Jude verse

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
. . .
[SIZE=-1]Romans talks about temple prostitution...read the whole first chapter of Romans for context. The people left Christianity and embraced their old Pagan beliefs. And part of Pagan belief and practice back then was to sleep with the clergy of the temple. In addition, it was a common Pagan cultural custom for adult men to keep young boys for their "personal enjoyment."

1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy are suggesting the same thing.
. . .

What did the prophets believe was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah however? Look up what, say, Isaiah thought?

I have read what they wrote at the time. I've read the "proof texts" that the Church Fathers thought "homosexuality" to be a sin. They weren't talking about loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships. They were talking about temple prostitution and adult men keeping boys for "personal enjoyment."[/SIZE]

You keep demanding proof then you make statements about temple prostitution men keeping boys,etc., without a single shred of proof.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence, rabbinical rulings dating from 1200 BC, copied directly from the Soncino Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, portfolio 54, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

You will note that Clement refers to Lesbian marriage. That blows your "no loving monogamous relationship" aregument away.

The early church interpreted αρσενοκοιτης/arsenokoités [1 Cor 6:9] variously as,
• “sodomy,”
• “filth of sodomy,”
• ”lawless lust,”
• “lust,”
• “impurity,”
• “works of the flesh,”
• “carnal,”
• “lawless intercourse,”
• “shameless,”
• “burning with insane love for boys,”
• “licentiousness,”
• “co-habitors with males,”
• “lusters after mankind
• “monstrosities,” etc.​
Quoted from;
• Ignatius, 30-107 AD;
• Polycarp 65 - 155 AD;
• Irenaeus, 120-202 AD;
• Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD;
• Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD;
• Tertullian, 145-220 AD;
• Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and
• Origen, 185-254 AD.​
Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years. The early church fathers interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!
Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.html

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

So also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle [Paul] testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers],

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.html


Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.


And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: [Lesbian marriage] no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body opening is used for “lechery”/“libidinousness.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves


Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.


Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God;" [1 Cor 6:9]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.vi.html

Tertullian VII. On Modesty.[sup]1[/sup] Chapter IV.-Adultery and Fornication Synonymous.

Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well-connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church-run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions-impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes-beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65.
That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.html

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and
integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.html
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Just because Jesus appears as a man doesn't mean he isn't God.

Not a parallel, for Jesus did appear as God as well as Man. That's the whole jist of the Incarnation. Do not forget the Transfiguration.

For just like God can be a father, a Son, and a Spirit, I can be a brother, a son and a father at the same time. Although cars may appear in different shapes and sizes, colors, and have different people drive them, they are still manned by humans.

Again, are they angels or mortal men?

Just as Angels can appear as Spirits and as men, so can God.

Your point being? All you've done is repeat my proof ineffectively.

Are they angels or are they mortal men?

inappropriate behavior with animals is defined as sexual intercourse with an animal. Do I really have to define what an animal is?

inappropriate behavior with animals can include any non-human species.

In addition, that's a very strange second question to ask...see below for why.

inappropriate behavior with animals does not apply to amphibians, for that would be called something else. And likewise, just as inappropriate behavior with animals isn't defined as having sex with reptiles, inappropriate behavior with animals doesn't apply to sex with Angels.

:doh:Amphibians are animals. Animals include reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and mammals.

Although I support your theory for saying that having sex with Angels may not be homosexual, nonetheless, without a doubt the men who wanted to have sex with them had it in their minds that the Angels were men and lusted over them in that way.

So what? They weren't men but angels. What they thought they saw didn't exist, so even if they succeeded, they wouldn't have done what you suggested.

A person is caught after committing a crime. The woman stole what she thought was a priceless, $4,000 antique. In reality, it turned out to be really worth $50 bucks. Now in this fiction, the law demands that any theft in which the stolen goods totally between $2,000 and $5,000, they are charged with 3rd degree theft where as those who steal at most $50 are charged with 5th degree theft. You are the prosecuter.

Now by what you argue, you've charged the person with
3rd degree theft. After all, it is what the criminal thought is what counts. However, of course, the jury finds the woman innocent, since she in reality didn't commit the crime of that severity. Worst of all, you cannot in this fictional country charge her again, since it would be double jeopardy!

Do you see now why your argument is invalid?

Yes, Angels are not men and Angels may be genderless, but your not seeing the point I am making.

