NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release June 9, 1999
Subject: Bible Corruption
As many of us know, the original Scriptures of the New Testament were written in Greek. I recently acquired an authoritative monolingual Greek dictionary (Neon Orthographikon Hermineutikon Lexikon, by Demetriou B. Demetrakou, 1959), which includes Ancient, New Testament and Modern Greek. That’s an “all Greek” dictionary where both the entry words and their definitions are in Greek. For the following basis words, I have translated each word in its definition to English, and have secured the final result:
Fornication: (e.g., [KJV] “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication” –1Thes. 4:3). In the modern day English dictionary, fornication is defined as “voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons.” The original Greek Scripture word for fornication is pronounced “pornia [πορνεία],” which is defined as “to have sexual intercourse delivering woman/wife to/upon man/husband during/under/for money.” (The dictionary also indicates that this is the definition from B.C. to now.) There is absolutely nothing in the definition (old or new) about prohibiting “free” sex between single (unmarried) persons. Therefore, the English Bible word of “fornication” should instead correctly read as just “prostitution,” thence not condemning innocent single people. Note that the Greek word for woman/wife (gunaikos [γυναικός]) and man/husband (andra [ανδρα]) both are words that express that the people can be either “single” to each other OR MARRIED to each other (wife, husband). As a matter of fact, “gunaikos” is translated in the New Testament 93 times as “wife(s)” and “andra” is used 50 times as “husband(s).” Therefore, even a marriage that is based on an exchange of sex for money/wealth is “pornia.” Pornia is, flat out, the Greek word for “prostitution.” Pornia happens to derive from an obsolete ancient Greek (Homeric) word pronounced “perneemi [περνημι],” which means “to sell into slavery.” Pornia is also listed as a Greek New Testament “synonym” with the N.T. word “piprasko [πιπρασκω],” which means “sold,” e.g., “… went and sold all that he had ….” –Matt. 13:46. The English word “pornography” comes from the Greek, meaning “a writing about prostitutes.” Does this all mean that the Bible (the “original” Greek Scriptures) does NOT condemn “free” sex between single people if, instead, they live in Greece or just speak/understand the Greek language? – Yes, it definitely does.
The English word “fornication” comes from the Latin word “fornix,” which is defined in Latin as “a cellar used for prostitution; a brothel”; from the Roman Era establishment of underground ‘basements’ with arched ceilings (ovenlike vaults) where prostitutes lived and worked. And Latin’s “fornicatio” means “harlotry,” and “fornicaria” means “harlot” in Latin. “Fornica… (all forms thereof)” are the words used in the Vulgate (the Latin Bible, c. 400 A.D.). Incidentally, “fornica…” is used 95 times in the Vulgate’s Old Testament, which is overwhelmingly translated as just “harlot,” “whoredom” and “whoring” in the traditional King James Bible. Etymologically, the modern day English definition of “fornication” is a semantic that has changed through the centuries; hence not valid for factual Bible rendering: the corruption rests with the word, not the Bible.
Fellowship/communion: (e.g., “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship ….” –Acts 2:42). Fellowship and communion are the same word in Greek pronounced “koinonia [κοινωνία].” Clearly included in koinonia’s Greek definition is “sexual intercourse” and “promiscuity” which means “indiscriminate sexual intercourse with random partners.” Koinonia’s defin. no. three actually emphasizes “especially, the sexual intercourse”; which is indicated as being the Ancient and New Testament definition, not the Modern Day definition. In the Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott (1871) the word “koinonia” yields the affirmation “especially of sexual intercourse.” And, some English dictionaries reveal an “obsolete” definition of “sexual intercourse” under the word “fellowship”; which verifies that it was at one time a valid part of the Church’s English meaning but has since changed for some reason.
