Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

[Jon-E]

It most certainly is, especially for specialists in Greek who look up the citation. Claiming there is no support given seems disingenuous to me.


One of the quote talked about love of boys and lusts. It is not as explicit as Paul by references man&^%ers (pardon my nonexistent French) for those who did stuff to the boys and men who'd gone the equivalent of gay transgender. Either Philo went much further than the law of Moses thinking such men deserved to be executed (not sure if that is in the Philo quotes on that site off the top of my head), or else he considered those who did such to be participants in male homo-sex.

I also noticed I did not include the link to the article that went into some depth on the BDAG article: https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/06/26/the-story-of-ἀρσενοκοίτης-according-to-bdag/

If scholars can accept motherbedder, slavebedder, unclebedder, and brotherbedder as literal terms meaning what they sound like, and refer to men who penetrate or otherwise similarly stimulate themselves with these types of individuals, why would only 'manbedder' mean something different? There is actually a passage where arsenos koiten with their partners were to be put to death in the Old Testament, and the passage explains it is a man lying with a man as one does with a woman. A restriction on this falls in a passage against adultury and sex with animals. It is clear what it means.

There are some ideologically PhDs (ThDs, MAs, MTh's etc.) who want to change the meaning of this word because it doesn't fit with their socio-political viewpoint. You have not presented anything convincing to those who hold the scriptures in high esteem. Trying to twist Paul's condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior into people going against their own nature/sexual orientation, while admitting that scholars point out that sexual orientation was not a first century concept, is absurd. Since I came across the idea nearly three decades ago, I am guessing that you borrowed it from other scripture-twisters.

Maybe you have some years of your life invested in all this stuff. Rather than to work so hard to try to justify yourself and to mislead others down this same harmful path, why don't you confess your sin and repent? Just think of the harm you could be causing to young people you influence down the path of sin.

I also have a question for you. How do you think this all fits with God's overall plan for marriage? Paul wrote in in I Corinthians 7 to prevent fornication let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband. He also presents celibacy as an option. He says one has a gift after this manner, and another after that. We are talking about two choices here-- marriage or celibacy. Where does homo-sex fit into that?

Are you consistent in allowing and encouraging singles to fornicate? If a man feels oriented toward having sex with married women, is that okay with you? What if two gay twin brothers wanted to 'gay marry' each other. Is that okay with you? What about father and son?

In Ephesians 5, marriage is to express the relationship between Christ and the church. How do two men or two men do that?

You try looking up those references in the BDAG and see how far you get. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon of classical Greek has dozens of references also, but they found none that showed malakos meant a catamite! The full quotes the web site gave from Philo certainly dies not prove malakos refers to the passive partner in male with male sex! Then why would Paul even have Philo in mind in his usage of malakos considering who Philo was, as from the Wikipedia -

"Philo... Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt. Philo's deployment of allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with Greek philosophy was the first documented of its kind, and thereby often misunderstood."

Paul's view of such philosophers: "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:" (Col 2:8, ERV)

Remember, I went to the Greek OT for two of the uses of malakos and that may rank higher than non-canonical sources -

"There is another consideration; the Greek of the New Testament differs materially in its character from the classical Greek, or from the Greek language as a whole...For example, when the Greek word hades is used, we are not thereby committed to a belief in all the fabulous ideas of the Greeks concerning the abode of the dead, for the word was but the representative of the Hebrew word sheol, which is almost always translated hades in the Greek Testament. Hence in studying this Greek word in the New Testament we are not to go to the Greek classics to find out what they mean by the word hades, but rather to the Hebrew prophets to learn in what sense they use the Hebrew word sheol, of which it is the Greek equivalent."
From "A Greek-English Lexicon to The New Testament Revised and Enlarged by Thomas Sheldon Green, 1896."

The definitions of arsenokoites in the BDAG fit the meaning of "sodomite" more accurately then condemning the loving companionship between two males that includes the erotic element. The actual definition reads: "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen" The Bold Italics give the formal definition in the BDAG -

The BDAG in the Forward gives the way definitions are written:
"Extended definitions are given in bold roman and may be followed by one or more formal equivalents in bold italics. The user of the lexicon can explore such equivalents for translation of passages that follow, but within the boundaries of the definition."

Pederast or sodomite may fit 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, but NOT homosexual or male to male lovers.

As to your questions about fornication and marriage, I've answered before in this thread and it is lengthy and I'll not go through it again here. I'll just say the Bible gives no support for same-sex marriage, but since God said it is not good for man to be alone, there is a passage that those incapable of marriage can use as a guide: Eccl. 4:7-12. It has been emphasized that in Matt. 19:12 the word is "eunuchs". But that word is not always meant to be taken literally. As more than one translations shows:

"There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12, Weymouth)
Mat 19:12 Williams "For some are born incapable of marriage, and some have been made so by men, and some have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can."
Both of those translations existed before same gender relationships were a Bible discussion.

 

[Jon-E]

Why don't we talk abortion in another thread. Oxford online dictionary uses 'baby' to describe the inhabitants of the womb. Latin uses of fetus have little to do with the scripture or teaching when it comes to abortion. It is fine for an etymology forum.

That is a strange definition of "fetus" as a baby past 8 weeks as in the US Oxford, when in its definition of "baby" the Oxford reads as follows:

1. A very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
1.1 A young or newly born animal.
1.2 The youngest member of a family or group.

The UK Oxford defines fetus as "An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception." without referring to it as a baby.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language reads:

"In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo."

 

[Jocund]

You try looking up those references in the BDAG and see how far you get. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon of classical Greek has dozens of references also, but they found none that showed malakos meant a catamite! The full quotes the web site gave from Philo certainly dies not prove malakos refers to the passive partner in male with male sex! Then why would Paul even have Philo in mind in his usage of malakos considering who Philo was, as from the Wikipedia -

"Philo... Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt. Philo's deployment of allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with Greek philosophy was the first documented of its kind, and thereby often misunderstood."

Paul's view of such philosophers: "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:" (Col 2:8, ERV)

Remember, I went to the Greek OT for two of the uses of malakos and that may rank higher than non-canonical sources -

"There is another consideration; the Greek of the New Testament differs materially in its character from the classical Greek, or from the Greek language as a whole...For example, when the Greek word hades is used, we are not thereby committed to a belief in all the fabulous ideas of the Greeks concerning the abode of the dead, for the word was but the representative of the Hebrew word sheol, which is almost always translated hades in the Greek Testament. Hence in studying this Greek word in the New Testament we are not to go to the Greek classics to find out what they mean by the word hades, but rather to the Hebrew prophets to learn in what sense they use the Hebrew word sheol, of which it is the Greek equivalent."
From "A Greek-English Lexicon to The New Testament Revised and Enlarged by Thomas Sheldon Green, 1896."

