ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[Der Alte]

1) Solomon had how many wives, and did God have a problem with that? nope

2) God's law is absolute and doesn't change. How do you think the human race continued after Adam and Eve? incest is the only way

Where does the bible say that God did not create wives for Cain and Seth? God permitting Solomon, or any other man, to exercise his own free will is NOT the same as God "ordaining" the act, as you falsely claimed. As a matter of fact God punished Solomon for his sins. If you are going to carry a Christian icon, and post in a Christian only forum, perhaps you would benefit from actually reading the Bible and knowing what it says.

And this entire line of reasoning is fallacious the fact that God permitted or commanded one thing does not entitle any person to ignore another thing that God has specifically commanded

 

[Brieuse]

Where does the bible say that God did not create wives for Cain and Seth? God permitting Solomon, or any other man, to exercise his own free will is NOT the same as God "ordaining" the act, as you falsely claimed. As a matter of fact God punished Solomon for his sins. If you are going to carry a Christian icon, and post in a Christian only forum, perhaps you would benefit from actually reading the Bible and knowing what it says.

And this entire line of reasoning is fallacious the fact that God permitted or commanded one thing does not entitle any person to ignore another thing that God has specifically commanded

yes, when Adam and Eve got created they invented pens and wrote everything down accurately to ensure that 8000 years later we all knew what happened.

 

[Der Alte]

yes, when Adam and Eve got created they invented pens and wrote everything down accurately to ensure that 8000 years later we all knew what happened.

Do all homosexuals posting here go to the "Neener, neener, neener, school of apologetics?" Did you ever see the movie "Roots"? How did Alex Haley finally learn about his ancestors? When the Roman emperors tried to destroy Christianity by burning Bibles, etc. they were not able to completely wipe out the scriptures because there were many people who had memorized the entire Bible..

Then of course God said "My word that goeth out of my mouth will not return unto me void, but will accomplish the purpose whereunto I have sent it." But that requires belief in an omnipotent, omniscient God. The god you are describing doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything.

 

[Brieuse]

Do all homosexuals posting here go to the "Neener, neener, neener, school of apologetics?" Did you ever see the movie "Roots"? How did Alex Haley finally learn about his ancestors? When the Roman emperors tried to destroy Christianity by burning Bibles, etc. they were not able to completely wipe out the scriptures because there were many people who had memorized the entire Bible..

Then of course God said "My word that goeth out of my mouth will not return unto me void, but will accomplish the purpose whereunto I have sent it." But that requires belief in an omnipotent, omniscient God. The god you are describing doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything.

whooah, slow down sir, I was actually agreeing with you

 

[Der Alte]

whooah, slow down sir, I was actually agreeing with you

Oh, I'm sorry is that what that was? How crass of me mistaking that for a smart alec remark, since I know that the ballpoint pen was invented by Ladislas Biro and his brother, Georg in 1935, not Adam and Eve, 6000 +/- years ago

 

[inyourarmsalways]

Where does the bible say that God did not create wives for Cain and Seth? God permitting Solomon, or any other man, to exercise his own free will is NOT the same as God "ordaining" the act, as you falsely claimed. As a matter of fact God punished Solomon for his sins. If you are going to carry a Christian icon, and post in a Christian only forum, perhaps you would benefit from actually reading the Bible and knowing what it says.

And this entire line of reasoning is fallacious the fact that God permitted or commanded one thing does not entitle any person to ignore another thing that God has specifically commanded

I guess you don't know YOUR Bible.

2 Sam 12:7-8

7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

Exodus 21:10-11

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of mone

 

[Der Alte]

I guess you don't know YOUR Bible.

2 Sam 12:7-8

7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

Exodus 21:10-11

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of mone

Ex 21:10-11 is not a command to do anything but saying IF you do a certain thing then here are the rules. The only relevant text you have is 2 Sam 12:7-8.

Are you aware that when David took back his first wife Michal, Saul's daughter, that he never again had relations with her?