The word for fellowship/communion in the Latin Vulgate is “societas.” In Harpers’ [sic] Latin Dictionary, 1879, included in its definition of societas is “coetus” and “coire,” which both mean “coitus,” which means “sexual intercourse” in both Latin and English. Coetus, coire, coitus, societas, copulate, and sexual intercourse, by-the-way, all relate to “coeo.” “Socialis/socius” includes “coetus” and “amor” (Eros); hence, e.g., “Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my (sex) partner [socius] and fellowhelper concerning you ….” –2Cor 8:23. The Oxford Latin Dictionary defines “socio” (a form of socius) as “to have sexual intercourse”; hence, “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship (have sexual intercourse [socius]) with devils.” –1Cor 10:20. – Harpers’ “socio” definition also confirms “coetus.”
Love (agape): (e.g., “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another ….” –John 13:34). Including forms thereof, there are 321 instances in the New Testament where the word that Jesus uses for “love/beloved” is “agape [αγαπη]” in the original Greek. In English, the actual word “agape” is defined as “the early Christian love-feast”; which included a charity meal, the eucharist, and a “fellowship/communion.” The English word-roots dictionary “Words on Words,” by John B. Brimner, accounts “(sex) orgy” as the Christian agape love-feast. In the Oxford English Dictionary the word “agape” is explained as being “[now] frequently contrasted” with the ancient Greek mythological character Eros [Ερως/ερως], who is known as “the god of sexual love.” And Oxford’s “Eros” is defined as “[recently] contrasted with Agape.” I have found this “contrast” to be the case in a lot of recently published Christian literature. (This is like me introducing myself to somebody and then saying that “I am not a plumber”; which would indicate that I am addressing/clarifying a rumor going around that I was a plumber.) Now, in the monolingual Greek dictionary the word “agape” clearly indicates that Eros/eros is definitely and positively part of the definition, not the contrast. There are actually six occurrences of Eros/eros (and/or forms thereof) in the Greek definitions of agape (and forms thereof). And, the monolingual Greek definition of Eros (the god of sexual love) is clearly “the god of agape [‘ο θεος της αγαπης].” Therefore, “agape” is “sexual love.” There are other Greek words for love (like the love for money, etc.), but the sex character Eros happens to be the god of agape (“Christian”) love. There are many “older” Christian writings placing “Agape [Αγαπη]” as a “synonym” with “Eros [Ερως].” The word “erotic [ερωτικός]” – meaning “sexual desire, sexual love” – directly comes from, and is the adjective of the Greek word/character “eros/Eros.” Eros, incidentally, was reputed to make both gods and humans fall in love.
Strong’s Dictionary, Tyndale’s Word Study Concordance, and Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon all say that the New Testament Greek word “agape” is the parallel word (or is the exact cognation) of the Hebrew (Old Testament) word “agab,” which is defined in Hebrew as “sensual, amorous, inordinate love.” “Sensual” means “to provide gratification of the physical and especially the sexual appetites.” “Amorous” means “sexual love/desire”; which comes from the Latin word “Amor/amor,” which is the Latin word for “Eros.” And “inordinate” means “not regulated” (not married). Further Hebrew research defines “agab” directly as “love-making,” “sexual passion,” “sexuality,” “erotic,” “to desire,” “beloved,” “admire,” “coquetry [to flirt],” “especially love between the sexes,” “specially things which please God,” “the good pleasure of God,” etc. The Hebrew word “ahab” also has an association (secondarily) with agab and agape. Included in ahab’s definitions are “sexual love,” “sexual desire,” “sexual affection,” “making love,” “to lie with,” “romantic,” “amorous,” “amour [English for amor],” “eroticism,” “desire,” “passionate love,” “beloved,” “love-making,” “have sex,” “a sexual basis,” “flirtations,” “caresses,” “adore,” “amorous flirting,” “avarice [cupidity],” “fellowship entered into with foreign nations,” “intimate,” “love, specially as between the sexes,” “ardent [passionate],” “carnal desire,” “cupidity,” “God’s love to his people,” etc. The Ency. of Early Christianity, 1997, under “Agape (Love Feast),” page 24, says: “Most scholars believe that the origin of the noun [agape] lies in Hellenistic (Greek) Judaism (Hebrew), where it means sexual love.” Interestingly, the root of “Eros” (via “eramai [εραμαι]”) is the Ancient Greek (Homeric) word “arare (αραρη),” which means “to fit (each other) together.”
