What The Bible Says On Lesbianism & Homosexuality

[Bootstrap]

You do not need to know Greek here that well just a bit of common sence and honesty!

I agree, you don't need to know Greek.

What's most important is discussing the various texts in their context. "A text without a context is only a pretext."

Context is always the most important part to understanding a given text. For instance, if you are looking at a command in Leviticus, how do you apply that command and the ones that occur in the same chapter to your life today as a modern believer? Do Acts 15 and Galatians 2 inform your answer? The problem with massive cut and paste jobs is that they eliminate all context, and they also avoid the next step beyond understanding the individual texts in their context - relating them to each other to see the bigger picture.

Of course, the original languages can be helpful, but if you don't know them, please don't cut and paste references to them that you don't understand from sources you don't particularly know into long emails. Also be careful about using modern English dictionaries to tell us the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words, or using very old biblical resources such as Strong's or Barnes as authoritative sources for the meaning of words. These resources were written long before we discovered masses of Greek papyri that have given us new information and understanding into the meaning of many words.

It's precisely because I love God's word that I like to take time to understand it carefully in it's original context, to build a bigger picture, and to discuss it respectfully with people who may disagree with me. Massive cut-and-paste jobs don't help much with that process.

Jonathan

 

[Bootstrap]

You have missed the point of the account because Jesus said:-

John 8:11
She said: "No one, sir." Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more."

Both parts are important there, and so is the whole story that precedes it. Jesus does not condemn sinners, and neither should we. Of course, unlike Jesus, we are also sinners.

And we should call all sinners (which means all people) to live holy lives, given over to God.

She had to stop here pervertion!!!!!!!!

These are your words, not the words of Jesus. You know, tone and emphasis make a difference, and this is not the tone or emphasis Jesus used with the woman caught in adultery.

If people don't sense our love for them, they won't sense God's love for them through us.

Jonathan

 

[OllieFranz]

Could you please cite the passage so I can compare the two?

Jonathan

Certainly, I have two translations:

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
Plato Laws 1.363c
​

Another translation reads:

Whether such matters are to be regarded jestingly or seriously, I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.
​

Compare that with Paul's letter:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27
​

Note, especially the phrases "due to nature/natural" (kata physis) and "contrary to nature/against nature" (para physis). These phrases were unknown in Hebrew, and do not appear anywhere in the Old Testament. When Plato and contemporary Greek philosophers used the phrases they were moral judgments. Greek morality was based on the antagonism between Reason and Passion. "According to nature" meant that an action was controlled by Reason; "against nature" meant the action was uncontrolled, dominated by Passion. Plato makes it clear, in the next few pages, that, although he chose an example where the Reasoned action is heterosex and the Passionate action is homosex, the contrast is between Reason and Passion.

By the time of Paul, the phrase "against nature" had shifted in meaning, at least when used popularly. It simply meant "not what one had grown to expect, surprising" with little or no moral condemnation. Paul uses it this way in chapter 11, when he speaks of God "against nature" grafting the beanches He cut out back onto the tree. But in chapter 1, he uses the phrases exactly the way Plato used them, in an example that is also the same.

 

[Bootstrap]

Certainly, I have two translations:

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
Plato Laws 1.363c ​

Thanks. Though I think the reference may be wrong, this looks like Plato, Laws 1.636c, in case someone else is trying to look this up.

​

Compare that with Paul's letter:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27
​

Note, especially the phrases "due to nature/natural" (kata physis) and "contrary to nature/against nature" (para physis). These phrases were unknown in Hebrew, and do not appear anywhere in the Old Testament.

The phrases seem to occur at least rarely in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew. I haven't had time to look at this closely to see how these phrases are used there.

To me, the main thing these passages have in common are these two phrases and the fact that homosexuality / heterosexuality are discussed with respect to what is according to nature. But I'm not convinced that's enough to indicate that Paul drew from this passage, though he almost certainly would have been familiar with Plato.

When Plato and contemporary Greek philosophers used the phrases they were moral judgments. Greek morality was based on the antagonism between Reason and Passion.

Yup, with you so far.

By the time of Paul, the phrase "against nature" had shifted in meaning, at least when used popularly. It simply meant "not what one had grown to expect, surprising" with little or no moral condemnation. Paul uses it this way in chapter 11, when he speaks of God "against nature" grafting the branches He cut out back onto the tree. But in chapter 1, he uses the phrases exactly the way Plato used them, in an example that is also the same.

I can follow your argument now - thanks.

I'm not yet convinced, though. The other phrases in Paul's paragraph are not morally neutral. "Vile affections", "leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another", "men with men working that which is unseemly", "receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" - none of these phrases is morally neutral, and all are quite different from what I see in the Plato dialogue. I can't read Paul's passage to be morally neutral here.