I assure you I comprehend it quite well. Unfortunately, your logic is off.

The point I am making is not that the Angels and men of Soddom had sex, but the fact that is what was in the hearts of the men who wanted to have sex with the Angels.

You did not answer my other reply. What is the difference between "homosexual lust" and "heterosexual lust?" Is my lust for a new computer any different if I lust for a Dell or an HP? The end result is the same: I'm lusting for a computer. In the case of the dwellers of Sodom, what matters is that they lusted for sex.

inappropriate behavior with animals is not defined as having sex with Angels, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and other such creatures. inappropriate behavior with animals is defined as having sexual intercourse with an animal.

inappropriate behavior with animals can be technically any non-same race intercourse.

And furthermore, if you really think that reptiles, amphibians, and insects aren't animals, with all due respect, you should retake middle school life science.

All mammals are animals but not all animals are mammals. You are Affirming the Consequent.

Angels are not animals, they are a domain of their own, separate from animals, insects, amphibians, reptiles, and mankind.

They are a different race so they do technically count.

And like I said, even if I were wrong here, human-angel relations were already prohibited in Genesis 6.

Please, when you reply and rebut, please do so with my entire argument, not just one point.

Sodom and Gomorrah were not initially to be punished because of their intent towards the angels.

Noooo...their judgment was already sealed in Genesis 18. God even talks to Himself that those cities would be destroyed. That was before the angels came to Sodom to visit Lot.


Sodom and Gomorrah were to be destroyed because God had heard that their sin was very grievous;

That's very true, but the judgment came before the visitation of the angels, not after.


The punishment was for what God had knowledge of previous to the angels arrival.
So what was the 'very grevious sin'?


This is where the intent against the angels comes in to play.

I think we have to ask ourselves; Did the men of the town come with homosexual intent?

This begs the question again: is homosexual rape any different from heterosexual rape? Or how about raping an angel? Raping a cat? I realize this sounds rather grotesque, but it makes clear the point that rape is rape however you cut it. Whether whomever or WHATEVER (ick, I know!) is involved, if it isn't welcome, it is rape.


o me it is quite clear;

But you must prove it to be clear.



They asked for the 'men' so their intent was toward what they believed to be men. (the fact that they were angels and not men, I will address separately)

You must address this first since that is my primary argument. Otherwise, you're drawing up a Straw Man.


'know them' comes from the hebrew 'to know' in a carnal sense.

Possibly, but that phrase doesn't always mean to have sex with. When the Bible for example talks about tails, it could indeed refer to a sexual organ or it could simply mean a tail. Context is everything.

Here, both seem equally possible and it is within reason to say that both are correct. Perhaps the people wanted to know whether these were the prophets of doom that would usher in the end to their city. After all, they were grave sinners, that point is agreed upon, so I'm certain it is reasonable to assume that, in such an obviously avoided city and their self-realization that they were in big doodoo with God could very easily prompt their curiosity to the identity of two strangers wandering into their city, especially when they seem to be aquaintences with the only virtuous man in the city!

And yes, it is quite probable that they intended to rape them. Although Lot's offering of his virgin daughters strongly promotes that idea, it is very possible that the folks of the city did not actually know them at all! Put yourself in Lot's position: you have three virgin daughters and you are living in a city of pure wickedness...would you let them out to be on their own?! I for one would not, so whereas the evidence against my argument I admit is strong, it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

From this it is clear that they intended homosexual rape upon them. I don't see any other interpretation possible.

1. Again, rape is rape is rape. Is a black man less of a man than a white man? After all, he is a black man. Or perhaps it is the opposite after all, he is a white man, and the other is a black man. Rape is rape is rape is rape.

2. I think my alternative is definitely within the realm of possibility.


I think we all agree that rape is a sin.

No question about it.

However, and this I address to JohnChapter14 as well...what do you both think about the fact that not just the men were gathered there? Read Genesis 19 again...is it just men there or is it everyone? If it is everyone, it would be women too, yes?

So...is it really homosexuality? Even if you were to for some reason reject the fact that all rape is rape no matter the qualifier, the presence of women completely dispels the notion that a specific gender-qualifier of rape was attempted. It would be completely proof-positive-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-evidence that homosexuality was not really to do with it but simple rape. All this, of course, if "to know" isn't to wonder if the two strangers weren't the messengers of doom they've all probably been in fear of.

