A re-examination of nothing

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII

I posed a question to Davedjy which you chose to quote and comment on by asking me another question. I repeat until you address that question I am not expecting to have to answer another question form you. Perhaps you should not have quoted my question to Davedjy.
However,
No I think not. ArsenokoiteV appears in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1. Where else does arsenokoite appear and is translated and which translation?

And all the Bible translations I have seen are clear and studies I have seen from Greek scholars tell me the opposite.

is what I asked you to support with references... there is no question here to answer

 

[EnemyPartyII]

One more thing, some scholars will try to snow you with a faulty method of doing "word studies." In this method, they'll pull compound words like arsenokoites apart (arsen / koites), define each half (male / bed), then stick the word back together again with the combined definitions. Sounds great but....hmmm....okay, here's my thought: if this doesn't work on English words, then why does it work on ancient Greek words? You can't simply pick a compound word apart that you don't know and say it means the combination of all the smaller words contained therein. Do you get it? Try it with the following words: foot/ball (soccer?); under/stand (to stand under?); dark/room (simply a room that’s dark?); hall/mark (a crayon mark on the wallpaper?); pee/been (something you ask a small child before bed?); AND ARE YOU BEGINNING TO BELIEVE ME?

Furthermore, even when this approach gets the definition approximately right, you’ve still lost all the nuances that truly bring the term to life—you’ve just got the corpse of the term, not its spirit. Therefore, I salute Dale Martin's confession that "I should be clear about my claims here. I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant" (Martin, p.123). Despite my praises of Martin, he, too, couldn’t resist guessing the mystery word, saying it seems to have referred to some sort of economic exploitation by means of sex but not necessarily limited to male-male sex.
http://www.queerme.com/appendix_a.htm

 

[Der Alte]

Care to do so again? smallish, bite sized chunks would be good.

Same question to you, as well... don't the older translations of the Bible where the word is translated as "masturbation" indicate that there is some amount of disagreement?

Strange you should say that, you were one of my most vocal opponents before I quit posting here.

The scripture prohibiting all forms of same gender sex does not differentiate between Jew and gentile, but says "a man shall not lie with a man."

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars 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 Talmudic scholars did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED [caps in the original]. . . . 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.1 . . . 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:2 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. 13 . . .

http://www.comeandhear.com/navigate.html

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

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/vi...d=415&letter=​

D

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPArtyII,

ARSENOKOITES:

Arsenokoites is a word that appears in 1 Tim 1 and 1 Cor 6 and it means male-sex bed. 1 Tim 1 points us to the law and hence Lev 18 and 20, a man arsen/aren, shall not lie koites with another man arsen/aren as with a woman.

You are off topic. This thread is about the evidence to countennace same-sex sex not your rejection of the evidence that condemns same-sex sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Strange you should say that, you were one of my most vocal opponents before I quit posting here.

The scripture prohibiting all forms of same gender sex does not differentiate between Jew and gentile, but says "a man shall not lie with a man."

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars 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 Talmudic scholars did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED [caps in the original]. . . . 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.1 . . . 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:2 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. 13 . . .

http://www.comeandhear.com/navigate.html

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

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/vi...d=415&letter=​

D

Um... if Christians were to follow Talmudic traditions without re-evaluating them... wouldn't we all just be Jews?

If you are prepared to re-evaluate OTHER Talmudic interpretations, why not this one?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPArtyII,
Arsenokoites is a word that appears in 1 Tim 1 and 1 Cor 6 and it means male-sex bed. 1 Tim 1 points us to the law and hence Lev 18 and 20, a man arsen/aren, shall not lie koites with another man arsen/aren as with a woman.

You are off topic. This thread is about the evidence to countennace same-sex sex not your rejection of the evidence that condemns same-sex sex.

thats not what it means.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Um... if Christians were to follow Talmudic traditions without re-evaluating them... wouldn't we all just be Jews?