The definitions of arsenokoites in the BDAG fit the meaning of "sodomite" more accurately then condemning the loving companionship between two males that includes the erotic element. The actual definition reads: "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen" The Bold Italics give the formal definition in the BDAG -

The BDAG in the Forward gives the way definitions are written:
"Extended definitions are given in bold roman and may be followed by one or more formal equivalents in bold italics. The user of the lexicon can explore such equivalents for translation of passages that follow, but within the boundaries of the definition."

Pederast or sodomite may fit 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, but NOT homosexual or male to male lovers.

As to your questions about fornication and marriage, I've answered before in this thread and it is lengthy and I'll not go through it again here. I'll just say the Bible gives no support for same-sex marriage, but since God said it is not good for man to be alone, there is a passage that those incapable of marriage can use as a guide: Eccl. 4:7-12. It has been emphasized that in Matt. 19:12 the word is "eunuchs". But that word is not always meant to be taken literally. As more than one translations shows:

"There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12, Weymouth)
Mat 19:12 Williams "For some are born incapable of marriage, and some have been made so by men, and some have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can."
Both of those translations existed before same gender relationships were a Bible discussion.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." - Matthew 5:27-28 KJV

When the Pharisees told Jesus that they had never committed adultery, Jesus responded by stating that even lusting after another is adultery in the heart. The kind of logic applies to the lust of men that want to bed other men. It's more than just the physical action that constitutes a falling from a good state. Using this logic by the connection of the passages we see that one can make an unambiguous argument that homosexuality is a sinful state to be in, as much as being a drunkard or a swindler, fornicator, etc. But, is a person considered a drunkard if he feels the craving for a drink? That is the natural conclusion of this line of thought. The difference presumably is the repentant nature of someone that resists the drink, or resists lust between men, or resists urges for adultery, and commits to try to recondition themselves to be more in Christ and free from those sinful impulses. Behaviour is led by action, action is led by thought, therefore we should be mindful of what we think.

You make great arguments for monogamous relationships and the concept that scripture recognizes temptation and accepts marriage as a means to unleash fleshly drives in a condoned fashion. The question then leads to why the solution wouldn't be to place such a person in a heterosexual marriage to cage this lust? From my very limited understanding, most people that call themselves homosexual are actually bisexual.

arsenokoites vs. sodomite vs. homosexual

An explanation of arsenokoites that I've seen is that Paul was using a reference to a Greek translation of OT scripture speaking of forbidden act of a man bedding another man, and thus Paul fuses Greek words for man and bed together in arsenokoites. The term sodomite in itself is more or less a catchall term for immoral activities that happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, which would be inclusive of behaviour that by the modern verbiage would be homosexual. It would be splitting hairs to claim that arsenokoites isn't in clear reference for things that in modern terms would be called homosexual.

Disagreements aside, kudos to your argument style, the structured approach is nice to see.

 

[Jon-E]

I've made the argument that the Bible nowhere condemns two male friends having sexual, physical intimacy with each other, regardless of modern labels or orientations. Rather than repeat the rather lengthy arguments here, I'll indicate where you can read them in the thread.

In the first post, #1 of the thread I address the matter of labels, and then the matter of Sodom
Page 2, #21, first article, Nov 11th, I address Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 23:17
Page 2, #40, last article, Nov 12th, I deal with Rom. 1:26, 27
Page 3, #41, first article I give the description of the pervert Nero to get historical context for Paul
Page 4, #63, I address 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10
Page 4, #64, I deal with the 'created order' argument, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" idea
Page 4, #66, I show that some type of erotic behavior did exist between Jonathan and David
Page 4, #75, I give a suggested biblical guide for males who are solely attracted to other males
Page 5, #86, I discuss the delusion in the transgender situation, which is a different topic altogether
Page 6, #108, I go into modern Bibles that read the modern idea of homosexuality back into the Bible
Page 8, #151, I respond to a question I was asked about whether I believed in double predestination
Page 10, #199, I list how historically English translations have rendered the Greek malakos
Page 12, #234, I describe my process for determining the meaning of a word in Scripture
Page 14, #261, I discuss some points on using the BDAG in determining meaning

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, Copyright 2001, Baker Reference Library
"Traditionally homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed by divine judgment, hence the popular term 'sodomy.' This interpretation depends upon uncertain translation, while Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Sirach 16:8-9 give other reasons for the judgment. The assumption of homosexuality in Sodom dates from the Greek occupation of Palestine, when 'the Greek sin' seriously endangered Jewish youth and strong scriptural warning was necessary... It is usually assumed that the male cult prostitutes common in heathen shrines but forbidden in Israel (Deut. 23:17), though sometimes prevalent (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), were homosexual." page 574

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, Vol. 4, 1988, Eerdmans
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')." page 437

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

 

[presidente]

That is a strange definition of "fetus" as a baby past 8 weeks as in the US Oxford, when in its definition of "baby" the Oxford reads as follows:

1. A very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
1.1 A young or newly born animal.
1.2 The youngest member of a family or group.

The UK Oxford defines fetus as "An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception." without referring to it as a baby.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language reads:

"In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo."

All this is irrelevant, especially to the topic of the thread, but also to the moral issues related to abortion. An online Oxford dictionary uses 'baby' in the definition. But dictionaries are supposed to informasi readers of word meaning not create them.

 

[Jocund]

All this is irrelevant, especially to the topic of the thread, but also to the moral issues related to abortion. An online Oxford dictionary uses 'baby' in the definition. But dictionaries are supposed to informasi readers of word meaning not create them.

Another way to say this is that lexicography is descriptive and not prescriptive.

 

[presidente]

You try looking up those references in the BDAG and see how far you get. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon of classical Greek has dozens of references also, but they found none that showed malakos meant a catamite! The full quotes the web site gave from Philo certainly dies not prove malakos refers to the passive partner in male with male sex!

