Arsenokoites

[TheGMan]

Can I have the web site?
So sleeping is the same as lying with?

Looks like it's from Perseus although, as I've already pointed out, Brennin is being a little disingenuous as there's actually no way to get from koitos to -koitai.

Koitai, which is the ending Paul uses, is feminine.

 

[Polycarp1]

The bottom line here, for anyone who cares about what the Bible says and its moral obligation on us as Christians, is "What in the dickens did Paul mean by the word? Who if anyone would it describe in today's culture?"

Obviously, those malakoi and arsenokaitoi were to be excluded, among others, from the church Paul founded in Corinth.

It does not automatically follow that what somebody thinks those words translate to is what Paul meant, or that his advice to Corinth is what a church in Bristol, England, or Greenville, Mississippi, ought to be doing towards anybody in particular today.

That is why I was trying to get Brennin to pin down exactly who the term describes.

It's further worth noting that Classical Attic Greek, in which Brennin claims to have some background, is not equivalent to Koiné Greek of New Testament times, any more than either of them are equivalent to the dhimotika of modern Greece.

And, to do my Johnny-One-Note song here again, what exactly did Jesus say was our duty towards our fellow man? Is the interpretation of Paul's words to mean that churches should shun persons who feel same-sex attraction in accord with the commands of Christ Himself? If you decide to hold Paul's words on a level with Christ's, are you not making him into a deity equal to Christ?

 

[Brennin]

It's further worth noting that Classical Attic Greek, in which Brennin claims to have some background, is not equivalent to Koiné Greek of New Testament times, any more than either of them are equivalent to the dhimotika of modern Greece.

That is correct; Attic is more complex.

 

[ottaia]

The bottom line here, for anyone who cares about what the Bible says and its moral obligation on us as Christians, is "What in the dickens did Paul mean by the word? Who if anyone would it describe in today's culture?"

Obviously, those malakoi and arsenokaitoi were to be excluded, among others, from the church Paul founded in Corinth.

It does not automatically follow that what somebody thinks those words translate to is what Paul meant, or that his advice to Corinth is what a church in Bristol, England, or Greenville, Mississippi, ought to be doing towards anybody in particular today.

That is why I was trying to get Brennin to pin down exactly who the term describes.

It's further worth noting that Classical Attic Greek, in which Brennin claims to have some background, is not equivalent to Koiné Greek of New Testament times, any more than either of them are equivalent to the dhimotika of modern Greece.

And, to do my Johnny-One-Note song here again, what exactly did Jesus say was our duty towards our fellow man? Is the interpretation of Paul's words to mean that churches should shun persons who feel same-sex attraction in accord with the commands of Christ Himself? If you decide to hold Paul's words on a level with Christ's, are you not making him into a deity equal to Christ?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Polycarp1 again.
​

 

[sethad]

I've read the whole thread and I think Brennin is officially in a corner with no way out and he knows it because he can't respond to anything except basically saying "I'm better then you are, I know more then you, I'm right".

I think Brennin needs to get over his psuedo superiority complex.

I think that arsenkoites/arsenkoitai meant temple prostitutes which in today's terms would include sex offenders, pedophiles, pimps, etc. And reading this thread actually only reinforced that. Brennin proved nothing.

 

[Brennin]

I've read the whole thread and I think Brennin is officially in a corner with no way out and he knows it because he can't respond to anything except basically saying "I'm better then you are, I know more then you, I'm right".

I think Brennin needs to get over his psuedo superiority complex.

I think that arsenkoites/arsenkoitai meant temple prostitutes which in today's terms would include sex offenders, pedophiles, pimps, etc. And reading this thread actually only reinforced that. Brennin proved nothing.

What you think and the reality of the situation are two very different things.

 

[sethad]

What you think and the reality of the situation are two very different things.

And you have shown nothing about the reality of the situation that anybody could actually put credibility into. In fact...before I had just read a couple of articles on this issue and I had posted it in these forums before saying it was a possiblity...but thanks to you I think its more then a possibility. Good job and thank you.

 

[Brennin]

And you have shown nothing about the reality of the situation that anybody could actually put credibility into. In fact...before I had just read a couple of articles on this issue and I had posted it in these forums before saying it was a possiblity...but thanks to you I think its more then a possibility. Good job and thank you.

Your inability to discriminate between legitimate scholarship and pseudo-scholarship is unfortunate.

 

[Brennin]

Boswell's Analysis of a¹rsenokoiðthv by Stephen Carlson

Excerpt:

Often the evidence about a word's meaning in a certain context is not conclusive but merely indicative. When the best and strongest evidence consistently points to the same conclusion, however, we can become more confident. In this case, the immediate context of the word arsenokoithV (arsenokoitês), all throughout the New Testament, its Septuagint parallels, and its usage among the Apostolic Fathers, like Polycarp, all point to a meaning of a homosexual and not a male prostitute. Boswell's general argument, apart from a facile consideration of the context, relies too much on the argument from silence and an egregious etymological analysis. Whatever one thinks of the residual uncertainty in concluding that arsenokoithV (arsenokoitês) means a homosexual, one can say that this sense is much more probable than Boswell's.

 

[sethad]

Your inability to discriminate between legitimate scholarship and pseudo-scholarship is unfortunate.

I think you failed to notice the sarcasm.

I dont take second hand sources...I think for myself.

However your attitude really makes me want to run on the other side of this one.

