Clement of Alexander did not condemn loving homosexual monogamous relationships

[Brieuse]

You say "there is zero, nada, evidence" on male prostitution. I showed that there is.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]You say "there is zero, nada, evidence" on male prostitution. I showed that there is.[/SIZE]

A few out of context sentence fragments does NOT show anything. Quote them in-context, then we'll talk.

 

[Brieuse]

A few out of context sentence fragments does NOT show anything. Quote them in-context, then we'll talk.

quoted in context on page 1

and the word "prostitutes" does appear.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]quoted in context on page 1

and the word "prostitutes" does appear.[/SIZE]

Where does it say "male prostitute" as you claimed in this post?

[SIZE=-1]You say "there is zero, nada, evidence" on male prostitution. I showed that there is.[/SIZE]

 

[Brieuse]

A few out of context sentence fragments does NOT show anything. Quote them in-context, then we'll talk.

you haven't talked yet

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]you haven't talked yet[/SIZE]

Certainly have! In my posts with the several quotes from the early church fathers. You saying, "quoted in context on page 1 and the word "prostitutes" does appear." Does not address nor refute my posts. As I said it does NOT say "male prostitutes," and even if it did that would still be only part of what Clement said. Even two gay websites recognize that Clement, citing scripture, condemned ALL homosexual acts, including Lesbian marriage.

If you think that post on pg. 1 proves something, repost it here and make some comments exactly what you think it proves.

 

[Brieuse]

Certainly have! In my posts with the several quotes from the early church fathers. You saying, "quoted in context on page 1 and the word "prostitutes" does appear." Does not address nor refute my posts. As I said it does NOT say "male prostitutes," and even if it did that would still be only part of what Clement said. Even two gay websites recognize that Clement, citing scripture, condemned ALL homosexual acts, including Lesbian marriage.

If you think that post on pg. 1 proves something, repost it here and make some comments exactly what you think it proves.

just click on page 1 Der Alter, and stop running around subjects like you are well known for.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]just click on page 1 Der Alter, and stop running around subjects like you are well known for[/SIZE].

Meaning you can't articulate how you think that post addresses anything I have posted. I am just supposed to read the entire thing, then read your mind what you think it proves.

What you might try is highlight some relevant clauses, phrases, insert a number e.g. (1) and at the bottom make a clarifying comment. For example one of my comments is "Every possible body opening is used for debauchery."

Back it up or pack it up.

 

[Brieuse]

Meaning you can't articulate how you think that post addresses anything I have posted. I am just supposed to read the entire thing, then read your mind what you think it proves.

What you might try is highlight some relevant clauses, phrases, insert a number e.g. (1) and at the bottom make a clarifying comment. For example one of my comments is "Every possible body opening is used for debauchery."

Back it up or pack it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brieuse
[SIZE=-1]You're wrong again. You've taken his chapter and injected your own thoughts and feelings into it. In context, ie including the entire chapter and not a couple of lines like you have done, he is clearly condemning some sort of actions that are no longer practised today.

" “Come, youngster, buy for yourself a man,”"
"when he was being sold"
"I pity the boys possessed by the slave-dealers"
"have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself"
"These things your wise laws allow: people may sin legally; and the execrable indulgence in pleasure they call a thing indifferent. They who commit adultery against nature think themselves free from adultery. Avenging justice follows their audacious deeds, and, dragging on themselves inevitable calamity, they purchase death for a small sum of money"

In the examples he used to explain his case, which allows a person to understand the point and subject of what he is trying to teach in that subjext, you have used it to condemn all homosexuals which is CLEARLY not his purpose here.

I said the above, relating to the entire article posted on page 1. You say there is no evidence of prostitution.
2. You say it means loving monogamous loving relationships.