I was making a point. The Angels appeared in the form of men. The men did not know they were Angels.

That's irrelevent! It doesn't matter if you say it matters, it does not.

Is the woman in the above example guilty of 5th degree theft or 3rd degree theft? There is only one correct conclusion.

Therefore, if the men wanted to have sex with the Angels, and thought the Angels were men, the men had homosexual intentions within their hearts.

Rape is rape is rape is rape.

By your logic, heterosexuality is a sin too. After all, the rapist 35 year-old man looked at the 13 year-old girl wanted her carnally. And he took her. Is now heterosexuality a perversion?

Rape is rape is rape is rape. That, or heterosexuality is just as perverted as homosexuality by your logic. Which is it?

Lastly, is what they are wanting a loving, cooperative, monogomous relationship?

What do most GLBTs involved with the actual movement want? They want equal rights with their S brothers and sisters in humanity. They want their loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships treated equally under the law as the loving, cooperative, monogomous relationshops of Straights have and enjoy.

The fact that these people in Sodom didn't want that is proof positive that, even if homosexuality is the reason, you would have only condemned a violent, unrespectful, unloving, and most certainly uncooperative form of it.

Rape is condemned. Does that mean all sex is evil, or is a certain kind of sex condemned. All rape is sex, but not all sex is rape. To suggest all sex is rape because rape is condemned is Affirming the Consequent.

There is no (if it were true) because that was what they were desiring. Lot offered them a virgin women and they refused. Evidence of this is expressed by their lips:
"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" (Gen 19:4)

NIV is a dynamic equivalence. Give me a formal equivalence translation. What does the Hebrew or the Greek if you so choose to use the Septuagint, actually read there? Give me a literal translation. Does it mention sex?

I have already, in my reply with kagol, shown that there is a doubt that "to know" must mean "to have sex with." The Bible talks about tail to mean a sexual organ and it also talks about it to mean a literal tail. Context is everything. And I offered a very plausible, logic situation that gives credence to the idea that "to know" is literal.

There is no beyond a shadow of a doubt. I brought about a reasonable, logical doubt that fully befits the situation.


Continued!
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Continued from above:

Furthermore, my NIV bible describes the Angels as men who cast blindness upon the sinners. (Gen 19:10)

The NIV is rejected. Give me a formal equivalence. If you don't have one, there are plenty of online Bibles of all the popular and even unpopular versions and translations that you can freely use. Any of those considered formal equivalences will do.

So you see, Angels appeared in the form of men. They had the bodies of men. They were fully Angels, with bodies of men. Likewise, Jesus is God taking the form of a man. The Angels cannot be genderless in this case. And in this case, they had bodies of men, including gentiles.

How do you know they had genitles. Humans can be without them; perhaps they had bodies without them. Can you PROVE that they had them?

Again, I've just brought about reasonable doubt.

You also forget that Lot offered to wash the Angels feet (Gen 19: 2) and that the Angels had a meal (Gen 19:3) and slept (Gen 19:4).

Which parallels what Abram did when the two were with the Angel of the Lord earlier, yes? This is called "hospitality." It was middle-eastern custom of the time to welcome strangers (!!! there's that word! STRANGERS!) in such a welcoming, generous manner. You live in an arid land with little water and mostly inariable land, and to be welcomed with such a rich welcome is well-befitting God's favor!

Look at how Abram greeted his guests. It was splended! Now look how Lot greeted two of the same strangers who had earlier greeted his uncle. Notice that he did not treat them as well, yet they were not offended. This sets the bare minimum. Now look how the wicked treat the strangers: with suspicion without a loving welcome which Lot did offer; his was still kind and still did offer them things of his that he didn't have to offer them but did anyway.

Hospitality, as you've just pointed out, is of key importance. These two chapters are all about it.

The Angels appeared fully as men, and the sinners wanted to commit homosexual acts with them.

You keep repeating and repeat this. Prove it please.

lust is lust, but I am making a point here about Angels taking on the form of men: they could eat, sleep, have their feet washed, and they were so obvious as looking like men that the people of Soddom believed they were men.

Are they men? Are they not angels? Is the woman above guilty of 5th degree theft or 3rd degree theft?

This is not inappropriate behavior with animals.

inappropriate behavior with animals can mean relations between two non-same species.

I have provided you with christian sources of the definition in my previous posts and non-christian definitions in this post. In all the links I have given for how it is defined are respectable sources that will define it as sexual relations between Mankind and animalkind.