But this entire line of argument is irrelevant. If God permitted or even commanded one thing, that does NOT justify anyone, at any time, disregarding or ignoring other commandments because they think their sin is no worse or not as bad as some other perceived wrong. The attitude seems to be, "Well, God allowed slavery, and other bad things, so I can do anything i want to do."

 

[inyourarmsalways]

Ex 21:10-11 is not a command to do anything but saying IF you do a certain thing then here are the rules. The only relevant text you have is 2 Sam 12:7-8.

Are you aware that when David took back his first wife Michal, Saul's daughter, that he never again had relations with her?

But this entire line of argument is irrelevant. If God permitted or even commanded one thing, that does NOT justify anyone, at any time, disregarding or ignoring other commandments because they think their sin is no worse or not as bad as some other perceived wrong. The attitude seems to be, "Well, God allowed slavery, and other bad things, so I can do anything i want to do."

The whole idea is that God's moral law DOES NOT change!
Paul did not list homosexuality in 1 Cor 6:9, that is a false translation of the passage, and Walter Wink and a few others disagree with that assertion.

 

[Der Alte]

The whole idea is that God's moral law DOES NOT change!
Paul did not list homosexuality in 1 Cor 6:9, that is a false translation of the passage, and Walter Wink and a few others disagree with that assertion.

I don't know who Walter Wink is and don't give a flip, But unless he or any other "scholar" you choose to quote produces evidence nothing any of them say is worth spit. And so far I have not seen any credible, verifiable, historical evidence produced by any pro-homosexual posting here. They all do exactly what you have done refer to or quote some guy online.

Remember this "you have no proof of which you speak of" You demand proof but you post anything, by anybody, as long as it promotes homosexuality it must be right.

Once again, my evidence, of exactly what the O.T. and N.T. verses mean,
Previous Post: Irrefutable historical evidence from the Talmud and early church condemning homosexuality!

 

[inyourarmsalways]

I don't know who Walter Wink is and don't give a flip, But unless he or any other "scholar" you choose to quote produces evidence nothing any of them say is worth spit. And so far I have not seen any credible, verifiable, historical evidence produced by any pro-homosexual posting here. They all do exactly what you have done refer to or quote some guy online.

Remember this "you have no proof of which you speak of" You demand proof but you post anything, by anybody, as long as it promotes homosexuality it must be right.

Once again, my evidence, of exactly what the O.T. and N.T. verses mean,
Previous Post: Irrefutable historical evidence from the Talmud and early church condemning homosexuality!

you are like a broken record.. The Talmud is yet one interpretation. If the Talmud was the standard, then all translations would read 1 Cor 6:9 the same way, WHICH THEY DON'T !

 

[Der Alte]

you are like a broken record.. The Talmud is yet one interpretation. If the Talmud was the standard, then all translations would read 1 Cor 6:9 the same way, WHICH THEY DON'T !

YOU are the broken record, just posting the same of junk from GBLT-Я-us, and ignoring the only historical evidence being presented. The Talmud is the historical interpretation of the entire Jewish faith from the time of Moses. You cannot address it so you scoff at it.

This is a nonsensical reply, the fact that different translators emphasize a different nuance of words does not make them wrong. I gave the example of a groups of guys having a conversation, one mentions his "jalopy," another his "wheels," another "a bucket of bolts," another, his "junker," another his "ride." They are all talking about the same thing, a car or automobile. Seven different words for the same thing and none of them "wrong."

Let me try your argument if homosexuality was right then all homosexuals would agree that there was or was not a word for homosexual, in Greek, in the first century.

 

[inyourarmsalways]

YOU are the broken record, just posting the same of junk from GBLT-&#1071-us, and ignoring the only historical evidence being presented. The Talmud is the historical interpretation of the entire Jewish faith from the time of Moses. You cannot address it so you scoff at it.

This is a nonsensical reply, the fact that different translators emphasize a different nuance of words does not make them wrong. I gave the example of a groups of guys having a conversation, one mentions his "jalopy," another his "wheels," another "a bucket of bolts," another, his "junker," another his "ride." They are all talking about the same thing, a car or automobile. Seven different words for the same thing and none of them "wrong."

Let me try your argument if homosexuality was right then all homosexuals would agree that there was or was not a word for homosexual, in Greek, in the first century.