With the above words being used in the article, that I quoted again, it is quite obvious that money is being exchanged in these loving monogamous relationships. Whether it is prostitution or whether it is some other ancient custom that no longer applies today, we can argue about that. However, I personally have never had to pay for a boyfriend.
[/SIZE]

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1]You're wrong again. You've taken his chapter and injected your own thoughts and feelings into it. In context, ie including the entire chapter and not a couple of lines like you have done, he is clearly condemning some sort of actions that are no longer practised today.
(1)" “Come, youngster, buy for yourself a man,”"
(2)"when he was being sold"
"I pity the boys possessed by the slave-dealers"
"have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself"
"These things your wise laws allow: people may sin legally; and the execrable indulgence in pleasure they call a thing indifferent. They who commit adultery against nature think themselves free from adultery. Avenging justice follows their audacious deeds, and, dragging on themselves inevitable calamity, they purchase death for a small sum of money"[/size]

You claim to be quoting in context. Note, the first two clauses you listed here, are both part of one sentence, and you not only separated them but you also reversed them. How can you even think of saying “in context?” Also Clement was quoting someone, you failed to make that clear.

Also you did not answer my question what does this sentence mean in your quote above, "They who commit adultery against nature think themselves free from adultery." What is adultery against nature? And how could someone think it was not adultery?

Diogenes, when he was being sold, chiding like a teacher one of these degenerate creatures, said very manfully, “Come, youngster, buy for yourself a man,”​

You keep desperately, dishonestly trying to make Clement solely about boy prostitutes. He mentions them, but according to these two gay websites Clement clearly condemned all homosexuality, male and female. Neither website even mentions pederasty or boy prostitutes.

. . .When early, Greek-speaking homophobic Christians (John Chrysostom and Clemet of Alexandria) condemned homosexuality, they did not use arsenokoitai, even when discussing Cor 6:9 and Tim. 1:10. Arguments from silence are generally weak, but had the word meant homosexuals, Chrysostom and Clemet [sic] would of most likely condemned homosexuals when they commented on Cor. 6:9 or Tim. 1:10. But they did not. This combined with the above discussion of the occurrences of the word, I feel, provide some serious problems for traditionalists.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The Mystery.htm

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[/b ].
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

 

[MercyBurst]

I have taken it upon myself to fetch the entire texts so that I cannot be accused of quoting out of context. I have highlighted the texts below in relation to the above quote

The text taken in it's whole is pretty clear: lesbians, homosexuals, adulterers, and pederasts are ALL under the same judgment.

It's clear that a heterosexual can fall under the same condemnation through adultery.

If these acts are judged, then they can be combined with other sins for an even worse judgment such as as prostitution, temple orgies, etc. etc.

Next question.

 

[davedjy]

You claim to be quoting in context. Note, the first two clauses you listed here, are both part of one sentence, and you not only separated them but you also reversed them. How can you even think of saying “in context?” Also Clement was quoting someone, you failed to make that clear.

Also you did not answer my question what does this sentence mean in your quote above, "They who commit adultery against nature think themselves free from adultery." What is adultery against nature? And how could someone think it was not adultery?

Diogenes, when he was being sold, chiding like a teacher one of these degenerate creatures, said very manfully, “Come, youngster, buy for yourself a man,”​

You keep desperately, dishonestly trying to make Clement solely about boy prostitutes. He mentions them, but according to these two gay websites Clement clearly condemned all homosexuality, male and female. Neither website even mentions pederasty or boy prostitutes.

Homosexuality as one's innate sexual constitution is not condemned in the original Hebrew or Greek of the Bible. You have yet to prove otherwise, and your tired old doctrinal links do not prove anything except an old "interpretation" at best. The fact that you believe your ONE Talmud thing to refute any of the scholarly findings I or Brieuse have posted, makes me suspicious...


1. The confusion of the translators
Translators were extremely confused as to what "arsenokoitai" meant. I have a real problem with translators who insist on translating the obscure word, "arsenokoitai", as "homosexuals" since there is such a lack of lexical data supporting that translation. Besides the word "homosexual" did not exist until the 20th century!
Before going any further let's look at what some scholars had to say:

"I believe it [arsenokoitai] explicitly relates to homosexuality." -- A. Mohler

"It [malakoi] can have a meaning that's not carnal. But the way it's used -- it's embedded in the same context with adultery -- it's pretty clear what the meaning is...A hallmark of Evangelicals is that we take a literal, normal, face-value interpretation of the Bible. Some people attempt to keep some form of Christianity and hold on to homosexuality, too. It leads to strange interpretations of the Bible."-- T. Crater

"In short, it is unclear whether the issue [the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi] is homosexuality alone..." -- Walter Wink

John Boswell ["Christianity, Soical Tolerance, and Homosexuality", pg. 334], who was a Greek & Hebrew language scholar and Historian from Yale University, felt that arsenokoitai may have meant "male prostitutes capable of the active role with either men or women"

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." -- Victor Paul Furnish, a Professor of New Testament from Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.