If you are a human, you're an animal.
If a human has a relationship with a human, it is with an animal.
If inappropriate behavior with animals is sex between humans and animals, that means that my parents practiced inappropriate behavior with animals.

What you need to understand is that inappropriate behavior with animals is between two different species. Them being a mammal or a fish or even a tree (I know...ick!) doesn't matter. Angels are in effect a different species of being. Not earthly, no doubt about that! BUT, a species of being; their own seperate race, nonetheless.

My use of inappropriate behavior with animals, therefore, does apply.

Are Spirits defined a species? Nonetheless, Angels are not animals, nor are they spiritual animals, therefore, Angelic sex with humans is not inappropriate behavior with animals.

A species is any race of living beings that is unique I would argue. Angels are a race of living beings that are unique. They are, therefore, a species.
 
Upvote 0

kagol

Active Member
May 17, 2007
68
5
✟15,226.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
PaladinValer :o
My head is reeling! While I thank you for your response, I did ask that you keep it separate from everything else entailed here (is that a sexual organ or just a tail?;) ).

As you can see it is very late where I am and I have to get some sleep. But I will be back tomorrow to continue.
Peace :wave: :sleep:
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Again, are they angels or mortal men?

inappropriate behavior with animals can include any non-human species.[size=+1][Your evidence?][/size]

So what? They weren't men but angels. What they thought they saw didn't exist, so even if they succeeded, they wouldn't have done what you suggested. [size=+1][Your evidence they could not have done it?][/size]
* * *
inappropriate behavior with animals can be technically any non-same race intercourse. [size=+1][Your evidence?][/size]. . .
So...is it really homosexuality? Even if you were to for some reason reject the fact that all rape is rape no matter the qualifier, the presence of women completely dispels the notion that a specific gender-qualifier of rape was attempted. It would be completely proof-positive-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-evidence that homosexuality was not really to do with it but simple rape. All this, of course, if "to know" isn't to wonder if the two strangers weren't the messengers of doom they've all probably been in fear of. [size=+1][Your evidence for this supposition?][/size][/SIZE]

Still demanding evidence but filling your replies with your own unsupported assumptions and presuppostions. The sins of Sodom according to Jewish scholars from the time of Moses. Any questions. Spare me further regalings with your guesses, and presumptions. This OBTW is what is known as "historical context."
Talmud -- tractate Sanhedrin, folio 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS inappropriate behavior with animals ARE STONED
. . . . Our Rabbis taught: If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]. . . [Note: All upper case appears in the original]

Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[sup]1[/sup] . . . whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:[sup]2[sup] and it is further said, . . .

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. . . .

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind. [sup]13[/sup] . . .

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), . . .(see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.


2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . .

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halakhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth

The two verses in the book of (Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah’s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.”​

http://www.uscj.org/POINTRoth6331.html

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":

"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -— their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."

Official Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the sex act, which the Torah flatly prohibits, and homosexuality as a sexual identity.
"Homosexuality is not a state of being in traditional Judaism; it's an act," Freundel says. "Desires are … not relevant."​

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/moment.html
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You keep demanding proof then you make statements about temple prostitution men keeping boys,etc., without a single shred of proof.

Romans 1 makes it very clear. They left Christianity for the old ways. The old ways included temple prostitution. Therefore, they left Christianity for the old ways which included temple prostitution; They left Christianity for temple prostitution. (A->B->C; A->C)

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions.

I disagree.

Recent posts: Evidence, rabbinical rulings dating from 1200 BC, copied directly from the Soncino Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, portfolio 54, and other ancient Jewish writings,

As I am not Jewish, I'm not interested in what the Jews had to think definitely.

You will note that Clement refers to Lesbian marriage. That blows your "no loving monogamous relationship" aregument away.

Where?



The early church interpreted &#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;/arsenokoités [1 Cor 6:9] variously as,
• “sodomy,”


• “filth of sodomy,”


• ”lawless lust,”


• “lust,”


• “impurity,”


• “works of the flesh,”


• “carnal,”


• “lawless intercourse,”


• “shameless,”


• “burning with insane love for boys,”


• “licentiousness,”


• “co-habitors with males,”


• “lusters after mankind


• “monstrosities,” etc.
Quoted from;
• Ignatius, 30-107 AD;


• Polycarp 65 - 155 AD;


• Irenaeus, 120-202 AD;


• Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD;


• Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD;


• Tertullian, 145-220 AD;


• Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and


• Origen, 185-254 AD.

