook obviously just lives in their heads), and other astounding metaphysical drivel, and theological horrors like heaven or hell.

I bought the OP's book a few years back, and enjoyed it very much.
I just hope he doesn't take the Old Testament so literally that he sells his daughter for Shekels.
But I doubt that very much.

I'm just wondering, since rense.com (from your link above) is often considered an anti-Semitic hate site, how does the OP feel about this, as a self-constructed Rabbi?
Or perhaps it's not a hate site?
We don't know Rense here, and I've only read something from his site once, where it was claimed that the Christian fundamentalist men's ministry called the Promise Keepers were encouraged to imagine a naked Jesus.
What I've Googled so far on him seems very batty.

Just to clarify above: when I say I bought the OP's book The Pagan-Christian Connection Exposed, I mean Michael Rood from the OP's clip, and not the ATS member.

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by PurpleSun

 

Church fleaders maintain that the when God refers to "us" he means himself and only himself. His eternal self that has always existed and his infinite self that creates and is inherent in all that he has created. The trinity is a concept of Christianity. The word trinity is not used in any Bible, it is a creation of church figures of the 16th century to piece together confounding New Testament scriptures ; it is a combination of the Holy spirit, Yeshua , and Yahweh. Though Yeshua is the word of god in the flesh, there's nothing to conclude that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God.
Many scriptures actually assert that they are indeed seperate, but in the end the word of Yeshua trumps all.

Within in the old testament Yahweh is always portrayed as a physical, earthly presence; this idea of an invisible magical power is a complete fabrication by gross mistranslations from a secondary source, and the perpetuation of ignorance by the leading authorities throughout time.

edit on 10-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)

I have no care what church leaders say for the reason you just conveyed... Yahweh is the only one who's word means anything and should be looked at for meaning. I do agree with you - His word does trump all...and I also agree, as you say, that Yeshua is God in flesh.

this is exactly why it's important for people to KNOW what their own bible reads in it's original text and not the "perpetuation of ignorance by the leading authorities throughout time" as you say If only more people could understand that the TRUE word of our God is not what most people think/belief it is....it is there, ready for them to read if they choose to devote their time to it, but instead most just take it as it's spoon fed to them and yet I'm the badgirl because while I am a Christian, I don't accept what "authorities" have made the books out to be after reading them in the original text for myself - something 99% of Christians will never do.

.
There is no law that people who were Jews had to have Hebrew names.

edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Agreed..the law is that a Rabbi must have a Hebrew name....Yeshua was a rabbi, and since He had not sinned, He must have had a Hebrew name - which is not Jesus. Jesus is the name (as you said) given through combinations of translations.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by CaptainNemo

 

No, there are historical records from the time of Christ, of people named Jesus, and that goes back even before the Jesus we know about, it was a common name. Jesus is the Greek version of an older language people did not speak except for rabbis who were especially trained in that dead language.
The old name from which Jesus' name was derived was the name we think of as, Joshua. What people are actually doing is back translating Joshua to the Hebrew or Aramaic. They are not translating Jesus because the name Jesus is the actual name, and not a translation of anything but an adaptation of a word from one language to another to use the idea of the name but not the actual name itself, thus creating a new name in its own right.
Jesus is the name given in the New Testament and there is no legitimate reason to believe that the Apostles got it wrong. So, in summery, people who don't believe in Jesus do not believe the testimony of the Apostles and are not Christians and are damned to Hell.

You see it would've have been an impossibility for the messiah to have been called Jesus.

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier: Do you really think that for millions of years no one ever made a sound that is similar to today's J ?
What you are quoting is one person's opinion and you should read my thread on the subject:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Your facts are mixed up. Yeshua was the 4th most common name at the time, not Jesus. Jesus was not a known name. It was impossible to call the name of the Messiah "Jesus"...he would've looked around for who you were referring to since that was not His name. I think it's horribly disrespectful for so many "Christians" to proclaim their faith and say homosexuals will burn in hell and yet they don't even know the name of their Savior.

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Do you really think that for millions of years no one ever made a sound that is similar to today's J ?

Of course they did, writing it is a different story, and it only dates back 5000 B.C. And the letter 'g' and a few other combinations make the same sound as J. So you see, that doesn't mean the apostles were writing down that sound. They wrote in Greek, that doesn't mean they were writing 'J' sound or something similar. If you did a little more thinking into what you're trying to say you'd realize how WRONG you are.

And yes Yeshua is derived from the name Joshua

Pause and take a look at the etymological history of the word Jesus:

Jesus: Hebrew/Aramaic yeshu‘a became Greek Iēsous, then Latin Iesus, passing into German and then, ultimately, into English, as Jesus.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

You're contention would be based on the idea that English is derived from Greek, which it is most obviously NOT.

Also Hell does not exist, it too is also an invention to keep simple minded mind-slaves such as yourself in line; but I can forsee how the debate between you and I would go on the topic so I will spare myself the energy.

edit on 10-2-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)

Captain Nemo, thank you for taking the time to show the facts as they are instead of thoughts/opinions. I did that very research in my teens and think of it as common sense while it seems to not be very common knowledge.