Including forms thereof, the predominant Latin Vulgate word for “agape” is “diligo,” which declares “cupio” in its definition. “Cupio” – professing “sexual/carnal/passionate/amorous desire/love/appetite” – is a form of the word “Cupid,” who is the parallel Roman mythological (Latin) character of Eros. (Cupid is on many Christian coffins, as a winged symbol of life after death.) Latin’s “caritas,” in the Vulgate, was used secondarily for agape, and cites “amor” and “libido” in its definition. “Amor,” again, is another Latin word for Eros, and “libido” is “the sexual instinct/desire.”
Years ago, there were many indications/accusations that early Christianity started out as an “orgy cult” directed originally by their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. – Continually, for THREE HUNDRED YEARS (that covers 50 different Emperors) “Christian sex orgies” were always the number one legally recorded, justification reasons for why the Roman Government persecuted/martyred the (very fast growing) Christian Sect; until, of course, the Roman Pagans took-over/intertwined-into Christianity and officially banned the Christ-ordered Agape Love-Feast (ref. Council of Laodicea, A.D. 320 [and/or 363?]; Council of Carthage, A.D. 397; and more). [Even Christmas is a Pagan holiday.] You see, “free sex” strongly competes with everything from starving women that had to “go out a-whoring” for food (and/or possessions), to courtesan’s (attractive women’s) control of wealthy men, and for them to possess. You see, early Christians were altogether fully taught “to share” their food (charity, welfare), and were instructed to avoid marriage. (The “rhythm method” was the primary method of birth-control.) The uncharitable, greedy and controlling Pagan (prostitution based) lifestyles were threatened by just the idea of “free” sex. Marriage, today, is just the result of a Pagan/later-Christian love-limiting compromise; ignoring the Bible’s warning/advice that married people “shall have trouble in the flesh,” because all people “doeth better” to NOT marry –1Cor 7:28,38. You see, marriage harnesses greed coveting lust toward an individual (just listen to music/poem lyrics). The Agape Love-Feast was said to be a “spontaneous and selfless outpouring of love, the highest manifestation of Christian brotherhood,” and “the feast of mutual love.” This Christian “love building” sex orgy was such a marvelous event that it would even cause rich people to give up all of their wealth to join, to experience/feel that much love –Acts 2:45; 4:34. Plus, the “holy kiss,” the “kiss of agape” [Rom 16:16; 1Cor 16:20; 2Cor 13:12; 1Th 5:26; 1Pet 5:14] was for all to do, to every Christian, at all greetings; similar to the way a husband kisses his wife when he gets home from work.
The official NEW church orders from the Council of Laodicea, canon 28, actually states: “It is not permitted to hold (agape) love feasts, as they are called, in the Lord’s Houses, or Churches, nor to eat and to spread couches in the house of God”; and “Beds shall not be set up in churches, nor shall (agape) love feasts be held there.” The Council of Gangra, A.D. 362?, canon 11 actually supports the Agape Love-Feast: “If anyone shall despise those who out of faith make (agape) love-feasts and invite the brethren in honour of the Lord, and is not willing to accept these invitations because he despises what is done, let him be [cut off].” The Emperor-ordered Trullo Council, A.D. 692, canon 74 mimics the Laodicea canon adding a harsh “or be cut off” as in Gangra’s canon. The Trullo Council was initially rejected by several Popes (an example of secular control/corruption of the church during the Dark Ages). [–Ref. Wheaton College website]. The Ency. Americana Intl. Edition., under “AGAPE,” says: “After the official recognition of Christianity by Rome in 313, the love feasts began to lose their religious character and were suppressed. They were last officially referred to at the Trullan (Trullo) Synod … in 692.” From about A.D. 900 - 950 “courtesan” prostitutes actually ruled the Court of the Church (the “Pornocracy”); and truth dictates that the marriage basis is just a legal/organized form of prostitution (money/conditions for sex), harnessing a “love for one” only, weakening “Jesus neighborly/mutual/nonconditional love” between ALL. By-the-way, the ancient paintings of the Agape in Rome’s Catacomb of Priscilla, and Rome’s Catacomb of SS. Peter and Marcellinus, both clearly depicts the Agape “meal” being served on a table.