So are you saying you have not been able to look up the citations? It does seem to be something a nonspecialist might have difficulty doing. I would probably have to go to a larger university library or figure out how to get one of those CDs with all of Greek on it and learn how to use it and get some Greek skills up to par to look it up, maybe. But numerous scholars think it means the receptive homosex-partner-- the one stimulating the other guys you-know-what; the man-bedee that the man bedder is bedding. And 'bed' in these context meant to perform a sexual act. Dudes have sex with men, and their effeminate or 'soft' partner.

Let's say 'malakos' means 'effeminate' or even 'lacking male virtue', how could wifulling performing a sex act that renders the other guilty of a sin so vile it was worthy of death in the Old Testament be okay? There is just no way around it.

And you post this kind of stuff on other topics, too. You talk about another posters view of salvation as different from the witness of the church throughout history. What about the witness of the church... and even prior going back to Moses.. condemning the sexual acts you defend?

You write about the authority of the scripture, but you are twisting scripture. If you want to define 'malakos' narrowly to refer to the other two references-- which are about clothing and such, not people, because scripture interprets scripture, that is an absurd application of the principal. If Paul were saying men with soft men would not inherit the kingdom of God, and were condemning moisturizing, since oil was the moisturizer of the day, that would contradict Jesus, who said when you fast, to anoint your head and wash your face, and the Psalmist who said that God gave man oil to make his face to shine.

Language does not exist in a vacuum. Any scholar across the board from liberal to conservative to fundamentalist is going to rely on what words mean in the overall context of the language to some extent. You cite sources that do this as an authority, but then want to argue an absurd form of biblicism when it suits you.

You also avoid my questions-- which is more important to you: defending same sex sexual acts or actually pleasing God and walking in righteousness by the power of the Spirit before Him?

Then why would Paul even have Philo in mind in his usage of malakos

That is a silly straw man assumption there. They both lived about the same time. Some of the word usage and the 'thought map' is similar. This kind of stuff is against nature. Philo used 'malakos' to refer to those who were the object of men who had the 'love of boys' who had lusts in that regard. But he uses the term for adults also.

considering who Philo was, as from the Wikipedia -

"Philo... Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt. Philo's deployment of allegory to harmonize Jewish scripture, mainly the Torah, with Greek philosophy was the first documented of its kind, and thereby often misunderstood."

Paul's view of such philosophers: "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:" (Col 2:8, ERV)

This is extremely ironic. Here you are trying to argue that it is okay for two men to have perverted sex, arguing especially in defense of being the penetratee, that the Bible does not condemn such a thing. Then you want to paint Philo as one who would spoil others with his philosophy and vain deceit? Philosophy is not __necessarily__ bad, but there are versions of it that are deceptive. If you will notice, some of these sources you are quoting are written by men with Ph.D.'s. Ph. in Ph.D. stands for philosophy, or the Latin equivalent thereof.

Philo was also a Jewish scholar in the first century who had some understanding of the divine Logos, the divine word of God. Seminary students study his writings. He apparently had some wisdom on this matter or transmitted the ideas of those who did, most likely Jews whose studies of the scriptures had just led them to the precipice of understanding about the Messiah. Studying his writings are helpful for those learning about Christian theology.

Some of the language he uses is quite similar to Paul who considered the same-sex sexual activity you defend to be against nature. I do not have any reason to think that Paul was familiar with Philo's per se or vice versa. But his writings show something about the historical context-- the there were first century Jews who considered homosex to be against nature and degenerate activities. Since Philo and Paul included grown men in their treatment of the issue, the problem was not merely child molestation.

Continued in the next post.

 

[presidente]

@Jon-E

Remember, I went to the Greek OT for two of the uses of malakos and that may rank higher than non-canonical sources -

"There is another consideration; the Greek of the New Testament differs materially in its character from the classical Greek, or from the Greek language as a whole...For example, when the Greek word hades is used, we are not thereby committed to a belief in all the fabulous ideas of the Greeks concerning the abode of the dead, for the word was but the representative of the Hebrew word sheol, which is almost always translated hades in the Greek Testament. Hence in studying this Greek word in the New Testament we are not to go to the Greek classics to find out what they mean by the word hades, but rather to the Hebrew prophets to learn in what sense they use the Hebrew word sheol, of which it is the Greek equivalent."

This is an argument for weighing the concept of 'malakos' described by Philo more heavily than some other references. Like Paul, Philo was a Jewish scholar of the Old Testament. Philo used the Old Testament and we might consider him as a Hellenistic Jew since he spoke and wrote in Greek and used the LXX. Paul had one foot in the Hellenistic Jewish world, having been raised in Tarsus and drawing from the LXX as one of his sources as he preached the Gospel in Hellenistic synagogues. But he also studied in Judea under Gamaliel, so he was in the Judean world as well.

And Philo used 'malakos' to refer to boys and men who wore make-up, acted like women, and went so far as to get castrated who were the objects of lust for men who loved boys. The word shows up in a list of sins of those who do not inherit the kingdom of God, including man-bedders/man-sexers/man-copulators. This word is arsenokoites and arsenos koiten shows up in the LXX of the prohibition of the activity in Leviticus 20.

So, yeah, we don't read all the Greek concepts of Hades into New Testament references. We look for something closer, culturally. Why shouldn't we do the same with malakos?

And even if we don't, arsenokoites still sin. And Romans 1 shows us that vile lusts are involved in men lusting after each other. These acts they perform are shameful.

You've got no leg to stand on. Revisionist LGBT apologeticists have no leg to stand on. Why don't they try to convince the Muslims that the Al Qur'an endorses their sinful activity? Why is it that the scriptures are the target of the twisting.

Also notice how stern Christ's rebukes are of churches that tolerated those who taught the people to engage in such things as eating meat offered to idols and sexual immorality. The false teachers in II Peter 2 who were promoting wickedness had some sexual issues as well. Promoting sexual immorality is not pleasing to the Lord.

The BADG commentaries, taken as a whole, don't offer support for the pro-gay-sex stance. Look at what you quoted.

From "A Greek-English Lexicon to The New Testament Revised and Enlarged by Thomas Sheldon Green, 1896."

The definitions of arsenokoites in the BDAG fit the meaning of "sodomite" more accurately then condemning the loving companionship between two males that includes the erotic element. The actual definition reads: "a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen" The Bold Italics give the formal definition in the BDAG -

There you go. Btw, I agree that there is an issue with using 'homosexual' as the translation since there are people who use the term technically to refer to the idea of 'orientation' which is along the lines of how the term was coined. Reading these psychological concepts back into scripture is problematic. The word has to do with men who perform sex acts on other men, not 'orientation.'