Forgive me, but none of those mean homosexuality.



Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]



But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.
Impure love of boys doesn't sound like loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships, do they?

Lots of heterosexual men have an impure love of girls. Does that make heterosexuality wrong?





Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]
In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

Begging the Question. You claim homosexuality is those things, but these isn't proof. You are assuming that is what is implied but in reality, as I'm sure you'll agree, it is not explicit. It is the same as using "it" in a sentence talking to someone without qualifying what "it" is to begin with!





Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]
So also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle [Paul] testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].
Ditto my above.


Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers],
Ditto my above.


Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.



And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned?
What was the sin of Sodom however? It doesn't appear to be homosexuality at all.

And it is the Stoics that teach it and they learned it from boyhood. Sounds like that first one you gave me. So unless heterosexuality is also a sin, you did not prove that the ECFs taught homosexuality in general is a sin.





Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]
The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.
See my immediate above.


Continued!
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Continuing On!

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen
And what are the laws? &#8220;Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.&#8221; And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men&#8217;s hearts: &#8220;Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;&#8221; &#8220;thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.&#8221;

Is heterosexuality a sin too? Not proof.



Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: [Lesbian marriage] no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body opening is used for &#8220;lechery&#8221;/&#8220;libidinousness.&#8221;] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

First off, forgive me, but I read the entire 1st book, and did not find this. Mind telling me what chapter and perhaps what paragraph?

In any event, Roman law forbid same-gendered marriages, so it is impossible to read this like you did. However, in Pagan belief, in temple prostitution that is, there is a union with the deity the priestess serves, who is, according to the belief, succum to that deity and is that deity for all sense and purpose. So in this sense, she would be both wife (married to someone else) and "husband" to the one she is ritually engaging with.

As such, I see no proof. However, again, I'd love to relook it with my own eyes and without your "helping brackets" if you could be so kind as you tell me what chapter in the 1st Book. I might have to retract, but I'll stick to my current decision for now.





Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3


Against Men Who Embellish Themselves



Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

That's very persumpterous. I've know one or two rather effeminate men who sound very much like this yet were quite straight.





Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.



Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God;" [1 Cor 6:9]
See my aboves.


Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]
Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]
Romans 1 is pure temple prostitution. This merely quotes it; it doesn't prove it is homosexuality.





Tertullian VII. On Modesty.[sup]1[/sup] Chapter IV.-Adultery and Fornication Synonymous.
Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well-connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church-run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions-impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes-beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities.

I see nothing but eisegesis here.




Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]
65. That all sins are put away in baptism.



In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].
Just a quote, nothing more. I see no proof.



Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]
and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and


integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, &#8220;men with men working that which is unseemly.&#8221; [Rom 1:27]
Raping angels is very unseemly, I agree! But as angels are neither men nor women, I cannot accept this as proof.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just for fun lets use the standard definition of "inappropriate behavior with animals" NOT the PaladinValer ad hoc version.

Main Entry: bes·ti·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "bes-chE-'a-l&-tE, "besh-, "bEs-, "bEsh-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the condition or status of a lower animal
2 : display or gratification of bestial traits or impulses
3 : sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal​
According to the Jewish Publication Society Englsish ttranlation of Gen 19:5. The people of Sodom believed the angels to be men.
JPS Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen.htm
God does NOT destroy people for "thinking" about doing something. God does not arbitrarily destroy people unless they knew what they were doing was wrong.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.​
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Just for fun lets use the standard definition of "inappropriate behavior with animals" NOT the PaladinValer ad hoc version.

Even still, as I said before, relations between humans and angels was condemned in Genesis 6.

God does NOT destroy people for "thinking" about doing something. God does not arbitrarily destroy people unless they knew what they were doing was wrong.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​


Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.​

I agree, but that is hardly proof that homosexuality was the sin or one of the sins of Sodom that they'd be destroyed because of.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Romans 1 makes it very clear. They left Christianity for the old ways. The old ways included temple prostitution. Therefore, they left Christianity for the old ways which included temple prostitution; They left Christianity for temple prostitution. (A->B->C; A->C)[/SIZE]

You keep repeating your assumptions and presuppostions about "temple prostitution" etc. and ignoring my request for evidence. Were yuou to actually read my citations vice pulling out isolated sentences you would notice that NONE of the early church fathers even mention temple prostitutes and certainly do not limit their condemnation to to such.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,078
2,011
Visit site
✟24,764.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a very good example of what the Jesus is talking about when He says that the blind lead the blind and they both fall into the ditch.
Matthew 15:14, Luke 6:39

You have to be completely BLIND to not comprehend that it was the sexual perversion of homosexuality that is clearly indicated when the men seeing the angels (who appeared as men) at Lots house, wanted to be let in so that they could KNOW (in the Biblical sense) the angels, and were thronging the door.