Dr. Truluck personally wrote a letter to me, in responce to mine, in which he writes: ".... [arsenokoitai] was never translated as "homosexual" until 1946, and was a bad mistake then."

Rembert Truluck is a Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. He was a Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, and a Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, from1973 to 1981. Truluck is well learned in Hebrew and Greek.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm

 

[davedjy]

You don't quote "scholars," you quote homosexual websites. You don't even know the difference

This is EVIDENCE! 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: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice 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.

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​

Yet, you have absolutely no way to prove this isn't talking about catamites. Notice the phrase "love for boys", and not men. YES, I do quote scholars, and University professors in my quotes who are well versed in the language. Boswell, Walter Wink, Victor Paul Furnish, a Professor of New Testament from Perkins School of Theology, Dallas, Jeremy Townsley (MA. in philosophy/theology from Lincoln Christian College Seminary), Along with the irrefutable evidence that your sexual orientation cannot be changed, and that ALL major health foundations condemn any type of reparative therapy: The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, American Academy of Pediatrics. There isn't any credible evidence from even one link on your behalf showing a strong position that sexual orientation can't be changed, just that it is fixed and innate at birth.

Jeramy Townsley says that "It seems clear that arsenokoites [arsenokoitai] does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships..." Learned in Greek and Hebrew, Jeramy received a MA. in philosophy/theology from Lincoln Christian College Seminary.

The facts don't lie, but you saying I don't quote scholars is beyond deplorable and erroneous, when I have quoted them countless times.

 

[davedjy]

This is EVIDENCE! 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.

Nice try, but the facts don't lie, since there are so many DIFFERENT translations of the same passage.

2. Call-boys
"I sat amazed as I heard the Bible being invoked in ways that were wholly inappropriate to any canons of biblical scholarship. Perhaps something snapped in me...for better or worse I decided somebody needed to provide resources that would give both clarity and honesty." -- Robbin Scroggs.
Robbin Scroggs feels that arsenokoitai refers to a man who uses the services of "call-boys", and that malakoi refers to those "call-boys". In his book, "The New Testament and Homosexuality", Scroggs writes, "If the malakos points to the effeminate call-boy, then the arsenokoites in this context must be the active partner who keeps the malakos as a 'mistress' or who hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desires. No more than molakos is to be equated with the youth in general, the eromenos, can arsenokoites be equated with the adult in general, the erastes" (pg. 108).

The Jerusalem Bible, German 1968, agrees with Scroggs, translating arsenokoitai as "child molesters". Of course, fundamentalists ignore that bible translation [as well as Phillips (1958), Jerusalem Bible (French -1955), The Latin Vulgate, (405), etc., of which reject the homosexual interpretation] while accepting the NIV (which is unclear since it has the translation "homosexual offenders").
Note: The Dutch NBG translation of 1951 uses the word "schandjongens" ("maleprostitutes" in English) for malakoi and "knapenschenders" ("boy-molesters" in English) for arsenokotai.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm


The other New Testament references, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, involve just two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai. There are many good dissertations on the translations of these words, which are available in bookstores and libraries. For the purpose of this pamphlet, suffice it to say that over the centuries, malakoi has been translated and interpreted in every possible way, from the general term "sexual perverts" to those who touch! In Matthew 11:8, malakoi is translated "soft" in reference to clothing, and in the context of other literature, it has even been used in reference to moral weakness. Only recently has the term been translated "homosexual," which is a serious violation of Biblical exegesis. Michael England, in his book, The Bible and Homosexuality, makes note of the fact that in 1 Corinthians 6:9, both malakoi and arsenokoitai are listed separately, and yet, some translators come up with "the entirely unjustified translations which choose to ignore the fact of the two separate words." (P.44) Thus, what the Greek Interlinear translates "voluptuous persons" and the vague term, "sodomite," some translations have rendered the single word, "homosexual." Again, it is extremely important to remember that every seeming reference to homosexuality in the Bible is based solely on interpolation and conjecture, and under no circumstance does the Bible make reference to, or condemn gay men and women who have a sincere desire to live in a committed, loving relationship, professing Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1]You have yet to prove otherwise, and your tired old doctrinal links do not prove anything except an old "interpretation" at best. The fact that you believe your ONE Talmud thing to refute any of the scholarly findings I or Brieuse have posted, makes me suspicious... [/size]

The Talmud is the ONLY credible, verifiable historical evidence for the interpretation of holy scripture by ALL Hebrew scholars from the time of Moses until the present day.