The article I linked pointed out that 'pederast' has been used for men having sex with boys, but also other men. It seems the pedo usage is more common. But if you look at the definition around it, it is clear that the word refers to sex with males, not just boys.

The BDAG in the Forward gives the way definitions are written:
"Extended definitions are given in bold roman and may be followed by one or more formal equivalents in bold italics. The user of the lexicon can explore such equivalents for translation of passages that follow, but within the boundaries of the definition."

Pederast or sodomite may fit 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, but NOT homosexual or male to male lovers.

The quote you just gave from BADG argues against your own commentary on it. Two men having sex is two men having sex. They may be 'lovers', but their love is unloving according to I Corinthians 13. Gay sex is unloving because love does not rejoice in wickedness, but delights in the truth.

A pair of adulterers having an affair may love each other in a sense. They might feel the same feelings a newlywed couple feels. But it is not the right kind of love. It is not the agape of I Corinthians 13. Love does not rejoice in wickedness, but delights in the truth.

Amnon 'loved' his sister Tamar before he raped her. It was a kind of love, but not the right kind. Again, love does not delight in wickedness, but rejoices in the truth.

Do you think having adulterous affairs is okay if the two feel 'love'? What about raping a sister if the sister feels 'love'?

I'll just say the Bible gives no support for same-sex marriage, but since God said it is not good for man to be alone, there is a passage that those incapable of marriage can use as a guide: Eccl. 4:7-12. It has been emphasized that in Matt. 19:12 the word is "eunuchs". But that word is not always meant to be taken literally. As more than one translations shows:

"There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12, Weymouth)
Mat 19:12 Williams "For some are born incapable of marriage, and some have been made so by men, and some have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can."
Both of those translations existed before same gender relationships were a Bible discussion.

Huh? Actually, other than the final comment, I have no issue with the actual words that you wrote. But based on your other posts, you have a twisted interpretation of this verse.

The eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake are celibates like the apostle Paul and others who were gifted to follow the advice he gave about it in I Corinthians 7. In Matthew 19, after hearing Jesus' prohibition on divorce, the apostles had said, "If the case be so with a man and his wife, it is good for a man not to marry. The commentary is about celibacy, as would later be realized in the church through the writings of Paul. It is not about men having gay sex with each other.

Paul was celibate rather than married. It is possible that Silas Timothy followed Paul's example since we do not read about them. Paul mentions Barnabas in I Corinthians 9, and it is possible that Barnabas did not also 'lead about a sister, a wife.' Other Christians have been celibate throughout church history.

There is nothing homosexual about Jesus' words here. There is nothing homosexual about a man who toils who has no son or brother considering who he is working so hard for? Ecclesiastes deals with working hard in life, then leaving it to someone else. That's not about gay sex.

 

[Jocund]

I've made the argument that the Bible nowhere condemns two male friends having sexual, physical intimacy with each other, regardless of modern labels or orientations. Rather than repeat the rather lengthy arguments here, I'll indicate where you can read them in the thread.

In the first post, #1 of the thread I address the matter of labels, and then the matter of Sodom
Page 2, #21, first article, Nov 11th, I address Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 23:17
Page 2, #40, last article, Nov 12th, I deal with Rom. 1:26, 27
Page 3, #41, first article I give the description of the pervert Nero to get historical context for Paul
Page 4, #63, I address 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10
Page 4, #64, I deal with the 'created order' argument, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" idea
Page 4, #66, I show that some type of erotic behavior did exist between Jonathan and David
Page 4, #75, I give a suggested biblical guide for males who are solely attracted to other males
Page 5, #86, I discuss the delusion in the transgender situation, which is a different topic altogether
Page 6, #108, I go into modern Bibles that read the modern idea of homosexuality back into the Bible
Page 8, #151, I respond to a question I was asked about whether I believed in double predestination
Page 10, #199, I list how historically English translations have rendered the Greek malakos
Page 12, #234, I describe my process for determining the meaning of a word in Scripture
Page 14, #261, I discuss some points on using the BDAG in determining meaning

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, Copyright 2001, Baker Reference Library
"Traditionally homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed by divine judgment, hence the popular term 'sodomy.' This interpretation depends upon uncertain translation, while Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Sirach 16:8-9 give other reasons for the judgment. The assumption of homosexuality in Sodom dates from the Greek occupation of Palestine, when 'the Greek sin' seriously endangered Jewish youth and strong scriptural warning was necessary... It is usually assumed that the male cult prostitutes common in heathen shrines but forbidden in Israel (Deut. 23:17), though sometimes prevalent (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), were homosexual." page 574

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, Vol. 4, 1988, Eerdmans
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')." page 437

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

To speak from ethos for a moment, a professional translation team that publishes a version of the Bible has more clout than speculative theologian when it comes to word choices in those translations. Many versions of the Bible speak clearly in the New Testament that "homosexuality" is the best fit for "arsenokoites."

 

[presidente]

I've made the argument that the Bible nowhere condemns two male friends having sexual, physical intimacy with each other, regardless of modern labels or orientations. Rather than repeat the rather lengthy arguments here, I'll indicate where you can read them in the thread.

The thing is, you have quoted arguments that do indeed show that two men having sex is sinful. Not only did you site sources that disprove your assertion from BDAG, but this very post contained quotes that contradict your assertion. The fact that the particular commentary you quoted from BADG gave the alternate gloss of 'pederast' does not negate the fact that he interpreted arsenokoites (man-copulator/bedder) to mean a man who had sex with other men. You keep presenting arguments against your own position.

Against all the evidence, what motivates you to keep defending sexual perversion. Is this a personal issue for you? In your old age, wouldn't it be better to repent of promoting this perversion and whatever other sins and walk right with God? Why not just let go of it? Why continue on? Why entice others into this bondage?

Page 4, #66, I show that some type of erotic behavior did exist between Jonathan and David

I think I missed that post, but dirty minds will certainly interpret it that way.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

I do not have a problem with this quote. I think it should have been better explained, and maybe it was before the part quoted. This also argues against your assertion above that the scriptures do not condemn such acts. The author considers the Bible to speak against "same-gender genital acts."

I wonder why you make an assertion, then quote people who disagree with you.

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Aside from using the junk shaming rhetoric 'homophobic', I don't disagree with this quote either. That and the author seems to be using 'homosexual' in the later part of the condition in the way he disagrees with. This quote also argues against your assertion at the beginning of the post, "its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit". Two men having sex with each other is condemned.