2 Peter 2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


Even still, as I said before, relations between humans and angels was condemned in Genesis 6.



I agree, but that is hardly proof that homosexuality was the sin or one of the sins of Sodom that they'd be destroyed because of.
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,078
2,011
Visit site
✟24,764.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
None of them even mention homosexuality and certainly don't condemn loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships.


Apparently it begs repeating, since you keep repeating these heretical teachings, leading the sheep into slaughter.


You have to be completely BLIND to not comprehend that it was the sexual perversion of homosexuality that is clearly indicated when the men seeing the angels (who appeared as men) at Lots house, wanted to be let in so that they could KNOW (in the Biblical sense) the angels, and were thronging the door.

2 Peter 2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,078
2,011
Visit site
✟24,764.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And the Church said...... :amen::amen::amen::amen::amen:

You keep demanding proof then you make statements about temple prostitution men keeping boys,etc., without a single shred of proof.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence, rabbinical rulings dating from 1200 BC, copied directly from the Soncino Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, portfolio 54, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

You will note that Clement refers to Lesbian marriage. That blows your "no loving monogamous relationship" aregument away.

The early church interpreted &#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;/arsenokoités [1 Cor 6:9] variously as,
• “sodomy,”
• “filth of sodomy,”
• ”lawless lust,”
• “lust,”
• “impurity,”
• “works of the flesh,”
• “carnal,”
• “lawless intercourse,”
• “shameless,”
• “burning with insane love for boys,”
• “licentiousness,”
• “co-habitors with males,”
• “lusters after mankind
• “monstrosities,” etc.​
Quoted from;
• Ignatius, 30-107 AD;
• Polycarp 65 - 155 AD;
• Irenaeus, 120-202 AD;
• Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD;
• Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD;
• Tertullian, 145-220 AD;
• Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and
• Origen, 185-254 AD.​
Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years. The early church fathers interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!
Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.html

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

So also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle [Paul] testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers],

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.html


Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.


And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: [Lesbian marriage] no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body opening is used for “lechery”/“libidinousness.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves


Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.


Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God;" [1 Cor 6:9]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.vi.html

Tertullian VII. On Modesty.[sup]1[/sup] Chapter IV.-Adultery and Fornication Synonymous.

Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well-connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church-run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions-impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes-beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65.
That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.html

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and
integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.html
 
Upvote 0

IamRedeemed

Blessed are the pure in Heart, they shall see God.
May 18, 2007
6,078
2,011
Visit site
✟24,764.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's right. It is like a broken record, of the blind leading the blind.

You keep repeating your assumptions and presuppostions about "temple prostitution" etc. and ignoring my request for evidence. Were yuou to actually read my citations vice pulling out isolated sentences you would notice that NONE of the early church fathers even mention temple prostitutes and certainly do not limit their condemnation to to such.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Even still, as I said before, relations between humans and angels was condemned in Genesis 6.

I agree, but that is hardly proof that homosexuality was the sin or one of the sins of Sodom that they'd be destroyed because of[/SIZE]
.

Angels are never mentioned in Gen 6!

Although you obviously do not know the first thing about Biblical Hebrew and you ignore all my Jewish sources because you are not Jewish, but you presume to interpret the Hebrew O.T., and tell us what Hebrew words mean

I provided the ONLY reliable historical context for the topic of homosexuality in the O.T.. From the time of Moses Hebrew scholars have consistently interpreted the incident with the angels in Sodom and the punishment God meted out as being related to homosexual acts. I provided the references you blew them off. Do we have anything else to talk about?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[size=-1]I disagree. [/size]

Your unsupported “disagreement” without any explanation is meaningless.