One Church recorded document that details the “sex orgy” part of the Agape Love-Feast explains that they turned out the lights: “when the witnessing light has been overturned and extinguished, in the ensuing darkness which favors shamelessness, they unite in whatever revoltingly lustful embraces the hazard of chance will permit,” said a Pagan opposer of the Christians, c. A.D. 230, [ref. Minucius Felix: Octavious, by the Fathers of the Church, 1950]. This reflects a fair, equal and unselfish sexual desire for ALL (adults), instead of the normal greedy lust for just the attractive, or just to possess/control one person. It concurs 100% with the other early Christian doctrine/concerns for the needy/everybody. Another authentic account, by Bishops Epiphanius and Hippolytus, describes that in some Christian churches even married people participated in the “Love-Feast”: “They begin with a sumptuous meal, at which even the poor eat flesh and drink wine to excess. After they have inflamed themselves in this way, the husband leaves his place at his wife’s side, and says to his own wife: ‘Get up and perform Agape with the brother.’ And the wretches unite themselves with one another. …. And they congratulate themselves on their intercourse with strange women, asserting that this is perfect Agape.” I guess that that would suppress the Devil’s wish for selfish jealousy problems, and would cause an end to obsessive covetous lusts. You see, the world’s “marital jealousy standard” is really just 100% self-love, because it concerns absolutely NONE of Jesus’ “brotherly/neighborly love” interests for the desires/happiness of (1) your spouse, NOR the sexual interests/happiness for (2) “the other” (3rd party) brethren/sisters, (I can’t believe that I’m the only Christian that knows this).
By-the-way, Liddell and Scott’s 1871 definition of the Greek word for “sexual intercourse/copulation/coitus,” pronounced “sunousia [συνουσία],” elaborates “a being with or together, especially for purposes of feasting” [“love-feast”]. And Langenscheidt’s Classical Greek Dictionary connects sunousia to a “banquet” – and a “sunousiastis [συνουσίαστης]” is a “disciple.” Liddell and Scott’s 1997 lexicon calls sunousia “communion.”
The Greek, Latin, etc. definitions for fellowship/communion and agape, and the Bible’s criticism against prostitution and marriage highly indicates this Christian “free” (no strings attached) sex to be fact. However, this is a total reversal of what the modern day “Christians” are now taught; who dominate (control) all of society’s moral thought/emotions. Today’s Churches’ “number one taboo/motif/dogma,” against free sex, is simply one major livelong embedded, idolatrous (blind faith) instillment (brainwashing) process – antiquated by birth control, a (concealed) HIV preventive (-yes, really!), working women, etc.; all of which totally eliminates the “secular” pressures toward the church against sex, (just watch TV today versus the 50’s). The fact that the English have abolished fellowship’s “especially promiscuous sexual intercourse” assignment, the definition of fornication totally changed, Eros “contrasts,” etc. further proves that the current-day adamant Christian teaching/sin of “no sex between single people” is a total reversal lying corruption. Moreover, my findings, after all, actually better concur/fit with “the Golden Rule,” which was/is Jesus’ number one (“summed up”) message and “commandment.”
If monogamy/marriage wouldn’t have been the predominant standard for the human animal for so long, then viruses, etc. would have been better shared for our antibodies to be evolutionarily stronger to “know” and properly (and naturally) fight all our current harmful diseases, even colds. You see, it doesn’t make sense that God would not program our bodies with some kind of environmental protective mechanism that prevents us all from dying-out from STD’s. There’s not any STD’s in any of the “open sex” species, is there? I haven’t heard any speculation about the dinosaurs maybe dying-out because of natural STD’s, have you? But, now, we humans have to rely on medical technology to free us from disease.