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, Copyright 2001, Baker Reference Library
"Traditionally homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed by divine judgment, hence the popular term 'sodomy.' This interpretation depends upon uncertain translation, while Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Sirach 16:8-9 give other reasons for the judgment. The assumption of homosexuality in Sodom dates from the Greek occupation of Palestine, when 'the Greek sin' seriously endangered Jewish youth and strong scriptural warning was necessary... It is usually assumed that the male cult prostitutes common in heathen shrines but forbidden in Israel (Deut. 23:17), though sometimes prevalent (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), were homosexual." page 574

I'd have to see the overall commentary. Homo sex is condemned, not only in the context of shrine prostitution. Idolatry is forbidden. Sex with the same gender is forbidden. The combination of the two would also be forbidden.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, Vol. 4, 1988, Eerdmans
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')." page 437

He did not say it was 'freely chosen.' Some sex perverts abandoned what is natural and went with some __LUSTS__ that they felt, stuff they wanted to do. Lust does not justify sin. A sinner wanting to do it does not have anything to do with whether Paul described it as 'natural' or not. it is natural for men to have sex with women because that occurs in the God ordained natural order that God set in place as described in Genesis. Within the proper context in marriage it is allowed.

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

This does not really contribute to the key issue here. Homo-sex is forbidden. If we want to talk about the issue of whether an individual who has the propensity to experience same sex attraction is unredeemable or if redemption instantly does away with the propensity to experience such attraction, that is different issue. I do not consider those who have the propensity to experience same sex attraction to be inherently unredeemed or unsanctified. Sanctification in their lives might remove this propensity of the flesh, or it might not. Either way, if they make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof and walk in the Spirit, they can walk pure before God.

 

[Jon-E]

To speak from ethos for a moment, a professional translation team that publishes a version of the Bible has more clout than speculative theologian when it comes to word choices in those translations. Many versions of the Bible speak clearly in the New Testament that "homosexuality" is the best fit for "arsenokoites."

The lexicon or dictionary is a first step, that still gives the opinion of man; so it is safer to go a step further and do a word study in the Greek or Hebrew itself in the Scriptures and that is the final answer. As with the Greek malakos, it is used twice in Proverbs(LXX) in reference to soft words, three times in the gospels referring to clothing, in particular luxurious clothing found worn in king's houses, and then the one time in 1 Cor. 6:9 where it has always been translated "effeminate" and a couple modern translations "voluptuous ones" and "the self-indulgent". Those fit and catamite does not fit. Heinrich Meyer in his Critical commentary says it means "effeminate luxurious livers". The German, Meyer, was a Greek scholar as well, and the use of malakos in the Scriptures force me to go with Meyer over the BDAG. Also, the fact that the Greek had the exact, literal word for a "catamite", seals it for me is that malakos is only said to be figurative or metaphorically a catamite. A one word translation of arsenokoites is clearly "sodomite" as in the NRSV.

 

[Jon-E]

The historic creeds and confessions do not address the topic of male to male physical intimacy, but we can read representative commentaries from the past to see how they viewed the pertinent verses. Do the comments sound like condemnation of sexual intimacy between two male friends? It is NOT there. I see the idea of a sodomite if we must use a single word for the idea. Seen in its context with its synonyms it reads in the 7th Ed of Roget's as follows:

"75.16 sexual pervert; pervert, perve <nf>, deviant, deviate, sex pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nf>, bugger; pederast; paraphiliac; zoophiliac..."

Seen within the category of synonyms, the meaning of the word "sodomite" in this day is more clear, and it is not "homosexual".

16th Century Calvin on Gn 19:4 "The greatness of their iniquity and wantonness, is apparent from the fact, that, in a collected troop, they approach, as enemies, to lay siege to the house of Lot. How blind and impetuous is their lust; since, without shame, they rush together like brute animals! how great their ferocity and cruelty"

19th Century Adam Clarke, Rm 1:27 "Both the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical practices."

18th Century John Gill, Gn 19:9 "now will we deal worse with thee than with them: the men in his house, both by abusing his body in their unnatural way, and by beating and bruising him, and pulling him in pieces, limb from limb; something of this kind they seem to threaten him with, and attempted to effect, as follows:"
ON Rm 1:26 "for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature h; or by making use of such ways and methods with themselves, or other women, to gratify their lusts" Gill gives 3 options for the meaning.

19th Century Jamieson-Faucett-Brown, Rm 1:27 " When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural[opposite sex] vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural[same sex] and monstrous vices." Words in the brackets are clearly the meaning.

20th Century Lutheran Kretzmann, Gn 19:5 "Emphasis is laid upon the fact that all the people, even down to the last man, took part in this shameless demand, openly stating that they wanted to abuse the guests of Lot in a violation of nature which was one of the greatest curses of heathenism, the sin of pederasty. All the men of Sodom were guilty of this lustful abomination, of this demonic error."
ON 1 Co 6:9 "the voluptuous, that were addicted to all forms of sensuality; the sodomites, that were guilty of the unnatural vices as practiced by the Greeks"

17th Century John Trapp on Gn 19:6, "Lot went out. ] So he exposed himself, to save his strangers, hoping to save them from that abominable violence."
ON Rm 1:27, "Burned in their lust ] Gr. εξεκαυσθησαν , "were scalded." Some men put off all manhood, become dogs, worse than dogs. Hence Deuteronomy 23:18 ; "The price of a dog," that is, of a sodomite"

17th Century Matthew Poole on 1 KGs 14:24 "Sodomites, i.e. males, who prostituted their bodies to the filthy lusts of others; of whom See Poole "Deuteronomy 23:17"; who also did this in the worship and to the honour of their idols as also the women did, Numbers 25:1,Numbers 25:2.

*All quotes out of commentaries are taken off the web site: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html

This is my last post on this thread because the objections and arguments have been dealt with over and over.

 

[presidente]

@Jon-E one of the problems with the line of argument you seem to be making is that in old sources 'prostitute' does not equal 'sex for money.'

I tried to find a good source that would illustrate this. Here is a quote from the article on the British Library site.

Yet the word ‘prostitute’ was not used entirely the way we would use it today, i.e. to refer only to women sold their bodies for sex. In the 19th century, many people used it more widely, to refer to women who were living with men outside marriage, or women who had had illegitimate children, or women who perhaps had relations with men, but for pleasure rather than money.