[size=-1]As I am not Jewish, I'm not interested in what the Jews had to think definitely.[/size]

Of course, you are not interested in how Jewish scholars have interpreted scripture since the time of Moses. You would rather read into all relevant O.T. scripture, your assumptions and presuppositions and the usual cut/paste from homosexuals-&#1103;-us.com®

[size=-1]Where? [/size]

Were you to actually read my post you would not have to ask that question. It is highlighted in blue, also read this from a gay website.
People with a History presents the history of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people [=LGBT]. It includes hundreds of original texts, discussions, and [soon] images, and addresses LGBT history in all periods, and in all regions of the world.

Clement of Alexandria was a major early Church father. He addressed sexuality in some detail. In this chapter of his work Paidogogus, he discusses effeminate men and masculine women. He is clearly hostile. Nevertheless the passage is interesting for a number of reasons:

• Clement gives a lot of information about pathic homosexual activity.
• Although he discusses men for the most part, he includes a discussion of female homosexuality as well. There is no question that he has in mind some general notion of "homosexuality" here.
• Clement also seems to discuss lesbian marriages
.

The last two points play a major role in Bernadette Brooten's book, Love Between Women, (Chicago: 1996). Brooten argues that the marriages referred to by Clement were a real Egyptian social custom, although this is controversial. The book is required for those interested in the period.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/clem-ped-3-3.html
[size=-1]Forgive me, but none of those mean homosexuality. [/size]

Read them in-context, not bits and pieces out-of-context.

[size=-1]Impure love of boys doesn't sound like loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships, do they? [/size]

Read the rest of the quote, in-context!

[size=-1]Lots of heterosexual men have an impure love of girls. Does that make heterosexuality wrong? [/size]

Irrelevant, when read in context.

[size=-1]Begging the Question. You claim homosexuality is those things, but these isn't proof. You are assuming that is what is implied but in reality, as I'm sure you'll agree, it is not explicit. It is the same as using "it" in a sentence talking to someone without qualifying what "it" is to begin with! [/size]

Christianity did not fall out of the sky one day, all the original disciples were Jews. Their Theology was that of the O.T. According to the sources I have posted, the sin of Sodom was homosexual acts, i.e. “sodomy”.

[size=-1]What was the sin of Sodom however? It doesn't appear to be homosexuality at all. [/size]

See my Jewish sources!

And it is the Stoics that teach it and they learned it from boyhood. Sounds like that first one you gave me. So unless heterosexuality is also a sin, you did not prove that the ECFs taught homosexuality in general is a sin. [/size]

Read the rest of the quote in context. By quoting a word here and there, bits and pieces, anyone can make almost anything say whatever they want it to.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]None of them even mention homosexuality and certainly don't condemn loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships.[/SIZE]

Is this some kind semantical copout, because they did not use the English word "homosexual?" None of which "mention homosexuality?" If you are talking about the ECF, reread Clement.

If you actually read my posts. READ! Not skim thru pulling out bits and pieces you will find that some ECF actually referred to your so-called "loving, cooperative, monogomous [sic] relationships." You might also note that the ancient Jews also knew about and condemned those same so-called relationships.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Interestingly Lot recognised the angels 'mal'ak' Lot addresses them as Lords 'adown' which is human or divine. There is in fact no indication that the men ''enowsh' of Sodom knew they were angels, and the men of Sodom, to Lot, refered to the angels as men 'enowsh'
So firstly anyone suggesting the men of Sodom wanted sex with angels is not only a guess, but goes somewhat against what the text says. The clue is in what the text says.
Futhermore Jude 1 says that the towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality, if we want to see what the sexual immorality involved we can see from scripture as a whole that this included adultery.

Of course Jude 1 also says 'these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.' So slandering celestial beings is in addition to the sexual immorality they did, not the sexual immorality itself. This is of course also what Paul writes that sexual sin is unlike other sin in that it polutes one's own body.
Paul of course also writes the same idolotry and same-sex sex and all the other sins in Romans 1.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Dear PaldinValer,
The Bible shows us that same-sex sex is wrong so if the Bible did mention homosexuality and loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships. Then it would be condemning it. In the same way the Bible doesnt mention internet inappropriate content but we know that inappropriate content is lust which the Bible does tell us is wrong. I couldnt justify downloading child inappropriate content images from the internet just because Jesus never mentioned the internet, because He did of course mention that inappropriate content was wrong, indeed the Greek word is inappropriate contenteia or fornication.
 
Upvote 0