Check any concordance or lexicon. We know the meaning of words in other languages by the definition those who spoke the language applied to the words. Other than the OT and the Talmud there is no other source which provides us the definition of the Hebrew.

You do NOT post any scholars NONE! ZERO! You copy/paste unreliable, undocumented stuff from a homosexual websites. It is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, hearsay. EVERYTHING you post relies on 2d and 3d hand sources.

Logical Fallacy - Appeal to Authority( argumentum ad verecundiam )

Definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal toauthority is inappropriate if:

(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious.

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Stephen Downes Fallacies (look it up)​

[size=-1]1. The confusion of the translators

Translators were extremely confused as to what "arsenokoitai" meant. . . .[/size]

There is no confusion! The only ones confused are homosexuals who know nothing about Biblical Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew scholars were not confused. Neither were the early church fathers.

[size=-1]"I believe it [arsenokoitai] explicitly relates to homosexuality." -- A. Mohler[/size]

Meaningless as posted. Who is A. Mohler? What are his qualifications? What is the date, publisher, title of the supposed writing this was taken from?

[size=-1]"It [malakoi] can have a meaning that's not carnal. But the way it's used -- it's embedded in the same context with adultery -- . . . T. Crater[/size]

Meaningless as posted. Who is T. Crater? What are his qualifications? What is the date, publisher, title of the supposed writing this was taken from?

[size=-1]"In short, it is unclear whether the issue [the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi] is homosexuality alone..." -- Walter Wink[/size]

Meaningless as posted. Who is Walter Wink? What are his qualifications? What is the date, publisher, title of the supposed writing this was taken from?

[size=-1]John Boswell ["Christianity, Soical Tolerance, and Homosexuality", pg. 334], who was a Greek & Hebrew language scholar and Historian from Yale University, felt that arsenokoitai may have meant "male prostitutes capable of the active role with either men or women"[/size]

John Boswell had no stated or demonstrated qualifications in Hebrew or Greek. He was a history professor. Emphasis on past tense, he was a practicing homosexual who died in 1994, at age 47, of AIDS related diseases. Do you want to follow him down that yellow brick road?

[size=-1]One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." -- Victor Paul Furnish, a Professor of New Testament from Perkins School of Theology, Dallas. [/size]

Meaningless as posted. What are his qualifications? A professor of N.T. is not necessarily a Greek scholar. What is the date, publisher, title of the supposed writing this was taken from?

[size=-1]Rembert Truluck is a Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968. He was a Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, and a Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, from1973 to 1981. Truluck is well learned in Hebrew and Greek.[/size]

Quotes from Truluck are meaningless as posted. Prove that he has the necessary qualification in Biblical Greek. What is the date, publisher, title of the supposed writing his quotes were taken from?

NOTHING you post can be checked or verified. It is WORTHLESS as evidence for anything!

 

[Der Alte]

Here is what credible, verifiable, historical evidence from a recognized Greek scholar looks like. Note, sources identified, references clear and Wallace has taught PhD level Greek for almost 30 years. OTOH the only thing I see is the same old, lame old 2d and 3d hand hearsay which cannot even be checked or verified.

[c]Review of Mel White’s What the Bible Says—and Doesn’t Say—about Homosexuality
By:
Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.[/c]

Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.