Think about it. Based on this world's standards, who would be a lower class prostitute? A woman who required $3000 per meeting with a customer or a woman who charged 25 cents? The one who takes a quarter right? Well, let's say another woman had sex outside of marriage for free. There is a lot of free prostitution going on. There is same-sex free prostitution as well.

The historic creeds and confessions do not address the topic of male to male physical intimacy, but we can read representative commentaries from the past to see how they viewed the pertinent verses. Do the comments sound like condemnation of sexual intimacy between two male friends? It is NOT there.

First of all, the church has historically condemned such perversion. Can you show me one example otherwise from before modern times from someone who is a respected commentator from any wing of Christianity, not a libertine gnostic, but a Christian commentator.

Ans your last two sentences are just lies. Maybe you deceive yourself into believing it. Maybe demons block your eyes or mind so you cannot comprehend the words or see them on the page. Having the understanding darkened is a precursor to same sex behavior entering mankind in Romans 1. You keep quoting sources that argue that two men having sex together is condemned in the passages in question, and then treating the quote as if it supports your point of view.

I see the idea of a sodomite if we must use a single word for the idea. Seen in its context with its synonyms it reads in the 7th Ed of Roget's as follows:

"75.16 sexual pervert; pervert, perve <nf>, deviant, deviate, sex pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nf>, bugger; pederast; paraphiliac; zoophiliac..."

Who cares? how is this relevant? Most of our translations do not use the word 'sodomite.' Usually people think of gay sex or a certain sex acts invovling the hinder parts when they heard 'sodomy.' But the translations of scripture we are discussing, for the most part, do not use the term, and it is not a relevant issue to the discussion.

Seen within the category of synonyms, the meaning of the word "sodomite" in this day is more clear, and it is not "homosexual".

Not very relevant.

Lots of people use 'homosexual' to mean someone who has sex with the same sex, which is why it made it into translations of the Bible. The term in the Bible does not carry the psychological connotations related to its technical meaning, so in that sense, it is a poor translation. English does not have a masculine gendered term for male copulators. If someone constructed one, it might involve a cuss word and would be missing masculing gender since English nouns are not inflected for gender, generally.

16th Century Calvin on Gn 19:4 "The greatness of their iniquity and wantonness, is apparent from the fact, that, in a collected troop, they approach, as enemies, to lay siege to the house of Lot. How blind and impetuous is their lust; since, without shame, they rush together like brute animals! how great their ferocity and cruelty"

That doesn't make two men having sex moral. He doesn't comment on gay sex. Maybe it was impolite to talk about. He considered it a shameful act that was all to common in Greece without describing what he was talking about in I Corinthians 6. Maybe it was too taboo to talk about directly or it felt too icky for him to write about. Abominations can be like that, you know.

19th Century Adam Clarke, Rm 1:27 "Both the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical practices."

Since no money had to change hands for sexual immorality to be 'prostitutions' in older stages of the English language, whatever point you are trying to make by underlining 'prostitutions' and 'prostitution' is not valid. We also have some relatively polite language which doesn't paint any word pictures.


Continued in the next post.

 

[presidente]

@Jon-E

18th Century John Gill, Gn 19:9 "now will we deal worse with thee than with them: the men in his house, both by abusing his body in their unnatural way, and by beating and bruising him, and pulling him in pieces, limb from limb; something of this kind they seem to threaten him with, and attempted to effect, as follows:"

Unless there is something about the Hebrew he does not tell us, John Gill may have speculated a bit. But notice he supposed the beating was in addition to abusing his body in their unnatural ways. These men wanted to force homosex on some beings that appeared to be men. This was lewd and wicked. There are three things that are wicked.

-- The violent force they wanted to attempt on them, instead of being hospitable.
-- Trying to have sex with angelic beings.
-- Trying to have homosex.

Of the three, the third matter is more explicitly dealt with and more severely punished for human beings in scripture. A traditional interpretation would have angels who left their habitation bound in tartarus, which is pretty bad, but it doesn't tell the punishment for humans. Men having sex with men was a death penalty crime in the Old Testament. If God is just, how can you say it is right for two men to have sex given the fact that God prescribed a death penalty? How many other death penalty crimes in the Old Testament are no big deal in your opinion?

ON Rm 1:26 "for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature h; or by making use of such ways and methods with themselves, or other women, to gratify their lusts" Gill gives 3 options for the meaning.

This is a bit speculative. Gill seems to go out on a limb sometimes, btw. But be that as it may, you aren't a lesbian, are you? The male gay sex got the death penalty quite explictly in the Old Testament.

19th Century Jamieson-Faucett-Brown, Rm 1:27 " When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural[opposite sex] vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural[same sex] and monstrous vices." Words in the brackets are clearly the meaning.

Your own bracketed interpretation condemns the perverse acts you seek to defend. Have you changed your mind and you now think gay sex is unnatural?

20th Century Lutheran Kretzmann, Gn 19:5 "Emphasis is laid upon the fact that all the people, even down to the last man, took part in this shameless demand, openly stating that they wanted to abuse the guests of Lot in a violation of nature which was one of the greatest curses of heathenism, the sin of pederasty. All the men of Sodom were guilty of this lustful abomination, of this demonic error."
ON 1 Co 6:9 "the voluptuous, that were addicted to all forms of sensuality; the sodomites, that were guilty of the unnatural vices as practiced by the Greeks"

This is kind of silly. What good does quoting the verbage of other people prove at this point. And how do you think this supports your argument in any way. you keep getting quotes that condemn what you defend, posting them up here, and underlining a word you think somehow makes the quote mean something else. 'Pederasty' can refer to adult gay male sex, not just child molestation. These are variations of the same sin. This same commentator, I presume, writes this on I Timothy 1:10,

As violators of the Sixth Commandment are mentioned adulterers and sodomites, people that either in a natural or in an unnatural manner abuse their fellow-men for the sake of gratifying their sexual lust. Cp. Rom. 1, 27; 1 Cor. 6, 9

17th Century John Trapp on Gn 19:6, "Lot went out. ] So he exposed himself, to save his strangers, hoping to save them from that abominable violence."
ON Rm 1:27, "Burned in their lust ] Gr. εξεκαυσθησαν , "were scalded." Some men put off all manhood, become dogs, worse than dogs. Hence Deuteronomy 23:18 ; "The price of a dog," that is, of a sodomite"

No support for your position here, either. What do you think these quotes prove?

