Romans 1: 18 - 32

[Fool]

Is Romans 1:18-32 a testament against the natural vs spiritual, heterosexuality, and idolatry?? And is a polemic created by the Pauline character(s) behind it.

I say yes.


Evidently the naassene believed so too

The Naassenes

 

[Darkforbid]

WTF?

 

[night912]

And this shows that god, or at least what is believed as god, was created by man, in the image of man.

 

[leov]

Is Romans 1:18-32 a testament against the natural vs spiritual, heterosexuality, and idolatry?? And is a polemic created by the Pauline character(s) behind it.

I say yes.


Evidently the naassene believed so too

The Naassenes

it is more complecated: creature is demiurge

 

[Deeje]

Is Romans 1:18-32 a testament against the natural vs spiritual, heterosexuality, and idolatry?? And is a polemic created by the Pauline character(s) behind it.

A very informative passage of scripture....succinctly stated.

"For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.

24 Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 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.


28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice, being whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them."

All of Paul's teachings were from Jesus Christ, imparted to him by means of God's spirit. They are an integral part of the Bible's canon so that we will not be tempted to disregard the clear directives that he taught....especially in this time of the end when 'what is bad is good, and what is good is bad'. This is why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was God's exclusive property.

Evidently the naassene believed so too

Who has ever heard of the Naassenes? Why should we take notice of what they believed?

Sectarianism is what corrupted the Jewish religion and its what has corrupted Christendom.....we never learn. All we have to do is stick closely to what God has had written in his instruction manual, and add nothing.

It is so much better to say "the Bible says" something plain and simple, than "I think this is what it meant to say". If what we believe agrees with everything else in the Bible, then we are on the right track IMO. It doesn't not contradict itself.

 

[pearl]

Is Romans 1:18-32 a testament against the natural vs spiritual, heterosexuality, and idolatry?? And is a polemic created by the Pauline character(s) behind it.

I think first and foremost the passage has to do with idolatry, which is the
abomination. Homosexual acts were performed as part of this idolatry.

 

[Fool]

Who has ever heard of the Naassenes? Why should we take notice of what they believed?

Sectarianism is what corrupted the Jewish religion and its what has corrupted Christendom.....we never learn. All we have to do is stick closely to what God has had written in his instruction manual, and add nothing.

It is so much better to say "the Bible says" something plain and simple, than "I think this is what it meant to say". If what we believe agrees with everything else in the Bible, then we are on the right track IMO. It doesn't not contradict itself.

The naassene are the first form of Christianity that hyppolytus goes gunning for in refutation of all heresies.

The Christian Bible canons are an incomplete book of mostly western propaganda.

 

[Galateasdream]

It seems to be a polemic against: God-blindness; idolatry; male and female homosexuality; and a range of other sins (greed etc).

 

[Fool]

I think first and foremost the passage has to do with idolatry, which is the
abomination. Homosexual acts were performed as part of this idolatry.

Romans tended to basically havea negative disdain towards homosexuality. It's interesting that it's first mentioned in this very book.

Worshipping a man is idolatrous.



Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome, though professional prostitutes and entertainers might remain sexually available well into adulthood.

 

[Galateasdream]

@Fool
Bottom-/Sissy-shaming has been around a long time, I see.

 

[Fool]

@Fool
Bottom-/Sissy-shaming has been around a long time, I see.

it wasn't for the Greeks.

 

[Jim]

Romans 2 - 4 are about circumcision. It looks to me like some of the Jewish followers of Jesus are lording it over the gentile followers, telling them that they have to be circumcised and follow all the Jewish laws. I see Paul objecting to that, saying that the Jews aren’t following the laws themselves. I see Romans 1 saying that because they’ve turned away from worshiping God to worshiping themselves and their idols, He has abandoned them to their lawless pursuit of self-gratification.

 

[Fool]

Romans 2 - 4 are about circumcision. It looks to me like some of the Jewish followers of Jesus are lording it over the gentile followers, telling them that they have to be circumcised and follow all the Jewish laws. I see Paul objecting to that, saying that the Jews aren’t following the laws themselves. I see Romans 1 saying that because they’ve turned away from worshiping God to worshiping themselves and their idols, He has abandoned them to their lawless pursuit of self-gratification.

no offense, but we're discussing romans 1. what is interesting is there is an immediate switch from a judaism focus to a roman focus with romans.

 

[Jim]

no offense, but we're discussing romans 1. what is interesting is there is an immediate switch from a judaism focus to a roman focus with romans.

You don’t want to consider the context, who Paul is writing to and why, and what he might be leading up to?

 

[Fool]

You don’t want to consider the context, who Paul is writing to and why, and what he might be leading up to?

not really. I realize who he is writing to but he confesses himself to be a pharisee; which are the very folks that Jesus was at odds with most. it would seem he is trying to establish legitimacy to be doing what he does. and even stranger is his focus on the natural vs the spiritual in said book. he usually rails against the natural.

but then why give so much focus to a person who wasn't part of the 3.5 years?


For (the Naassene) says, there is the hermaphrodite man. According to this account of theirs, the intercourse of woman with man is demonstrated, in conformity with such teaching, to be an exceedingly wicked and filthy (practice).27 For, says (the Naassene), Attis has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male,28 but a new creature,29 a new man, which is hermaphrodite. As to where, however, they use the expression "above," I shall show when I come to the proper place (for treating this subject). But they assert that, by their account, they testify that Rhea is not absolutely isolated, but-for so I may say-the universal creature; and this they declare to be what is affirmed by the Word. "For the invisible things of Him are seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made by Him, even His eternal power and Godhead, for the purpose of leaving them without excuse. Wherefore, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, nor gave Him thanks; but their foolish heart was rendered vain. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into images of the likeness of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore also God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." What, however, the natural use is, according to them, we shall afterwards declare. "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"-now the expression that which is unseemly signifies, according to these (Naasseni), the first and blessed substance, figureless, the cause of all figures to those things that are moulded into shapes,-"and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."30 For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs, and a hidden mystery of blessed pleasure, are comprised. For the promise of washing is not any other, according to them, than the introduction of him that is washed in, according to them, life-giving water, and anointed with ineffable31 ointment (than his introduction) into unfading bliss.