Mel White was a ghostwriter for several Christian leaders, including Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. After years in ministry, working for the religious right, he came out of the closet. He and his wife divorced, though she is still good friends with him and is supportive of his new ministry.
* * *
Third, he overstates his case in a couple of key areas. His emphasis in this pamphlet is that we need to reexamine the Bible to see what it says. At the beginning of his work, he writes in large, bold print, “LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!” Under his first premise, which bemoans biblical ignorance in America, he says, “Only six or seven of the Bible’s one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way” (p. 4). That is misleading on two fronts: (a) there are nowhere near one million verses in the Bible. The exact count is actually just over 31,000! That’s a far cry from one million, and it raises a disturbing issue: If White can be so cavalier, so loose with the data, about the very thing that he says we all need to pay more careful attention to, perhaps he hasn’t done his homework as he said he did. (b) Regardless of how many verses there are in the Bible, one can’t play games with what it addresses on this issue.
* * *
Fourth, his fourth premise is flawed: “The Bible is a book about God—not a book about human sexuality” (p. 8). Actually, the Bible is a book about God’s relation to human beings and his instructions for how we are to relate to each other. The problem with how White has stated this fourth premise is that he seems to want to say that the Bible doesn’t really deal with homosexual behavior as we understand it today. Yet all through his booklet he also argues that the Christian faith is about love for one’s neighbor. You can’t have it both ways. If the Bible is only a book about God, then why even mention how we should relate to each other? And as for sexuality, I think the Bible speaks very much to this issue. It starts in Genesis by laying out a pattern of behavior that God has designed.
* * *
He goes on to dismiss the Bible’s teaching about several things related to marriage and sex. But he’s really doing a Cuisinart reading of these texts. By mixing the Old Testament commands with the New Testament commands, he’s not wrestling with the progress of revelation or the likelihood that we are no longer under the law. Yet all of the passages he discusses here (Deut 22.13-21, 22; Mark 10.1-12; Lev 18.19; Mark 12.18-27; Deut 25.11-12) are speaking about OT law (even the ones in Mark). My concern here is not simply over small quibbles. It’s over the very thing that White says many Christians are doing incorrectly: carefully reading the Bible. On the one hand, we don’t have the right to pick and choose what we want to believe. On the other hand, we need to nuance our faith so that we are in line with progressive revelation, especially the revelation that has come through God’s Son. I take it as axiomatic that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. The NT gives plenty of evidence to this effect.
* * *
Fifth, the fifth premise also seems a little off: “We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex” (p. 10). It’s not an either/or: the Bible is about both God and man, about God’s relation to man, and about human beings’ relation to one another. White’s treatment of Genesis 1 is simply unconvincing precisely at the key word “natural.” White argues that some Christians see in Genesis 1 that it is “natural” for a man and woman to have sex and bear children, and thus “some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are ‘unnatural.’” This is the word that Paul camps on in Romans 1 (though it’s not used in Genesis 1) as the basis for his proscription against homosexual behavior.
* * *
Sixth, his treatment of Rom 1.26-27 leaves a lot to be desired. He argues that the only people Paul had in view were temple priests and priestesses. It may be true that they were on his radar, but it’s hardly the whole picture. Further, where does it say that only these folks are in view? That’s an assumption that White brings to the text. Yes, Paul knew of the orgies at the pagan temples, but he also knew of other kinds of perversions. Indeed, drunken orgies in which people experiment with each other’s bodies is almost surely not the focus of this passage. White assumes that it is, but there is no evidence that Paul is restricting his exegesis to just these folks.
* * *
Paul’s indictment against same-sex relations among women first notes that these women exchanged the natural sexual relations for that which is unnatural. The key terms here are in italics. The exchange that these women did was more than a momentary experimentation, which they would revert back from in more sober times. No, it’s the same exact word that is used in v. 25 for people exchanging the truth of God for a lie. That’s not something done on a whim; it’s a lifestyle decision, not one you easily retreat from. And the exchange in v. 25 is most important: if the immediate result of exchanging the truth of God for a lie is all sorts of sexual perversion (including heterosexual perversion), then, by definition, Paul is saying that when someone makes the commitment to a homosexual lifestyle (or to a perverted heterosexual lifestyle), this commitment is against the truth of God.