17th Century Matthew Poole on 1 KGs 14:24 "Sodomites, i.e. males, who prostituted their bodies to the filthy lusts of others; of whom See Poole "Deuteronomy 23:17"; who also did this in the worship and to the honour of their idols as also the women did, Numbers 25:1,Numbers 25:2.

Notice that 'prostituted' does not require money had to be involved, similar to porneia in New Testament Greek. Notice the word 'also' that they 'also' did this in the worship of their idols. That does not make sexual perversion when no idols are involved okay.

*All quotes out of commentaries are taken off the web site: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html

This is my last post on this thread because the objections and arguments have been dealt with over and over.

And you keep quoting sources that condemn the practices you think you are defending over and over and over again.

 

[presidente]

@Jon-E
Here is a quote from Thomas Aquinas, who quotes another source. Neither one of these agreed with your idea that being against nature means the sexual inclinations of the one engaged of the sexual behavior.

It is visible by clicking on Romans 1:26, here, https://www.catenabible.com/rom/1

Damascene says that an angel in sinning was turned from what is according to nature into what is contrary to nature. In another way, something is said to be against man’s nature by reason of his general class, which is animal. Now it is obvious that according to the intent of nature, sexual union in animals is ordained to the act of generation; hence, every form of union from which generation cannot follow is against the nature of animal as animal. In line with this it is stated in a gloss that "the natural use is that a man and a woman come together in one copulation, but it is against nature that a man pollute a man and a woman a woman." The same is true of every act of intercourse from which generation cannot follow.

 

[EternalFire]

Thank you for your response, @Jon-E. I pray you carefully consider the following.

Keeping oneself from the explicitly defined sexual activities in Lev. 18 which are categorically prohibited by God is not the same thing as being under the Law of Moses. The behaviors of Lev. 18 are unacceptable to God before the old covenant was given, and they remain as such in the time of the new covenant.

The sins of Lev. 18, therefore, are most certainly in mind for us Gentiles to avoid today, as evidenced in the decision of Acts 15. Do recall that Paul was there when the pronouncement was made, and his input was an integral part of the discussion. A repetition of this extremely important verdict is included in Acts 21, adding even more weight and emphasis.

The phrase that shows Paul has Lev. 18 in view in 1 Cor. 5 is “his father’s wife,” which is most definitely the same language. “The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness” (Lev. 18:8). Again, the reasoning of Moses being read in the Synagogues, which plainly includes Leviticus, is essential to understanding the logic of the outcome in Acts 15.

Since we both value historical context, the commentary from Zondervan’s NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, with Dr. Craig S. Keener serving as New Testament Editor, sheds important light on Paul’s words in 1 Cor.: “5:1 A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. Nearly all ancient Mediterranean cultures (as well as nearly all cultures in history) viewed parent-child incest as unimaginably terrible and divinely punishable. This offense included, as probably here, stepsons with stepmothers (Paul borrows language here from Lev 18:6-8).”

It logically follows, then, that all of the sexual behaviors listed, including the same-sex behavior of Lev. 18:22, are unequivocally prohibited. Paul’s use of porneia in 1 Cor. 5 beautifully captures and supports this truth. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon summarizes it nicely as “illicit sexual intercourse in general.” Where do we find “illicit sexual intercourse” defined biblically? Leviticus 18.

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon link: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4202/kjv/tr/0-1/

As to comparing other relevant scriptural passages with Lev. 18, this exercise only reinforces the point that homosexuality is universally condemned in Jewish biblical thought and practice. You will never find one favorable mention of homosexuality in the Bible. Willie E. Honeycutt puts it this way on p. 3 of “The Meaning and Continuing Relevance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13” in Fn. 8: “While there are other verses in Scripture that deal with homosexuality, these two in Leviticus are especially significant in view of their uniquely prescriptive nature. …. All the other texts in the Bible dealing with this issue are descriptive in nature, and although they clearly denounce some form of same sex intercourse as sin, the passages in Leviticus make explicit negative commands regarding it.”

Honeycutt also recognizes that trying to impose an idolatry limitation on Lev. 18:22 will never pass muster. He quotes authors like Derrick Sherwin Bailey on p. 17: “It is hardly open to doubt that both laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion.” On p. 16, Honeycutt cites Robert A. J. Gagnon who concludes that “Boswell’s contention that toevah ‘is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry’ is misleading.”

Even a revisionist like Robin Scroggs, Honeycutt notes on p. 17, recognizes “in Leviticus 18 a general prohibition of male homosexuality.” In the accompanying footnote to this statement (fn. 90 on p. 17), Honeycutt writes: “Scroggs, who comes down on the revisionist side in his interpretation of the New Testament, concedes, ‘It has been suggested that these prohibitions were thus originally linked with pagan, perhaps even cultic activities; even if that should be the case, in its present form the text remains a general indictment.’”

Since you have done so much research in this area, I think you’ll find the resources in Honeycutt’s paper helpful for further study. Publications by Dr. Gagnon may also interest you, a list of which you can see by following the link below.

https://hbu.edu/contact/robert-gagnon/

As we seek to understand the truth of God’s word, resolving to walk faithfully with holy lives pleasing to Him, may we never forget what is written in 2 Peter 3:9-18.

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But, according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for these things, give diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in His sight. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and for ever. Amen.”

In light of the above, I pray you reflect upon how Honeycutt concludes his paper on pp. 35-36: “Just as no openly practicing adulterer, thief, drunkard, or fornicator would be permitted church membership or leadership, insofar as they are engaged in behavior unbecoming to the kingdom of God, the same is true with openly practicing homosexuals. Yet while Paul overtly condemns these behaviors, he could also point to some who had been delivered from their bondage, set free and justified in Christ. With this, hope for change and salvation should be held out to those who practice homosexuality in our midst.”

Link to Paper: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=sor_fac_pubs

The Meaning and Continuing Relevance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
By Willie E. Honeycutt, M.Div.
Assistant Professor, School of Religion, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
November 2003, All Rights Reserved

“To the Reader: Due to the contemporary focus on homosexuality in our culture, and particularly how this is affecting the church, I desire that this paper be widely read and distributed for the edification of the body of Christ. I only ask that if you do so to kindly be sure to give due credit to this author, and include this statement with any transmission of the document. I welcome any dialogue over what I have written herein. Please direct all comments, criticisms, etc. to: whoneycutt@liberty.edu”

I encourage you to contact Honeycutt and Gagnon regarding your research. May your eyes be opened (Acts 26:18).