If you are prepared to re-evaluate OTHER Talmudic interpretations, why not this one?

I think you are missing the point here. It gives insight on what the men who wrote the bible believed in regards to same-sex sex.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

thats not what it means.

You stated that no one knows what it means, so how do you know what it doesn't mean? Phinehas has made a very good correlation here between the 1cor 6:9 passage and the man-lying passage of leviticus. Even those on your side of the argument have assumed the link between the two.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You stated that no one knows what it means, so how do you know what it doesn't mean? Phinehas has made a very good correlation here between the 1cor 6:9 passage and the man-lying passage of leviticus. Even those on your side of the argument have assumed the link between the two.

because it doesn't make sense to mean what YOUR side say it means (we are forming sides now?)

Sure, lets agree that the Leviticus passage and the Romans passage mean the same thing... just because they mean the same thing doesn't mean they mean homosexuality... and, indeed, they have both been interpreted to mean different things in the past

 

[EnemyPartyII]

St Paul's use of arsenokoites is obscure

It has been argued that the Apostle Paul invented the arsenokoites because there was no word that referred to all (active) homosexuals, regardless of the type of relationship they were in. This is quite wrong. He had many different words at his disposal for referring to homosexuality in general, not just pederasty. Hence, we must search further for the meaning of this word. The best way to learn the meaning of this word is to look at its usage in other contexts. The problem is that we primarily find arsenokoites in lists, which give us little information as to the meaning of the word. A search of the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (TLG) database as of 1997 shows 73 usages. Most of these are in lists that are of the same basic pattern as that found in St Paul, using mostly the same words. The few contexts in which we find these words do not require that the word means "all (active) homosexuals".

One method of interpreting the word is to try to discern some meaning from the use of arsenokoites in the lists. Sin lists tend to congregate words of similar type together. For example, "first are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics, or injustice" [Martin, 120]. In most of the TLG listings, the order is fairly standard:

pornoi, moixoi,
malakoi, (arsenokoitai),
kleptai, pleonektai, methusoi,
loidoroi, or arsenokoites
andrapodistais kai epiorkrois​

Translated, the pattern is as follows:

temple prostitutes, adulterers,
the morally weak (malakos), arsenokoites,
thieves, the greedy, drunkards,
the foul-mouthed or arsenokoites,
slave traders, perjurers.​

In the TLG lists, the division is not very clear, other than they seem to start off with sexual sins, then include malakos and possibly arsenokoites, before passing on to sins of social injustice and impropriety. If this were all we had, then we would not know on which side to classify arsenokoites: whether sexual, social or some mixture of the two. However, there are two non-TLG texts, both of which are early usages of arsenokoites:

"Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoites, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has laboured his wage. Do not oppress a poor man."
[The Sibylline Oracle: 2; in Martin, 120] "And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoites, the thief, and all of this band..."
[The Acts of John: 36; in Martin, 121]
​

In neither of these texts do we find any hint of sexuality. While we may think that we know that arsenokoites is some type of sex related sin, translating it as "homosexual" in these lists makes no sense. It just doesn't fit with the other categories.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pharseas.world/Greeks.html

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

because it doesn't make sense to mean what YOUR side say it means (we are forming sides now?)

You stated that you didn't know what it meant, then you stated that you knew what it did not mean. Which one is it? Yes there are 2 sides to this debate, those who believe the bible condemns same-sex sex and those who do not.

Sure, lets agree that the Leviticus passage and the Romans passage mean the same thing... just because they mean the same thing doesn't mean they mean homosexuality... and, indeed, they have both been interpreted to mean different things in the past

.....

I don't have time to address this right now im sorry. Have a good day.

 

[OllieFranz]

Strange you should say that, you were one of my most vocal opponents before I quit posting here.

The scripture prohibiting all forms of same gender sex does not differentiate between Jew and gentile, but says "a man shall not lie with a man."

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars 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 Talmudic scholars did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, &#8220;homosexual rape,&#8221; &#8220;temple prostitution,&#8221; pagan temples and/or religious activities!

Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a ​

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED [caps in the original]. . . . 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? &#8212; From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 . . . whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? &#8212; Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, . . .​

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused &#8212; 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. 13 . . .​

http://www.comeandhear.com/navigate.html​

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><​

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/vi...d=415&letter=​

D

Hello again Der Alter.

The last time *you pasted these comments into one of your posts (back in October), I went to the Talmud passages that you quote from and found that you were selective in what you chose to include. I quoted from the rest of that section of Sanhedrin and pointed out that they were divided as to whether the passive partner was also guilty, or if he was to be stoned because he was ritually defiled to a point where only a blood sacrifice could restore his soul. The rabbis also determined that the Levitical commands against homosexuality and bestiality were never expected to be enforced against non-Jews.

You never replied. Are you ready to respond yet?

*The link leads to your post. My responses are in the next two posts.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Pauline ListsThere are a number of places in the Pauline corpus where the Apostle reels off lists of sins and sinners. On two occasions, he uses two words which don't appear in any other Greek literature of the time. We have no way of knowing what the meaning of these words is. One can transliterate them, of course, but to do so is dangerous. To erect an ethic on such a flimsy foundation would be both grossly irresponsible and rather silly!

One word is "arsenokoitai". Literally "arsenos" means male person in Greek and "koitai" means bedders. The other word "malakoi" seems to mean something like "softie".

"Arseno- is a prefix meaning 'male'. The 'male' can be either the subject or object of the action in question (gramatically as well as sexually). 'Koitis' is a feminine noun meaning 'bed'; in the singular it can be used either literally as a generic 'bed' or figuratively, as in 'The marriage bed is undefiled'. In the latter case, it connotes sexual monogamy, among other things. In the plural, 'koitai', it is used to mean 'bedding around' [cf Rom13:13], a more appropriate term for promiscuity than 'porneia', which properly mean prostitution.
Now, one might just combine the terms and say that 'arsenokoitai' means literally, 'male fornicator' or really, 'promiscuous male'. Although feasible, this runs into some difficulties. First, 'arsenokoitai' is a feminine plural noun! Does this simply reflect the grammatical gender of 'bed' or does it represent the gender of the offending party? It isn't at all obvious that it was used to identify a group of men. Perhaps it refers to promiscuous women! Typically, a male suffix would be used if males were meant. This would resut in the form 'arsenokoites' (not "-is") for the singular, and 'arsenokoitoi' for the plural. St. John Chrysostom, and other Church Fathers from the Fifth Century onwards, occasionally use 'arsenokoitai' in referring to the prostitution of boys, but more frequently use other words. In the works of the earlier fathers (e.g. the Didache), the term 'paidofthoreo' is used to mean 'sexual abuse of boys'." [George Battelle "gbattell@netcom.com", quoted on the Axios website]
​

A correspondent has commented on this quote as follows:

"This is mistaken. The noun 'arsenokoites' is masculine, and its plural is 'arsenokoitai' (also masculine). It is wrong to say that the correct plural for masculine 'arsenokoites' is 'arsenokoitoi'. What probably confused Mr. Battell is that many feminine nouns (those ending in -a or -e) have a plural in -ai. On the other hand, many masculine nouns (those ending in -os) have a plural in -oi. But masculine 'agentive' nouns (sort of like English nouns ending in '-er' or '-or' like 'actor' or 'thinker') have a nominative singular in -es, and a nominative plural in -ai. There are hundreds of such words. One common biblical word following the same pattern, for example, is 'mathetes' ('disciple'). The plural is 'mathetai', which looks feminine to people who've only had a few weeks of Greek, but is really
masculine. Or, from Classical Athens, there's 'dikastes', 'judge' the plural of which was 'dikastai', 'judges'."
["DP" private communication (2006)]​

I suspect that "DP" is correct in this matter.