And yet you use the same interpretation from the same people that had bigotted eyes. Ok sure, sir, I don't agree with you there. The most you have going for yourself is an interpretation among many who plenty of Scholars disagree with.

 

[Der Alte]

And yet you use the same interpretation from the same people that had bigotted eyes. Ok sure, sir, I don't agree with you there. The most you have going for yourself is an interpretation among many who plenty of Scholars disagree with.

I don't give a rancid rat dropping for all the "scholars" you might name who disagree with what I have been posting. What is important is the Word of God and the best way to in interpret the Hebrew scriptures is the same way you interpret any language. That is is to consult people who actually read and live the language, that is what I did.

If you can produce evidence by a scholar who has advanced degrees in Hebrew, and has peer recognition, bring it on or forget it.

What bigoted eyes are you talking about and how do you think that has any relevance to the evidence I have posted?

 

[Brieuse]

The early church interpreted [SIZE=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/SIZE] 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”, etc. The above quoted from; 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. 85 AD through 258 AD.

Previous Post: Irrefutable evidence from the Talmud and the early church condemning homosexuality!

I need to ask again, which of those then is the right translation?

 

[Der Alte]

I need to ask again, which of those then is the right translation?

Pay attention I've said this before! Several guys talking, one talks about his "ride," another his "wheels," another, his "jalopy,", another his "bucket of bolts," another his "old junker," they are all taking about the same thing, a car, an automobile. Seven words all describing the same thing, you tell me which one you "think" is wrong. When read in context they are all absolutely clear. You do understand what "in context" means don't you?

Here is a 340 year +/- history of the word [size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]/aresenokoites, it means a man who has sex a with another man. Most of the interpretations by the early church say that very clearly. Or do you still want to play sophomoric games, "I don't understand what you mean."

Lev 20:13 [size=+1]ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכב את־זכר משׁכבי אשׁה[/size] [size=+1]תועבה עשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם׃[/size]

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

LXX [ca. 250 BC] Lev 20:13 [size=+1]και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος, βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν, ενοχοι εισιν.[/size]

TR 1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] [size=+1]η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται.[/size]

1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] 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 [[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]] abusers of themselves with mankind​

 

[Brieuse]

Pay attention I've said this before! Several guys talking, one talks about his "ride," another his "wheels," another, his "jalopy,", another his "bucket of bolts," another his "old junker," they are all taking about the same thing, a car, an automobile. Seven words all describing the same thing, you tell me which one you "think" is wrong. When read in context they are all absolutely clear. You do understand what "in context" means don't you?

Here is a 340 year +/- history of the word [size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]/aresenokoites, it means a man who has sex a with another man. Most of the interpretations by the early church say that very clearly. Or do you still want to play sophomoric games, "I don't understand what you mean."

Lev 20:13 [size=+1]ואישׁ אשׁר ישׁכב את־זכר משׁכבי אשׁה[/size] [size=+1]תועבה עשׂו שׁניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם׃[/size]

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

LXX [ca. 250 BC] Lev 20:13 [size=+1]και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος, βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν, ενοχοι εισιν.[/size]

TR 1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] [size=+1]η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται.[/size]

1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] 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 [[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]] abusers of themselves with mankind​

well, if I take all of those translations that you provided, none of them are the same as "man who has sex a with another man"

 

[Der Alte]

well, if I take all of those translations that you provided, none of them are the same as "man who has sex a with another man"

Still playing sophomoric games. [SIZE=+1]"SODOMY,” “FILTH OF SODOMY,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”,[/SIZE] Now go read the context. I asked you before if you knew what that means. I guess not.

And OBTW the LXX, translated in 250 BC, had not disappeared when the early church fathers wrote. Shall I remind you how "do not lie with a man as with a woman" was translated in the LXX? You seem to have a problem following the discussion, I can lead you by the hand and use one syllable words if that is what you require,

 

[Brieuse]

Still playing sophomoric games. [SIZE=+1]"SODOMY,” “FILTH OF SODOMY,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”,[/SIZE] Now go read the context. I asked you before if you knew what that means. I guess not.