* * *
How well does the standard pro-gay exegesis in Rom 1.26-27 do in this passage? The standard pro-gay view is to see pederasty here. That also is quite unlikely, but at least it’s more likely than temple priests and priestesses as the only ones in view. It’s unlikely because (a) Paul starts by discussing women having sex with women (v. 26), and that was all but unheard of in the ancient world when it came to pederasty; (b) Paul then speaks of men with men, but says that these men “abandoned the natural sexual relations with the females.” Abandoned is a strong word, suggesting that this was a lifestyle change. But again, this won’t work for pederasty: unmarried nobles would have sex with pre-teen boys, usually slaves, until they got married. Pederasts, thus, abandoned sex with boys for sex with their wives. That’s just the opposite of what Paul is describing. But it seems to be similar to what we see today: men who abandon their wives for their homosexual partners. (c) They burned in their own passions “for one another.” The reciprocal punishment suggests reciprocal responsibility, but this too could not be true of the slave-boys in a forced pederast scenario.
* * *
Others argue that “natural” (vv. 26, 27) mean “natural inclination.” (This is implicitly what White argues for, too.) Thus, if a person has a natural inclination to homosexuality it would be a sin for him to abandon that and go for the unnatural inclination. The only problem with this view is twofold: (a) Paul does not address whether homosexual inclination is even possibly to be considered as a natural inclination; (b) that which is natural is not inclination at all, but what is designed. And this gets back to the Genesis record on which Paul so heavily depends for his argument. God designed men and women to be sexual creatures that would be compatible only with each other—not men with men, not women with women, not humans with animals, etc. “Natural” thus refers to physical design, not psychological inclination.
* * *
But where I think he’s missed the point is that v. 25 explicitly says that people abandoned the truth of God for a lie, and this prompted God to ‘hand them over’ to homosexual acts.
* * *
The fact is that homosexual infidelity is significantly higher than heterosexual infidelity. For example, in a recent issue of The Advocate (a pro-gay magazine), 20 percent of those surveyed had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.1 But if I were just to speak anecdotally as Smedes has done on this point, I would say that I have known many homosexuals who simply can’t reign it in. Their addiction to sex is far worse than that of most heterosexuals.
* * *
In sum, Rom 1.26-27 almost surely is speaking generically about homosexual behavior, and is condemning it absolutely. It is not restricted to temple prostitutes, nor pederasts, nor is it implicitly excusing those with a “natural inclination” toward homosexuality. The language is very clear that these specifics are not on the horizon. And the basis for the argument, once again, is Genesis 1. Paul in fact uses the language of Genesis 1 to drive this point home: he doesn’t say ‘men’ and ‘women’ but ‘male’ and ‘female,’ words taken directly out of Gen 1.26.
* * *
Seventh, White’s exegesis of 1 Cor 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.10 is, frankly, a whitewash over the real meaning of the text. He speaks of the ambiguity of malakos and arsenokoites. But he doesn’t mention that the authoritative lexicon of the NT, known as BDAG, does not speak so ambiguously. This lexicon has about a 120-year history, over which time the scholars putting it together have been able to compile plenty of illustrations for the Greek of the NT. To be sure, there are places where the meaning is quite ambiguous. Because of their scholarly reputation, they do not hesitate to mention doubts about the meaning of a word if there are any. What do they say about these words then? For arsenokoites they note that it means “a man who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex.” They add “pederast” as a second meaning, which would depend on the context (viz., if boys were in view rather than adult males). White is correct that this term should not be translated “homosexual” and that there is no ancient Greek word for “homosexual.” But that is a far cry from saying that there was no concept of homosexuality because the Greeks didn’t use just one word for it! That is to make a lexical-conceptual equation that was debunked nearly fifty years ago. To take one example: Eskimos don’t have a single word for snow. Does this mean that they don’t know what snow is? Rather, precisely because they have multiple words for snow indicates that they were well aware of it, even to understanding it in its various states. The arsenokoites was the active partner in male sex. The malakos was the passive partner in such sex acts. BDAG is unequivocal on both of these points. Incidentally, BDAG also notes that

“Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution… or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service.”​

* * *
Besides—and this is one thing that was never addressed in White’s book: If fornication is sin—that is, sex outside of marriage—wouldn’t that equally apply to heterosexual and homosexual relations? If Paul was not talking about homosexual behavior, shouldn’t he have sanctioned homosexual marriages? That thought never crossed his mind, nor Jesus’, and the silence is almost deafening. Is it really possible that God could have overlooked the needs of millions of homosexuals in the only book that is our final revelation of his will, just so that we could sort out what to do thousands of years later?

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4494​

 

[davedjy]

You keep posting quotes from a homosexual website that lists some alleged statements and the names of anonymous people, who may or may not exist, I quoted Dan Wallace who has taught PhD level Greek since 1978. I quoted him directly from his own writings.

It is your duty to prove that Walter Wink, Truluck, or any of the others I quoted ARE NOT Scholars. Your commentary that your quotes are irrefutable evidence, means "irrefutable evidence according to Der Alter", and nothing more!

YOUR commentary about my findings and Scholars NOT BEING Scholars is just your opinion, you have yet to disprove that they aren't scholars! Lazy assertions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[davedjy]

Do you want to follow him down that yellow brick road?

Interesting...

Heterosexual transmission accounted for the largest proportionate increase in the number of reported AIDS cases in the United States between 1996 and 2000, (1) and AIDS is the leading cause of death among individuals aged 25-44. (2) Other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) also account for considerable morbidity and mortality. (3) Most of the research on heterosexual STD transmission has focused on women, undoubtedly because transmission from men to women is more...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_3_35/ai_104970627

I quoted him directly from his own writings.

I'm Sorry, I missed the part where it says we "must quote DIRECTLY from their own writings". I'm still waiting for you to PROVE that any of the people I quoted aren't who they say they are. "homosexuals R US website" is a lazy attempt to discredit any of my sources, at best.

Is Walter Wink a Scholar or not? prove me wrong, but your assertions are commentary at best, and don't discredit in the least.

AT BEST we get interpretation from your sources, and interpretation from my sources. My sources have HISTORICAL understanding to follow them, and yours do not.

 

[davedjy]

The Talmud is the ONLY credible, verifiable historical evidence [IN DER ALTER'S Unqualified opinion (not a Scholar)] for the interpretation of holy scripture by ALL Hebrew scholars from the time of Moses until the present day.

Says Der Alter...at best if you can get a Scholar to agree with you, those are just "people who agree with you", when there are multitudes that do not, interpretation... interpretation...interpretation...

It is not entirely clear from biblical material that there is a ban on homosexuality. It is true that later rabbis interpreted the bible this way. However, excellent material has been outlined in a book "Twice Blessed" which is a discussion of Judaism and gays, edited by Andy Rose and Christie Bulka

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section17.html

Walter Wink for a quick example.


You have YET to disprove this, and a "homosexuals R US website or unqualified Scholar" is yet AGAIN, a lazy and an inexhaustible attempt to discredit valid information. Notice how I say an ATTEMPT, because that is what it is, and nothing more. Page #, Direct link, and source page, are not credible debate points. Bring your proof that they aren't Scholars at the credited Universities. Bring PROOF that Walter Wink is not a Scholar, instead of your same old hashed-out one-liner deplorable and uneducated rebuttal.

Better yet, why not just try disproving this one myth without using yet another old interpretation or link?

FACT: There is not one condemnation of homosexuality as one’s innate sexual constitution in the Scriptures. In fact, any reputable Bible scholar will tell you that when the original manuscripts were written in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, in none of these languages did the word "homosexual," or any viable translation of the word, exist.


http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm


Perhaps your idea that AIDS is mainly a homosexual disease:

Heterosexual transmission accounted for the largest proportionate increase in the number of reported AIDS cases in the United States between 1996 and 2000, (1) and AIDS is the leading cause of death among individuals aged 25-44. (2) Other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) also account for considerable morbidity and mortality. (3) Most of the research on heterosexual STD transmission has focused on women, undoubtedly because transmission from men to women is more efficient than the reverse, (4) women tend to have more severe sequelae than men and women traditionally have had less control of the means of prevention. (5) However, heterosexual STD transmission cannot be prevented without better understanding of men's, as well as women's, sexual beliefs and behaviors. (6)


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_3_35/ai_104970627

Oh yes, my game face is on...

 

[Der Alte]

. . .[SIZE=-1]I'm Sorry, I missed the part where it says we "must quote DIRECTLY from their own writings". I'm still waiting for you to PROVE that any of the people I quoted aren't who they say they are. "homosexuals R US website" is a lazy attempt to discredit any of my sources, at best.

Is Walter Wink a Scholar or not? prove me wrong, but your assertions are commentary at best, and don't discredit in the least.