The people refuting what you said made a lot of sense. I'm going to have to do my own research though.

 

[Brennin]

I think you failed to notice the sarcasm.

I dont take second hand sources...I think for myself.

However your attitude really makes me want to run on the other side of this one.

The people refuting what you said made a lot of sense. I'm going to have to do my own research though.

Unless you can read Ancient Greek (which I sincerely doubt) you cannot make recourse to primary sources.

 

[sethad]

Unless you can read Ancient Greek (which I sincerely doubt) you cannot make recourse to primary sources.

Which is why I'm going to learn. It'll be my fourth language, should be fun.

 

[SimplyMe]

Your inability to discriminate between legitimate scholarship and pseudo-scholarship is unfortunate.

You admitted to a sin (fornication) that Paul mentioned in the same breath as arsenokoites. In fact, from reading your OP in that thread, you said you didn't regret it and would likely do it again. So why should I believe you have some special knowledge of what Paul was trying to say? And why can you ignore Paul's admonition, since you thought it was okay to have sex with your ex-girlfriend, but not homosexuals that want to marry?

 

[Brennin]

You admitted to a sin (fornication) that Paul mentioned in the same breath as arsenokoites. In fact, from reading your OP in that thread, you said you didn't regret it and would likely do it again. So why should I believe you have some special knowledge of what Paul was trying to say? And why can you ignore Paul's admonition, since you thought it was okay to have sex with your ex-girlfriend, but not homosexuals that want to marry?

My having sex with my ex-girlfriend has no bearing on the correct interpretation of arsenokoitês.

 

[Brennin]

Which is why I'm going to learn. It'll be my fourth language, should be fun.

Good for you. I learned from Gerda Seligson's book but there are many to choose from.

 

[SimplyMe]

My having sex with my ex-girlfriend has no bearing on the correct interpretation of arsenokoitês.

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

So, if you ignore Paul's statement here because you feel it is okay to be a fornicator, then what difference does the meaning of [/FONT]arsenokoitês make? To suggest otherwise is hypocrisy.

However, I've always heard that to accurately understand what the Bible says that we need the Holy Spirit. It does not seem logical to me that God would give the clear meaning of a scripture to someone who is not willing to live by it.[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[Brennin]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

So, if you ignore Paul's statement here because you feel it is okay to be a fornicator, then what difference does the meaning of [/FONT]arsenokoitês make? To suggest otherwise is hypocrisy.

No; the two are unrelated.

However, I've always heard that to accurately understand what the Bible says that we need the Holy Spirit. It does not seem logical to me that God would give the clear meaning of a scripture to someone who is not willing to live by it.[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

The inspiration of the Holy Spirit (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[flicka]

Ok, so I didn't read the whole thread but I DID study ancient Greek. For 3 years. I even got to translast some of the NT. That was back in high school, along time ago. I remember about as much of it as most people remember of their high school Spanish. In other words, nothing. But I DO remember my teacher constantly saying things like "as near as we can tell.." and "as close as we can figure.." when talking about the modern meaning of ancient words.

 

[Polycarp1]

No; the two are unrelated.

Hey, wait a minute. I thought it was supposed to be the Liberals who did the cherry-picking about which Scriptures they considered applicable? What you're saying is that if Paul says, "Do not associate with pornai and arsenokaitai," and the first is translated "fornicators" and the second "homosexuals," that means we can ignore the first and comply with the second?

Did somebody switch the rules (not the CF ones but the tacit standards for debating) around while the board was down?

The inspiration of the Holy Spirit (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Oh, it has everything to do with it. The degree to which the Holy Spirit guided Paul's words matters immensely. Because less than a third of the Bible is God's words, prophetically relayed or spoken by Jesus incarnate and so explicitly stated, as opposed to narrative, poetry, correspondence, and such.

IF the "strong inspirationists" are correct, then the whole thing is "God's word" because He caused it to be written word for word as we have it. If the "humans moved by the Spirit" school is correct, however, then there is a big difference. What we have is Paul's guidance, influenced by but not dictated by the Holy Spirit, to one church in one time and place with words which may or may not be accurately translated -- vs. the explicit command of God the Son Incarnate to do, in more general terms, something quite different. And that's why inspiration is significant to the discussion.

 

[Brennin]

Hey, wait a minute. I thought it was supposed to be the Liberals who did the cherry-picking about which Scriptures they considered applicable? What you're saying is that if Paul says, "Do not associate with pornai and arsenokaitai," and the first is translated "fornicators" and the second "homosexuals," that means we can ignore the first and comply with the second?

Did somebody switch the rules (not the CF ones but the tacit standards for debating) around while the board was down?



Oh, it has everything to do with it. The degree to which the Holy Spirit guided Paul's words matters immensely. Because less than a third of the Bible is God's words, prophetically relayed or spoken by Jesus incarnate and so explicitly stated, as opposed to narrative, poetry, correspondence, and such.

IF the "strong inspirationists" are correct, then the whole thing is "God's word" because He caused it to be written word for word as we have it. If the "humans moved by the Spirit" school is correct, however, then there is a big difference. What we have is Paul's guidance, influenced by but not dictated by the Holy Spirit, to one church in one time and place with words which may or may not be accurately translated -- vs. the explicit command of God the Son Incarnate to do, in more general terms, something quite different. And that's why inspiration is significant to the discussion.

(I previously posted a response but it disappeared)

Argumentum ad hominem