Jonathan

 

[OllieFranz]

Thanks. Though I think the reference may be wrong, this looks like Plato, Laws 1.636c, in case someone else is trying to look this up.

[/indent]
The phrases seem to occur at least rarely in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew. I haven't had time to look at this closely to see how these phrases are used there.

To me, the main thing these passages have in common are these two phrases and the fact that homosexuality / heterosexuality are discussed with respect to what is according to nature. But I'm not convinced that's enough to indicate that Paul drew from this passage, though he almost certainly would have been familiar with Plato.



Yup, with you so far.



I can follow your argument now - thanks.

I'm not yet convinced, though. The other phrases in Paul's paragraph are not morally neutral. "Vile affections", "leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another", "men with men working that which is unseemly", "receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" - none of these phrases is morally neutral, and all are quite different from what I see in the Plato dialogue. I can't read Paul's passage to be morally neutral here.

Jonathan

Yes the Plato passage comes from Plato's dialogue "Laws," and the reference tells you which line in the first section of the dialogue it is.

The first translation was by R G Bury and is available online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/. The second translation was by Benjamin Jowett, and is out of copyright and available for downlowl at the Gutenburg Project.

Between Plato's time and Paul's, Greek philosophy continued to examine the nature (if you'll excuse using the word in the modern sense) of the Reason/Passion divide. They developed the idea of five "parts" or "symptoms" of Passion: epithymia (desire), pathos (emotion), ekkaio(burning), orexis (appetite/hunger), and plané (wandering). One of the ways that Paul reworked the Plato quote was to include these later ideas:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (epithymia) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections(pathos): for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned (ekkaio) in their lust (orexis) one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (plane) which was meet.
​

Paul also changed the parallelism in the two main phrases. Plato's example was a simple contrast between a Reasonable activity and a Passionate one. It also happened to contrast heterosex with homosex. Since nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures is there any concern about female relations, and in fact that the rabbis specifically stated that Leviticus not only did not prohibit women from "rubbing" one another, but that was not even to be considered sex. So he changed the parallel phrasing from a good action compared to a bad one to one between the women's (now unnamed) sin to the men's sin. If he were prohibiting all homsex, including lesbian sex, he would not have changed the construction of the phrase.

There are some other things about Pauls use of certain words and ideas, but that is enough for one post.

 

[OllieFranz]

The phrases seem to occur at least rarely in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew. I haven't had time to look at this closely to see how these phrases are used there.

I would have to research it again myself, but to the best of my recollection, this Greek concept of Nature is never used in the LXX when it is tranlating canon into Greek. It is only the deutero-canonical books (the Apocrypha) most of which were written in Greek by thoroughly Hellenized expatriate communities.

I'm not yet convinced, though. The other phrases in Paul's paragraph are not morally neutral. "Vile affections", "leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another", "men with men working that which is unseemly", "receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" - none of these phrases is morally neutral, and all are quite different from what I see in the Plato dialogue. I can't read Paul's passage to be morally neutral here.

Jonathan

I never claimed that Paul was morally neutral. He is descibing a sad, sinful lifestyle. It is just not the same sad, sinful lifestyle that many people claim that he is describing.

 

[KCKID]

You have missed the point of the account becsuse Jesus said:-

John 8:11
She said: "No one, sir." Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more."

Do you REALLY believe that the adulterous woman would not have sinned any more, Barry? Do you really believe that Jesus wouldn't have known that the adulterous woman would most surely sin again? Of course He knew that she would.

Read the entire story, Barry, because I think you've missed the most important part. It's a part that could very well refer to some of the professed Christians on this forum ...maybe to you too. Jesus knelt down and began writing in the dirt. We are not told what He wrote but we can offer an educated guess. He possibly wrote 'rapist', 'thief', 'murderer', 'adulterer', 'HYPOCRITE', and other things before offering His famous line about 'those without sin casting the first stone.' Jesus had this thing about the hypocrites and the self-righteous of His day. He seems to have dispised them with a passion. I wonder what He'd kneel down and write if He came to this forum? He'd probably write the same things and probably finish up uttering the same famous line too! I wonder if you'd even DREAM of applying what He wrote and said to yourself? Probably not . . .

She had to stop here pervertion!!!!!!!!

I've no doubt that you'll take this as a compliment, Barry, but you're the stereotypical 'Bible-basher' that I was warned about many years ago! Just a piece of advice to take or leave: winning souls to Christ using this method is doomed to failure. Savvy?

 

[Bootstrap]

I would have to research it again myself, but to the best of my recollection, this Greek concept of Nature is never used in the LXX when it is tranlating canon into Greek. It is only the deutero-canonical books (the Apocrypha) most of which were written in Greek by thoroughly Hellenized expatriate communities.