In the days of Jesus, a Jewish sect called the Essenes “cared” enough to hide the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is now believed that Jesus and John the Baptist were Essenes, mainly because the Essenes practiced the unique Christian sacrament of “baptism.” In fact, many believe that Jesus was the Essenes’ leader. The Essenes are/were predominantly known for their unique denunciation of “marriage”; and that was known before the Scrolls were found in 1947. After the official scholastic examination, it was announced that a part of the Scrolls are going to be purposely concealed because “it strongly conflicts with a very important part of the Catholic Church teaching” (“believe it or not!” –Robert Ripley). What is more, some say the Church actually destroyed some of the Scrolls. It is believed that the Essenes became/joined the Christian Gnostics, who also denounced marriage.
1Cor 7:1 – “… It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” “Woman” here, again, is woman/wife (gunaikos [γυναικός]) denoting that she can be either single or “a wife.” But, in the rest of the same chapter (1Cor 7) every entry of “wife” (total of 19) uses the same word (gunaikos, and/or forms thereof). Therefore, to conform with consistency, 1Cor 7:1 should give “wife” the benefit of the doubt. This would also much better follow with Paul’s criticism against marriage, in the rest of the same chapter (1Cor 7); whereas, otherwise, saying that it is good to (generically) not “touch a woman” at all, destroys mankind; because Paul recommends all to not become married [read all of 1Cor 7]. You see, per the Corinthians’ request, Paul “allowed” Christians to marry, but only “as a concession, not a commandment” [1Cor 7:6]; which started at this epistle’s point-in-time only, obviously overruling an earlier authority/belief (Jesus Christ). You see, Corinth swarmed with prostitution, more than any other Roman city, and, if the money’s right, marrying a well-off or wealthy man, or even just a good provider, can definitely be an acceptable resolution for a prostitute; whereas “free” sex totally goes against everything a prostitute has been taught. The affix “-αικός” in “γυναικός” designates that woman/wife is being used as the possessive (“genitive”) case-of-noun.
“To touch” in Greek is “haptesthai [‘απτεσθαι].” Liddell and Scott’s 1871 lexicon defines haptesthai’s “to touch” as only definition no. four – but, defin. no. one is “to fasten or bind to.” Therefore, the majority, predominant and consistent translation is “… It is good for a man not to fasten/bind to a wife.” “Haptesthai” is also defined as “to engage with one,” “to join,” “to fasten oneself to,” “to cling to,” “to overtake,” “to be kindled,” “to take fire,” “to fasten for oneself,” “to adhere to,” “to attach,” “to hold on to,” “to enter upon,” “to seize,” “to grasp” and more.
Many English Bible versions minister 1Cor 7:1 as: “… It is good for a man not to marry.” –New Intl. Ver. [NIV]; “… You asked, ‘Is it best for people not to marry?’” –Contemporary Eng. Ver. [CEV]; “… It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried.” –The Amplified Bible [AB]; “… A man does well not to marry.” –The Good News Bible (Today’s Eng. Ver.) [TEV]; “… my answer is that if you do not marry, it is good.” –The Living Bible [LB]. – As you can see, these clarify a totally different message/directive than the King James Versions. The Greek-Eng. Lex. of the N.T. Based on Semantic Domains, by Louw & Nida, United Bible Society, entry 34.70 states 1Cor 7:1 as: “… it is good for a man not to get married.”
