R&I – FS
Hi
Paedophilia, not Homosexuality was The Biblical Scourge!
Modern conservative Christians are fixated on Homosexuality, and the Church of Rome would agree just to take the heat away from the Roman Church’s worldwide paedophile pandemic. That said, it is not solely Catholicism that is struggling in this day and age. Protestantism too has its problems of paedophilia in its ranks not to mention closeted homosexuals. One knows that throughout society both paedophilia and homosexuality exist. With homosexuals being more and more acceptable through equal right laws within democratic countries following the Human right acts. However, most homophobic are part and parcel of the Christian Church, who have been indoctrinated by bigots to believe that is what the Bible states. However, the term homosexual in the Englisce Bible translation did not come about until 1946, replacing mostly the term fornication from the Greek word porneia. The word the false apostle Paul used was the Greek compound word “arsenokoitai.” The word “arsen/o/koitai” (Male Bed) shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to mean “homosexual” not until February 1946, when the New Testament RSV translation was published.
ttps://um-insight.snet/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/
Also, one would believe that other language biblical translations would be the same, however, the German Biblical translation is more authentic to the old tradition. I am not saying that they are true to the Gospel autographs, there are no autographs, just copies of copies, etc. The term most used by the Greeks for male on male sexual behaviour is pederasty (paiderastia), the ‘love of boys.‘ Martin Luther’s original German translation of 1534, was knabenschander. Knaben means boy, schander means molester ‘boy molesters.’ In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:26-27, Homosexual was translated from ‘Boy molesters.’ Without question, it was wrongly translated by ignorance and bigotry, on the part of homophobic Christians biblical translators. There is no doubt about that, the term if any are to be employed, Paedophiles should be used. As we know, that the various churches having plagued humankind with Paedophilia from before 306 CE and through the ages to the present time. From the very top echelon of the church. Thousands of Catholic Bishops (paedophile priests, they are another story) I am on about Church hierarchy worldwide who have been named and shamed and in most cases, the Church has defended them! https://www.bishop-accountability.org/bishops/accused/global_list_of_accused_bishops.htm#WESOLOWSKI
A Hypothesis
Did the early Church instigate a deception and suppression in antiquity to focus the blame on all the ills of the Church on what we term since the 1880s as homosexuals? Instead of the real culprit that plagued the Church and its priesthoods sexual immorality—paedophilia a term used since 1900? The canons of the Synod (Council) of Elvira in the then Roman province of Hispania (now Granada Spain) c. 306 CE. Showing that the Church hierarchy knew about priest involvement in child sex abuse before the time of the Synod. Sexual morality was one of the reasons the Synod was called to clean up the sexual immorality of both Flamens/Priest and Virgins/Nuns. The canons of Elvira are the earliest records of forced celibacy on the clergy. The characters of the canons are mainly of sexual morality, bigotry of the Jews and anti-Pagans being the syllabus of the other canons. The Virgins/Nuns too came under fire for their sexual improprieties.
Canon 2. Flamens (a priest in a temple) who have been baptized but who then offer sacrifices will double their guilt by adding murder (if they organize public games) or even triple it with sexual immorality, and they cannot receive communion even when death approaches.
canon 13. Virgins (Nuns) who have been consecrated to God shall not receive communion even as death approaches if they have broken the vow of virginity and do not repent. If, however, they repent and do not engage in intercourse again, they may receive communion when death approaches.
Canon 14. If a virgin (nuns) does not preserve her virginity but then marries the man, she may receive communion after one year, without doing penance, for she only broke the laws of marriage. If she has been sexually active with other men, she must complete a penance of five years before being readmitted to communion.
Canon 18. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, once they have taken their place in the ministry, shall not be given communion even at the time of death if they are guilty of sexual immorality. Such scandal is a serious offence.
On forced Celibacy
Canon 33. Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.
On Jewish Bigotry
Canon 50. If any cleric or layperson eats with Jews, he or she shall be kept from communion as a way of correction.
To my female commentators and friends a warning from the past where women are seen as wicked in the eyes of the Church!
Canon 35. Women are not to remain in a cemetery during the night. Some engage in wickedness rather than prayer.
Canon 67. A woman who is baptized or is a catechumen must not associate with hairdressers or men with long hair. If she does this, she is to be denied communion.
Both canons are still legal today for Catholic females.
http://www.conorpdowling.com/library/council-of-elvira The canon citations is in both Latin and Englisce.
There are translations and there are translations unless they are word for word they are fabrications and that is what we have with the Bible, what do you say?
Cofion
Jero Jones
Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/