That's likely to be true - I saw one reference in one of the Maccabees and decided I needed to spend more time with it before I would know how it is used in the LXX.

I never claimed that Paul was morally neutral. He is describing a sad, sinful lifestyle. It is just not the same sad, sinful lifestyle that many people claim that he is describing.

Ah, I misunderstood. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but I suspect we are on similar ground here.

Jonathan

 

[Philothei]

In other words, ARSENOKOITES has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but with sexual acts. According to Petersen, by the way, the modern concept of sexual orientation originated in 1869, when a Hungarian physician, Karoly M. Benkert, coined the phrase "homosexual"
to describe "male or female individuals" who were erotically oriented toward their own sex "from birth".

Arsenokoites are those who do "sleep with men" literally here... I am Greek BTW ought to know...() also IMO arsenokoites where also those who were like that "from birth". It describes both kind the one's who are honosexuals and those who are not "habitual" but occasionally "practice homosexual acts" ...In those days homosexuality was not "practiced" like today so although he refers to those who practice it as a sexual orientation and those who did not...

 

[Bootstrap]

WARNING - geek footnoting to follow just to clarify a few minor geek references. If you're actually interested in this post, read on ;->

Yes the Plato passage comes from Plato's dialogue "Laws," and the reference tells you which line in the first section of the dialogue it is.

Yes, I knew that. My comment was that you seemed to have the wrong reference. You said this was:

Plato Laws 1.363c

I think that was a typo in your original post, I found it here on Perseus:

Plato, Laws 1.636c

the first translation was by R G Bury and is available online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/. The second translation was by Benjamin Jowett, and is out of copyright and available for downlowl at the Gutenburg Project

And the original Greek is also up on Perseus, that's what I compared to the Roman's chapter.

Jonathan

 

[barryrob]

[/b][/u][/font]

Do you REALLY believe that the adulterous woman would not have sinned any more, Barry? Do you really believe that Jesus wouldn't have known that the adulterous woman would most surely sin again? Of course He knew that she would.

Read the entire story, Barry, because I think you've missed the most important part. It's a part that could very well refer to some of the professed Christians on this forum ...maybe to you too. Jesus knelt down and began writing in the dirt. We are not told what He wrote but we can offer an educated guess. He possibly wrote 'rapist', 'thief', 'murderer', 'adulterer', 'HYPOCRITE', and other things before offering His famous line about 'those without sin casting the first stone.' Jesus had this thing about the hypocrites and the self-righteous of His day. He seems to have dispised them with a passion. I wonder what He'd kneel down and write if He came to this forum? He'd probably write the same things and probably finish up uttering the same famous line too! I wonder if you'd even DREAM of applying what He wrote and said to yourself? Probably not . . .


I've no doubt that you'll take this as a compliment, Barry, but you're the stereotypical 'Bible-basher' that I was warned about many years ago! Just a piece of advice to take or leave: winning souls to Christ using this method is doomed to failure. Savvy?

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Savvy?​

 

[Philothei]

I've no doubt that you'll take this as a compliment, Barry, but you're the stereotypical 'Bible-basher' that I was warned about many years ago! Just a piece of advice to take or leave: winning souls to Christ using this method is doomed to failure. Savvy?

Stereotyping people does not seem too charitable to me. If you have some problem with the bible take it upon with Christ but please do not tell us what Christ would or would not say.. You are neither Christ nor am I so what is the use? Your premise is false. The fact that Christ told people to repent and sin no more is all over the Bible... First of all if you "search" the word "commandments of Christ" or "command" you will see how many times he refers to "obedience" to morality and moral codunct. Altering the 'message' is not going to alter Christ since He was the message himself. He proclaimed morality as rejected evil doing and he said to us to "be perfect as His Father in heaven" why would he say that if he did not mean it ??? Or was Christ a liar?

 

[KCKID]

Stereotyping people does not seem too charitable to me. If you have some problem with the bible take it upon with Christ but please do not tell us what Christ would or would not say.. You are neither Christ nor am I so what is the use? Your premise is false. The fact that Christ told people to repent and sin no more is all over the Bible... First of all if you "search" the word "commandments of Christ" or "command" you will see how many times he refers to "obedience" to morality and moral codunct. Altering the 'message' is not going to alter Christ since He was the message himself. He proclaimed morality as rejected evil doing and he said to us to "be perfect as His Father in heaven" why would he say that if he did not mean it ??? Or was Christ a liar?

If you cannot see the ultra-aggressiveness and the ultra-beligerent tone of the poster and his posts that I was addressing then so be it.

Jesus said NOTHING about the issue under discussion. Zilch! And until someone else who is perfect can come on this forum and preach 'perfection' by reason of lifestyle and heart condition then they are beating a dead horse preaching righteousness to others. All I know is that you and I and everyone else on this forum are on the same level playing field as far as sin is concerned. Or was Paul a liar?