The Greek N.T. word for “marriage” is “gamos [γαμος].” “Prostitution” is included as part of gamos’s definition, in Liddell and Scott’s 1871 lexicon. The root of “gamos” is “gento [γεντο],” which means “to seize or grasp.” “Gento” also relates to “himasthleen [‘ιμασθλην]” and “mastix [μαστιξ],” which both mean “a whip, lash.” The early Christian Apologist Tatian “pronounced marriage to be corruption and prostitution” –Eusebius, H.E. IV. xxix. 3. Numerous early Christians denounced marriage, with many Church Councils forcing them to change. You see, the “original Scriptures” actually said that women/churches-performing-marriages are NOT supposed to “sell” (pornia) something that is supposed to be “free” and “blessed” –Gen. 1:22,28. (To “bless” means “to bestow happiness or good things upon; to make and produce holy.”) Today’s changed definition of “fornication” actually takes attention away from the “selling (conditions)” of sex, and instead falsely conveys the TOTAL opposite against “free” sex.
Virgin: (e.g., “There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” –1Cor 7:34). First of all, in Luke 23:29,30 Jesus actually clearly prophesied that future sinful people “shall say” that nuns/virgins (in today’s definitions) will be symbolized as most “blessed.” Compare with Rev. 6:15,16. And, today’s overwhelming belief of a “sex-only-in-marriage Jesus” definitely proves that we are entirely “in the dry” –Luke 23:31. – Even if you don’t go to church, clergies do “control” (set the basis for) the entire public consensus concerning “morality,” which causes the overall “idea” of shame and guilt; or worse, a cause for people to reject the Church altogether; which will result in them seeing absolutely no reason to abide by the correct, most important (by far) church teaching of “the Golden Rule”; which does effect/damage the welfare of us ALL (including productivity). It makes sense to me, anyway, why we live in such a dishonest, backstabbing, dog-eat-dog world. And get this: many single/divorced women will get an abortion just because of the church-caused stigma/disgrace of having a baby with no husband. – Oh yea. So who’s the real killers?
“Virgin” in Greek is “parthenos [παρθενος].” “Parthenos” includes the definition “unmarried woman,” which is indicated as being the Ancient and New Testament definition only, not the Modern Day definition of “woman not yet sexual intercourse,” which covers the Ancient to Now. But, anytime you incorporate the meaning of an “unmarried woman” you are declaring that she may or may NOT be a “virgin (never had sex)”; especially, since a woman can be married and still be a “virgin (not having sex [yet]).” Therefore, “virgin (never had sex)” has to be ONLY a secondary (but legitimate) connotation to “parthenos” – which is better described in English as a “maiden” (an unmarried woman, which may or may not have had sex yet [“unmarried or virgin”]). Therefore, “parthenos” in the time of Paul correctly meant “maiden,” in today’s English. The Greek word for “maiden” is also “parthenos.” In my Homeric (c. 850 B.C.) lexicon, “parthenos” is fully defined as “a young unmarried woman, a maid, a maiden, a girl.” The modern-day details for “parthenos” that include “incorrupt, pure, clean, innocent, unpolluted, unsoiled, immaculate, not contaminated, undamaged, unharmed, unhurt, etc.” can still be correctly applied to just “unmarried” women, especially since THE BIBLE recommends all to NOT marry. By-the-way, “parthenos” is the word used in “the Virgin Mary,” fitting Jesus’ birth into … “reality.” – Is that an “O.K.” word to use (“reality”) when addressing the churches? Plus, Paul defines “virgin” as “unmarried woman.”
Now, in the English, many etymologies (word roots) say that “virgin” originally just meant “an unmarried woman”; just like how “celibate” originally just meant “an unmarried person (of either sex),” which changed to “abstaining from sex” only within the last 100 years. The word “virgin” arrived at its modern day meaning of “never had sex” because the later church, that tabooed even the thought of a woman (only) having sex out-of-marriage, made her either “married” or “a virgin”; not addressing the realistic possibility that a woman “could” have sex out-of-wedlock, which is called the obscene/vulgar word “slut”; of which there are no male counterparts, except for “bastard,” which accurately “devourers (wastes, destroys) a male child at birth”–Rev. 12:4. Plus, if Paul, a recruiter of Gentiles, only interpreted “parthenos” as “never yet had sex” then he wouldn’t have been addressing the “sexually active” unmarried women in Corinth; which where known to be prostitutes (sexually active). By-the-way, “celibate” in Greek is “agamos [αγαμος],” which is a compound word of the prefix “a-[α-]” meaning “not” or “un-” plus “gamos [γαμος]” meaning “marriage”; hence “not married” or “unmarried”; which is found in 1Cor 7:8,11,32,34. The following English Bibles discern 1Cor 7:34’s “virgin” instead as “unmarried woman, woman who is not married, girl, etc.”: RSV, CEV, NCV, NEB, AB, LB.