Now one might imagine that arsenokoitis might mean "a man who has sex with a man", but on that basis lady-killer would mean "a murderer of one or more upper-class women", but this English word doesn't mean that at all: not even remotely! To a "Trinity Man" such as myself, the english phrase "male bedder" clearly means "a man who works as a housekeeper" ("bedders" are - generally female - cleaners that serve residents of Cambridge Colleges). In fact we have no idea what St Paul meant by the word "arsenokoitai" and have no obvious means of ever learning his meaning. Some people argue that:

• There was no contemporary word equivalent to our "homosexual" (this is contentious),
• therefore St Paul was forced to invent one.
• He did so, calling upon the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint.
• This renders the Levitical injunction against (ritual) same sex prostitution(?)
  by using "arsenos" and "koiten" as two separate words:
  "kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos...".

Now, while it is plausible that St Paul meant by "arsenokoitai" whatever he understood Leviticus to be referring to, we still don't know what this was! Moreover, if the Apostle invented a new word in order to prohibit all male homosexual behaviour, why doesn't he also invent a complementary word prohibiting all female homosexual behaviour? There was certainly no ready made word that would do this! The conspicuous absence of such a prohibition suggests that Paul had no intention of condemning "all homosexual behaviour", but at most male homosexuality.

According to Prof. Boswell:

"Jerome, following the older Latin translations, rendered the Greek .... as 'masculorum concubitores', a vague phrase suggestive of multiple interpretations. Most obviously, it would be the active counterpart of the concubinus, a passive male concubine. This would correspond almost exactly to the Greek, and it is not unlikely that Jerome's chaste pen would have preferred the more clinical 'concubitor' to the vulgar 'exoletus'."
[J. Boswell: "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" (1980)]​

"masculorum concubitores" literally means [those who are] of males (plural noun) the bedfellows.

According to a priest friend [28th Oct 2002]:

"'Masculorum concubitores' cannot ever mean 'male bedfellows' but only 'bedfellows of men'. The word concubitores is masculine, but masculine words also include the feminine. Mixed plurals are always masculine; only when all members of a group are female can a feminine plural be used (if one exists). Thus grammatically the bedfellows could theoretically be either, but it is quite clear from the context that 'bedfellows of males' means 'male bedfellows of males'."​

Of course, in the greek original, the noun is femanin; so on this basis arsenokoitai must mean promiscuous women!

As for "softie", I ask you! Elsewhere in the scriptures it is used (ironically of St John the Baptist) to mean fops or dandies; those who "dress up in fine clothes" [Mat 11:8, and esp Lk 7:25] and the physically infirm [Mat 4:23, 9:35, 10:1]. Historically it has been understood to mean anything from "effeminate male" to "a person who masturbates", but could easily mean "those with no backbone". Note again the extreme danger of transliteration, if St Paul had been a Twentieth Century Englishman, and had written "those with no backbone" one shudders to think what he might be understood as meaning one or two thousand years later, when English was a lost language and no other instances of this phrase were known!
Instances of the use of malakoi in earlier secular literature are:

Herodotus: Histories 7.153 & 13.51;
Aristophanes: Wasps 1455, Plutus 488;
Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics 1150a:33;
Plato: Republic 556c.​

Here it can have sexual connotations, though not homosexual. Aristotle says specifically that "malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. Of course there is no good reason to interpret St Paul's usage in terms of classical authors writing hundreds of years earlier while discounting the contemporary usage of Sts Matthew and Luke! http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/scripture.html

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
I dont see anyway arsenkoites can be a countenance of same-sex sex. Please clarify

Your scholary evidence is biased from a po-gay slant as it references the text with a view to disprove that arsenokoites means same-sex sex. It is also very Boswell based and as I haven't pointed out Boswell's work has been discussed since and found wanting.
Try these greek and Biblical scholars http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00165.html

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
I dont see anyway arsenkoites can be a countenance of same-sex sex. Please clarify

Your scholary evidence is biased from a po-gay slant as it references the text with a view to disprove that arsenokoites means same-sex sex. It is also very Boswell based and as I haven't pointed out Boswell's work has been discussed since and found wanting.
Try these greek and Biblical scholars http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00165.html

see, here is the entire problem with you... anything that challenges your existing stance, you instantly write off as "pro-gay"... as if that in itself, is enough to discredit it.