 

[barryrob]

TO ALL

Jehovah God’s Standard for sexual relations is:-
Genesis 2:24
“That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”

Jesus Christ’s Standard for sexual relations is:-
Matthew 19:4-6
“In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.””

And

Mark 10:6-9
"However, from [the] beginning of creation ‘He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.””


The Apostles Standard for sexual relations is:-
Ephesians 5:31
““For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.””

1 Timothy 3:1-2
"If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, . .”[/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']

Titus 1:6
"if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, . . .”

Because of the above Biblical Texts any support for saying the Homosexuality etc. is expectable to God lies in tatters!

 

[barryrob]

[/b][/u][/font]

Do you REALLY believe that the adulterous woman would not have sinned any more, Barry? Do you really believe that Jesus wouldn't have known that the adulterous woman would most surely sin again? Of course He knew that she would.

Ths Bible answers the above:-

1 John 5:18

We know that every [person] that has been born from God does not practice sin, but the One born from God watches him, and the wicked one does not fasten his hold on him.​

Those who "practice" or ongoingly continue the same sin are not from God but the Devil:-​

1 John 3:8
He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from [the] beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, namely, to break up the works of the Devil.​

So they are in fact worshipers of the Satan The Devil as they continue to obey Satan's will and do things his way against the standard Jesus Christ set at Matt 19:5 & Mk 10:3 thus are antichrists!!​

 

[barryrob]

If you cannot see the ultra-aggressiveness and the ultra-beligerent tone of the poster and his posts that I was addressing then so be it.

Jesus said NOTHING about the issue under discussion. Zilch! And until someone else who is perfect can come on this forum and preach 'perfection' by reason of lifestyle and heart condition then they are beating a dead horse preaching righteousness to others. All I know is that you and I and everyone else on this forum are on the same level playing field as far as sin is concerned. Or was Paul a liar?

Perfection is our goal for True Christians, our role ultimate role model is God Himself:-

Matthew 5:48
YOU must accordingly be perfect, as YOUR heavenly Father is perfect. ​

Romans 12:1-2
Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy*, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. 2 And quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making YOUR mind over, that YOU may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
*Sexual Perverts are not "holy"!​

Ephesians 5:1
Therefore, become imitators of God, as beloved children, ​

Those who say that Homosexuality is OK in God's eyes then say by implication that God is Homosexual as the Bible says he (God) is to be copied by Christians, so their God is a pervert as The Bible Condemns Homosexuality etc, which in turn make their God a Hypocrite!

 

[barryrob]

[/b][/u][/color][/b][/color][/b]There's so much venom and self-righteousness in this post - this is not the way Jesus related to sinners. Consider the way Jesus treated prostitutes and tax-collectors (who helped Rome oppress the Jews of his day) - isn't that the way we should be relating to people we consider sinners today?

Of course there were times that Jesus spoke with a great deal of venom, but primarily when speaking to the scribes and the Pharisees, the self-righteous who were always ready to point out how much better they were than the sinners around them ...

Jonathan

Thoses that say Homosexuality etc. is OK are in effect acting just like the Scribe and the Pharises etc. teaching things that God says are an a abomination"

 

[KCKID]

Thoses that say Homosexuality etc. is OK are in effect acting just like the Scribe and the Pharises etc. teaching things that God says are an a abomination"

Okay, Barry. Quick question. Are you telling us that you are not a sinner like the rest of us? Are you saying that you've attained a level of perfection in your life? And please don't tell me that you're sinless by virtue of having Jesus Christ in your life. Are YOU, "barryrob", without sin?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Okay, Barry. Quick question. Are you telling us that you are not a sinner like the rest of us? Are you saying that you've attained a level of perfection in your life? And please don't tell me that you're sinless by virtue of having Jesus Christ in your life. Are YOU, "barryrob", without sin?

Barry has not said he isnt a sinner but I am under the impression you have said some aren't as you deny homosexual practice is a sin. Is this so?

 

[barryrob]

Okay, Barry. Quick question. Are you telling us that you are not a sinner like the rest of us? Are you saying that you've attained a level of perfection in your life? And please don't tell me that you're sinless by virtue of having Jesus Christ in your life. Are YOU, "barryrob", without sin?

Did you not read it is a "goal" to aim at!

No one is with out sin, you know that!

But what is being talked of here in the onging practice of what God conciders "Gross Sin" which can be stopped:-

Genesis 13:13
And the men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.


but as Paul this can change:-

1 Corinthians 6:11
And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.

No change from the practice "gross sin" there in then no exceptable relationship with God but only destrution to look forward to from God as with "the men of Sodom"!!