AT BEST we get interpretation from your sources, and interpretation from my sources. My sources have HISTORICAL understanding to follow them, and yours do not[/SIZE].

Of course, you missed the part where when you quote something you must quote the original source and clearly identify it. It is only taught in every junior high school, high school, college and university in the U.S. and very likely all over the world. Here are examples.

"My sources have HISTORICAL understanding to follow them, and yours do not." This assertion is absolutely ridiculous. You evidently do not know what "historical" means. None of your so-called sources even so much as mention any historical evidence. OTOH I quote actual sources written 2000 or more years ago, by religious leaders, Jewish and Christian.

My direct citations are from primary sources; Talmud, Jewish Encyclopedia, and early church fathers. But you will note that your unidentified "quotes" do not even qualify as secondary sources. Just unknown guys giving their irrelevant opinions.

All your so-called sources are a logical fallacy, "appeal to authority," 2d and 3d hand opinions which do not in themselves cite any verifiable historical evidence.

Logical Fallacy -Appeal to Authority( argumentum ad verecundiam )

Definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:

(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert
opinion on the subject,

(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.

(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or
otherwise not being serious

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An
argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on
second or third hand sources.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm​

If you refer to someone whom you claim is an authority then you are required to establish that he is. I did and do. If Willie Winkie is knowledgeable in this area produce evidence, otherwise he is just some guy.

What are Primary Sources?

Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer.

What Are Secondary Sources?

A secondary source is a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event. Examples include scholarly or popular books and articles, reference books, and textbooks.

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/PrimarySources.html

Basic In-Text Citation Rules

In MLA style, referring to the works of others in your text is done by using what's known as parenthetical citation.
Immediately following a quotation from a source or a paraphrase of a source's ideas, you place the author's name followed by a space and the relevant page number(s).
Human beings have been described as "symbol-using animals" (Burke 3).

When a source has no known author, use a shortened title of the work instead of an author name. Place the title in quotation marks if it's a short work, or italicize or underline it if it's a longer work.

Your in-text citation will correspond with an entry in your Works Cited page, which, for the Burke citation above, will look something like this:

Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966.

We'll learn how to make a Works Cited page in a bit, but right now it's important to know that parenthetical citations and Works Cited pages allow readers to know which sources you consulted in writing your essay, so that they can either verify your interpretation of the sources or use them in their own scholarly work.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/02/

Documenting sources.

MLA STYLE: ENGLISH AND OTHER HUMANITIES

In English and in some humanities classes, you will be asked to use the MLA (Modern Language Association) system for documenting sources, which is set forth in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 6th ed. (New York: MLA, 2003). MLA recommends in-text citations that refer readers to a list of works cited.

An in-text citation names the author of the source, often in a signal phrase, and gives the page number in parentheses. At the end of the paper, a list of works cited provides publication information about the source; the list is alphabetized by authors' last names (or by titles for works without authors).

http://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/p04_c08_o.html

The basics of documenting a book

The following information should be included, where applicable, in both the initial footnote for a source and the bibliographic entry. The order in which this information is listed is the order in which it should appear. Variations in content and order may be necessary for certain types of books, which are covered in the Documentation and Style Guide . The information used should be obtained from the title and copyright pages of the book:
Author: full name of the author or authors; full name of the editor or editors if no single author(s) listed (editor’s name may be given after title); or name of institution responsible for the writing of the book. (In the event that no author or editor or institution is listed as the author of the work, then the title of the work is the first element in the footnote and bibliography.)
Date of publication: this should be the most recent copyright date

Title: full title of the book, including any subtitles. Book titles appear in italic.

Editor, compiler, or translator, if any, and if in addition to listed author (may be located in author’s position if no author listed)

Edition, if appropriate

Volumes: total number if multivolume work is referred to as a whole

Volume number of a multivolume work, if single volume cited

Title of individual volume, if applicable
Series title, if applicable

Facts of publication: city and publisher. When multiple cities are listed on the title page, use the first city listed. For well-recognized cities, such as Chicago and New York , the state is not required.

However, for cities not as well-known or where several cities may have the same name, such as Greenville , South Carolina , the state should be included.

Page number(s): in the footnote, you must provide the specific page or pages on which the material cited can be found.

http://www.msoe.edu/business/msem/guidelines/document.shtml
​