 

[Jon-E]

Why don't we let the Bible speak for itself on these matters by examining the Hebrew used in Leviticus chapter 18. But first, who was the Book of Leviticus written to and for?

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV)

That is clearly given to Israel alone and not to the other nations, for it is part of the Law of Moses which was not given to the other nations, but to Israel alone, Deut. 4:8. Ephesians 2:15 keeps it from being for New Covenant believers. But, what did it mean for the people of Israel?

In 18:3 it specifically banned the doings of the lands of Egypt and Canaan. In this verse, "ordinances" in the KJV the Hebrew is chuqqah Strong's #H2708, so using your Bible software start reading how predominantly chuqqah is used. In Ex. 20:14 it is used of the rite of Passover, a religious statute; and as you follow the word's usage, it usually is connected with a religious rite. After the list of forbidden religous acts we read:

"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye therefore shall keep my statutes[chuqqah) and my judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations[to ebah]; neither the homeborn, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you:" (Lev 18:24-26, ERV)

That the word "abomination" is the Hebrew to ebah which is Strong's #8441 also a word connected with religion, idolatry; and again using software to check the usage, it is predominantly used in connection with idolatry. So, at the beginning and at the end of the prohibited actions it is framed by words meaning some religious rite, idolatry. So, I know from the Hebrew words used that all of these verses inbetween talk of idolatrou acts. The historical record shows it fits:

Incest as recorded in Egypt:
https://worldhistory.us/ancient-history/sexuality-in-ancient-egypt-ancient-egyptian-family.php

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...-incest-differences-height-royal-mummies.html

Bestiality in the area:
https://upperclassmonroe.blogs.wm.edu/2014/08/25/4-bestiality-in-ancient-civilizations/

Homosexuality in idolatry:
https://www.conservapedia.com/History_of_homosexuality

"...Nor were homosexuals shut away in Mesopotamia. There were homosexual cult prostitutes, who took part in public processions, singing, dancing, wearing costumes, sometimes wearing women's clothes and carrying female symbols, even at times pretending to give birth...Sometimes they are called 'dogs'. 'It therefore appears that these types of person, as in other places and periods including our own, formed a shady sub-culture where all sorts of ambiguities, mixtures and transformations were possible.[57]

Greenberg states that in Mesopotamiam Hammurabi, the author of the famous legal code bearing his name, had male lovers (Greenberg, p. 126)

In addition, it is understood that Assyrian men prayed for divine blessing on homosexual love.[58] This is seen to stand in contrast to the Bible, which nowhere offers sanction for homoeroticism, in contrast to its explicit Divine blessing on heterosexual relations in marriage. The Bible is also seen to separately forbid homosexual activity near the Temple, (Dt. 23:17,18) this likely being homosexual prostitutes, called dogs."

Interesting facts on incest in the OT:
Children of Adam and Eve had to engage in incest.
Abraham committed incest in his marriage with Sarah, Gen. 20:12 compared to Lev. 18:9
In the Leviticus list of forbidden incest, there is no prohibtion of a man having sex with his daughter.
The incest list in Leviticus does not match the list in Deuteronomy 22 & 27.

*In 1 Cor. 5:1 Paul does not refer to the OT, but to the Gentiles. To say Paul was referring to Leviticus is reading into the passage.

 

[Jon-E]

This is indeed my last reply on this. You either believe the Bible or homophobic 'experts'. Gagnon for one is a rabid extremist!
https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk...rt-gagnons-the-bible-and-homosexual-practice/

 

[presidente]

@Jon-E
You are again using quotes that do not support your position. Toebah ('abomination') is not limited to religious ritual. It was an abomination for Egyptians to eat with Hebrews. Shepherds were an abomination to Egyptians.

Dishonest false measures and weights are an abomination to the Lord. Cross dressing and male homosex are also abominations.

Lev. 18:3 forbids both the doings and the 'chuqqah' of the nations. If 'chuqqah' meant exclusively ritual--and there are cases that do not fit-- non ritual male gay sex is still a 'doing' and the restriction still applies.

Do you think it is okay to have sex with an animal if it is not in a religious ritual? How about with one's mother or step-mother.

There is a word to describe the type of arguments you make--sophistry. It may fool people who want to be decieved or gullible people willing who cannot follow the false arguments about Hebrew.

If male homo sex is something you desire, that does not mean it is 'natural'. It means you have lust. Lust does not justify sin. Of course those with lusts that are against nature desire these things or they would not have unnatural lusts. Again, lust does not justify sin.

How many other

 

[Blade]

We know these things are sins. OT NT..what is now? Now is the age of grace so be it gay or a lie its sin and Christ already died for the sin of the world. The sweet holy Spirit convicts the world of sin.. that sin is? And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. " We know the sinner has already been judged "There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son."

What matters is do they know Jesus Christ as lord. Gay or not lying or not.. do you know JESUS. They come repent. Fact there is NO SIN that will enter heaven. Haha song playing right now.. never heard it till now..."say hello" Rhett Walker. Ooh perfect timing again! Go listen..

So what gets anyone in is not how sinless you are nor sinfull. Its do you know JESUS Christ as lord. Then we know we have no right to walk in sin. Yet we know we get stuck in sin.. then there are things we don't know if they are sins. Its not US telling someone "thats a SIN" they need to see it know it from Him and His word. We do not convict anyone for Christ said.. He didn't' come to condemn but to save. You all know that you know that you know this. You sin and He never says a word.. never makes you feel guilty never condemns you. WE do that to each other.. we help the enemy. Its the LOVE its His mercy its His grace that change the heart not us. We are not GOD. We point to HIM .. HE and the sweet holy Spirit do the work.. and no matter what we see in someone.. fact He can not lie.. so what HE starts HE will finish.,

So skip all this and keep quoting the OT.. praise GOD for His word but.. that changes nothing. He in this day as was prophiced "I will remember their sin no more". WHO is remembering it? You see it.. Christ can not die again. Amen.. song I surrender.. yes in JESUS name. We all see known since Christ rose AMEN sin seems to have abound and murdering babies alone.. and Gay as was foretold has bloomed.. we know were in the last days.. but His GRACE is here right now! Show them that grace.. that SIN they are stuck in.. if they believe in Him some way some how.. today or just before they die.. HE WILL show them its wrong they will repent in Jesus name