You didn't answer my question. Instead you choose to insult me again.

 

[Der Alte]

You didn't answer my question. Instead you choose to insult me again.

Then read in context and quit playing games.

The early church interpreted [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size] 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”, etc. The above quoted from; 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. 85 AD through 258 AD.

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

Knowing, then, that "God is not mocked," we ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men. They must not be slanderers, double-tongued, or lovers of money, but temperate in all things, compassionate, industrious, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all. If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, "we shall also reign together with Him," provided only we believe. 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," nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. The virgins also must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.

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

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; 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 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." He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved. Now he says that the things which save are the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

Since, therefore, in that passage he recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven. For this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

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

And regarding lawless conduct, those who have blindly wandered into the choir of philosophy have, almost to a man, spoken with one voice. Certainly Plato, to mention him first who seems to have been the most respectable philosopher among them, expressly, as it were, legislates in his first book,5 entitled The Republic, that the wives of all be common, using the precedent of the son6 of Jupiter and the lawgiver of the Cretans, in order that under this pretext there might be an abundant offspring from the best persons, and that those who were worn with toil might be comforted by such intercourse.7 And Epicurus himself, too, as well as teaching atheism, teaches along with it incest with mothers and sisters, and this in transgression of the laws which forbid it; for Solon distinctly legislated regarding this, in order that from a married parent children might lawfully spring, that they might not be born of adultery, so that no one should honour as his father him who was not his father, or dishonour him who was really his father, through ignorance that he was so. 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? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

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

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. 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, practising 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. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering.

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

Come, now; who in the world has (ever) redintegrated one who has been "marred" by God (that is, delivered to Satan with a view to destruction of the flesh), after subjoining for that reason, "Let none seduce himself; " that is, let none presume that one "marred" by God can possibly be redintegrated anew? 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," 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; " in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins before baptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to "receive ablution" anew.

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."

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD]

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.”

Epistle Of Ignatius 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.

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen [153-217 AD]

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.”

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: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness!

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona.1 Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]
Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one 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 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.​

 

[Brieuse]

Then read in context and quit playing games.

The early church interpreted [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size] 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”, etc. The above quoted from; 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. 85 AD through 258 AD.

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

Knowing, then, that "God is not mocked," we ought to walk worthy of His commandment and glory. In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men. They must not be slanderers, double-tongued, or lovers of money, but temperate in all things, compassionate, industrious, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all. If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, "we shall also reign together with Him," provided only we believe. 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," nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. The virgins also must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.

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

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; 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 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." He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved. Now he says that the things which save are the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

Since, therefore, in that passage he recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven. For this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

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

And regarding lawless conduct, those who have blindly wandered into the choir of philosophy have, almost to a man, spoken with one voice. Certainly Plato, to mention him first who seems to have been the most respectable philosopher among them, expressly, as it were, legislates in his first book,5 entitled The Republic, that the wives of all be common, using the precedent of the son6 of Jupiter and the lawgiver of the Cretans, in order that under this pretext there might be an abundant offspring from the best persons, and that those who were worn with toil might be comforted by such intercourse.7 And Epicurus himself, too, as well as teaching atheism, teaches along with it incest with mothers and sisters, and this in transgression of the laws which forbid it; for Solon distinctly legislated regarding this, in order that from a married parent children might lawfully spring, that they might not be born of adultery, so that no one should honour as his father him who was not his father, or dishonour him who was really his father, through ignorance that he was so. 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? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

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

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. 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, practising 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. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering.

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

Come, now; who in the world has (ever) redintegrated one who has been "marred" by God (that is, delivered to Satan with a view to destruction of the flesh), after subjoining for that reason, "Let none seduce himself; " that is, let none presume that one "marred" by God can possibly be redintegrated anew? 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," 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; " in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins before baptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to "receive ablution" anew.

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."

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD]

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.”

Epistle Of Ignatius 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.

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen [153-217 AD]

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.”

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: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness!

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona.1 Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]
Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one 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 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.​

Still looking for an answer to my question