Adultery: (e.g., “Thou shalt not commit adultery”). The Greek word for adultery is pronounced (A.D. 30) “moikia [μοιχεία],” which is explained as “to break/breach/violate a promise/contract/one’s word of marital/a wife’s trusted sworn oath guaranteed/warranted and believed credible,” or more briefly described as “to break a promise of marital trust,” including “infringement of the terms of the marriage contract.” Therefore “moikia” is not limited to just sexual infidelity but covers the breaking of any marriage vow, including divorce. Plus, this definition also alludes that the moral ethics in “moikia” should be extended to include all (marital and non-marital) promises, warranties and contracts; whereas, otherwise, the principles of the Ten Commandments has no (is missing) conditions for promise/warranty/contract breaking – which can include “the later changing of one’s mind” differing it from the unmediated/direct lie of “bearing false witness.” Ethics dictates that a person should not break a trusted, relied upon, promise just because they subsequently change their mind/desire. This Greek definition of adultery is also consistent with the Golden Rule. – It’s like how, just because the “basis” of slavery is Ungodly doesn’t mean that a slave has the Godly right to wrong his master; nor should a man leave a Nevada brothel (pornion [πορνειον]) without paying the prostitute (porni [πόρνη]). So if you’ve vowed a lifetime to your wife to give her your money/wealth for her company (sex), then you should not break the promise (divorce). – In a monogamous based society, you can devastate a person by divorcing them, or by having an affair. Even just a voicing/appearance/trace of sexual interest for another can cause problems with your spouse [Matt 5:28]. Also note that the English word “adultery” comes from an Old-French/Middle-English word called “avowter-y” [ref. Oxford Eng. Dict.]. In Middle-English, “avow” does correspond directly to the word “vow” (a solemn promise/pledge). The word “spouse” comes from the Greek word “spendo [σπενδω],” which meant “make an agreement”; and from the Latin word “sponsus,” which means/pinpoints “a person who had promised something,” “a person who has made a contract” [ref. Word Origins, by Wilfred Funk, Litt. D.]; and in Harpers’ Latin Dict., 1879: “to promise solemnly, to bind,” “a binding contract,” “to become security for a person,” “to promise or engage in marriage, betroth,” “to enter into an agreement,” “to warrant, give assurance of.”
Homosexuality: Rom. 1:26-29 is supposedly understood to be the only stable New Testament condemnation against homosexuality, but it is actually of the contrary. – If you look at the words “gave them up” [Rom. 1:26] and “gave them over” [Rom. 1:28] in the Greek, both are “paradidomi” [παραδίδωμι], which means “to grant,” “to bestow,” “to allow one to do,” “to permit,” “to recommend,” “to consecrate,” “to bring forth,” “to bring about that,” etc. – yea, how about that? – therefore, Paul was actually saying that God allowed/permitted homosexuality/lesbianism, overruling (“gave over”) the Old Testament’s [Lev. 18:22; 20:13] denunciation against unseemly/unnatural homosexuality. Paul was saying that God overrode what was seemingly (“unseemly” [Rom. 1:27]) unnatural (“did change the natural use” [Rom. 1:26]), to better (more tangibly) eliminate/purge (“being filled with” [Rom. 1:29]) “the evil … [Rom.1:29-31].” (Jesus overruled/fulfilled many parts of the Old Testament.) As we all know, stopping “evil … [Rom. 1:29-31]” is God’s/Jesus’/people’s goal; and homo/bi-sexuality is apparently a “love building” resource that’s “available free” for us to fight the never-ending “evil … [Rom. 1:29-31].” I’m not gay (or bisexual), but logically, in the same way that heterosexual love builds emotional caring/concern for the opposite sex, so does homosexuality for the same sex. So apparently, the Lord has concluded that the emotional caring/concern in an open bisexual world would “eventually” cause a universal loving world; which is all very much parallel with Jesus’ “love (agape) your neighbor/enemies.” As long as the sex stays non-possessional then jealousy (selfish limitations) and other human control problems won’t get in the way. The Lord has apparently seen that nothing else will work to fight evil. Nope, just asking/telling people to treat each other good doesn’t work. People will not change based on logic, only emotion. – Attestant to this are the bonobo chimps of Zaire, our closest living relatives. They are openly bisexual; which is said to be the reason why they are the least violent (and the most peace-loving [true Christian]) of all primates.