How about actually reading the material and finding a FACTUAL error, rather than an ideological one, on which to discount what I'm saying?

 

[Der Alte]

Hello again Der Alter.

The last time *you pasted these comments into one of your posts (back in October), I went to the Talmud passages that you quote from and found that you were selective in what you chose to include. I quoted from the rest of that section of Sanhedrin and pointed out that they were divided as to whether the passive partner was also guilty, or if he was to be stoned because he was ritually defiled to a point where only a blood sacrifice could restore his soul. The rabbis also determined that the Levitical commands against homosexuality and bestiality were never expected to be enforced against non-Jews.

You never replied. Are you ready to respond yet?

*The link leads to your post. My responses are in the next two posts.

[SIZE=+1]No, you did no such thing. You posted a big quote from the Talmud and made a few comments at the end BUT you did not explain how you derived your conclusion from what you posted and of course you ignored the rest of my post in which modern Jewish scholars including one lesbian agreed with what I said.

Want to try again and maybe get it right this time?

It is just this kind of half truths, misrepresentation, and duplicity which prompted me to get out of this exercise in futility.[/SIZE]

 

[EnemyPartyII]

[SIZE=+1]No, you did no such thing. You posted a big quote from the Talmud and made a few comments at the end BUT you did not explain how you derived your conclusion from what you posted and of course you ignored the rest of my post in which modern Jewish scholars including one lesbian agreed with what I said.

Want to try again and maybe get it right this time?

It is just this kind of half truths, misrepresentation, and duplicity which prompted me to get out of this exercise in futility.[/SIZE]

I'll ask my question again... since when do Christians follow every precept of the Talmud?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

see, here is the entire problem with you... anything that challenges your existing stance, you instantly write off as "pro-gay"... as if that in itself, is enough to discredit it.

How about actually reading the material and finding a FACTUAL error, rather than an ideological one, on which to discount what I'm saying?

That&#8217;s just your opinion and it kind of goes opposite to what I have said. Your link even specifically referred to Boswell&#8217;s work and without the subsequent critiques is rather out of date. I have studied some of this so I would suggest your observations would be better applied to yourself.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
[/COLOR]That&#8217;s just your opinion and it kind of goes opposite to what I have said. Your link even specifically referred to Boswell&#8217;s work and without the subsequent critiques is rather out of date. I have studied some of this so I would suggest your observations would be better applied to yourself.

so... no specific factual errors then?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

so... no specific factual errors then?

about what, your source?

I know wiki is not 100% reliable information but its kind of hard to find any info about the guy without going to a totally biased site.

Rites of so-called "same-sex union" (Boswell's proposed translation) occur in ancient prayer-books of both the western and eastern churches. They are rites of adelphopoiesis, literally Greek for the making of brothers. Boswell, despite the fact that the rites explicitly state that the union involved in adelphopoiesis is a "spiritual" and not a "carnal" one, argued that these should be regarded as sexual unions similar to marriage. This is a highly controversial point of Boswell's text, as other scholars have dissenting views of this interpretation, and believe that they were instead rites of becoming adopted brothers, or "blood brothers".[2][3][4] Boswell pointed out such evidence as an icon of two saints, Saints Sergius and Bacchus (at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai), and drawings, such as one he interprets as depicting the wedding feast of Emperor Basil to his "partner", John. Boswell sees Jesus as fulfilling the role of the "pronubus" or in modern parallel, best man.

From what I've read of his work it just seems like he spent most of his short life trying to find that one breakthrough that would ultimately allow the orthodox church to accept his sexuality.