In Rom. 1:27 the Greek better confirms that Paul is more clearly saying that homosexuals “enjoyed earning/discovering [απολαμβανω] (‘receiving’)” a “pleasing given reward [αντιμισθία] (‘recompense’)” (not a problem/suffering) for doing the “[un]naturual [φυσικός]/unseemly [ασχημοσύνη]” “mistaken delusion/opinion [πλανη] (‘error’)” which was “necessary [δει] (‘meet’).” (Please realize, though, that the other majority of English Bible words are “right on the money/level” with the original Greek.) Eros also represented homosexual love. Many times people do accept the “unnatural”; e.g., monogamy is “unnatural” but the churches have no problem recommending/demanding it, do they? Homosexuality did not actually become a “sin” in the Church until the 13th Century, when homosexuality became a “secular” crime punishable by death [ref. Dr. John Boswell, Theologian, Yale Univ.].
As a conclusion, pre-marital sex and homo/bi-sexuality are definitely NOT sins! And, contrarily, “open” sex with a variety of adults is Christ recommended, because it builds/distributes more “tangible” (real) love/interest, and even optimizes our immune system. However, if one vow’s exclusive provisions to another (marriage), where a person is relying on the other, then the number one Golden Rule has precedence.
By-the-way, the Apocalypse is defined as when God destroys the ruling powers of religious evil for the salvation of true righteousness [Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary]. What else could disrupt the integrity of our current religious leaders/liars than the public presentation of these sexual truths? And why not? – all churches do (in today’s era) is falsely guarantee all the SINNERS forgiveness, which (subconsciously) makes them feel “properly justified” to sin (“real” sin) again (whenever it’s to their advantage), against us! If an individual wants to find out how to be good to others, they don’t need to go to church, all they “need” to do is just simply “be good to others,” right? The church is supposed to be a school of religion, not a cop-out. The impact of this apocalyptic shock would be felt/suffered only by the dishonest scholars, translators and religious/Bible publishers: secular business, honest church services, and “satisfied” and vowed lifestyles would/should go on as usual. – Things/the-future/even worker-motivation will only improve, once the condemnation against innocent people is lifted. Just getting these “power” people to simply admit to their lies and/or “errors” is, by far, the largest hurdle toward universal happiness. Nonetheless, many evil minds will adamantly retain these false charges against the innocent, just so to subliminally support their own bogus salvation cop-outs (clergies wrongly believe their “abnormal sexual deficiency” is their “ticket into heaven,” while “devouring children at birth [Rev. 12:4]” and leading the naturally elevated sexual appetites into misery, welfare, suicide, drugs, crime, etc.); so if you’re an Antichrist, you now know what further documents are in need of your corruption/suppression. But realize: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all the time, but …”
I have gathered/correlated (and/or have access to) a lot more information, and I have translated a lot more Bible words that further supports these points, and more; but to keep this letter from becoming too long I ask that you write me if you would like more, or more specific, information/particulars; and/or for photocopy verification of the above.
“amor (sexual love) vincit omnia” [Latin],
Anonymous
P.O. Box 4035
Olathe, Kansas 66063-4035