• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Debate Dave on homosexuality

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nice Link Brieuse!

It is a very well educated and researched/informed document on what eunuchs were and how the early rising Roman Church began its campaign against gay people. We are stuck with its dogmas to this day and we need to rid the church of this dogma.

Homophobia is rooted in fear and hate. God has not given us a spirit of fear but of Love, Power and a Sound Mind.

Blessings and peace my friend
(Len = Boksburg boy)

The link "claims" to quote sources that most people have never heard of and very few have any reasonable access to and worst of all ignores readily available credible, verifiable, historical evidence such as the writings of the early church and the Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings which clearly contradict the so-called sources.
Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

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

Sanhedrin 54b

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

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

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind.13 . . .

He who submits both to pederasty and to bestiality — R. Abbahu said: On R. Akiba's view, he incurs two penalties; one for thou shalt not lie [with mankind], and the other for thou shalt not lie [with any beast]. But on R. Ishmael's view, he incurs only one punishment, both offences being derived from the single verse, There shall be no Sodomite.19 . . .

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

- The dog being an unclean animal, "the breaking of a dog's neck," mentioned as a sacrificial rite in Isa. lxvi. 3 (compare Ex. xiii. 13), indicates an ancient Canaanite practise (see W. R. Smith, "Rel. of Sem." p. 273). The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), though as the regular name of priests attached to the temple of Ashtoret at Larnaca has been found on the monuments (see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

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

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

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

A manual of instruction for proselytes, adopted from the Synagogue by early Christianity, and transformed by alteration and amplification into a Church manual.
2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . . "Thou shalt not use witchcraft nor practise sorcery" (Ex. xxii. 18; Lev. xix. 26). (This belongs obviously to the eliminated first part comprising the duties toward God.) "Thou shalt not procure abortion, nor shalt thou kill the new-born child" (compare Wisdom xii. 5). (This is the amplification of Ex. xx. 13, and belongs to verse 1.) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" (Ex. xx. 17; see verse 6).

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

On the analogy of this Biblical case the Rabbis decide several others (see Burglary). In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy; and where he seeks to ravish a betrothed damsel; for Deut. xxii. 27 indicates the duty of all that hear her cry to help her.

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - COMMANDMENTS, THE 613: 3347-53.

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

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

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

The early church interpreted [size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/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.”
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
^^ Same copy/paste from the same early Church who interpreted the Bible to justify their means for slavery and mistreatment of women.

Same ethics, and there isn't any word for homosexual, but nonetheless, Der Alter will trust those people.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
^^ Same copy/paste from the same early Church who interpreted the Bible to justify their means for slavery and mistreatment of women.

Same ethics, and there isn't any word for homosexual, but nonetheless, Der Alter will trust those people.

"the same early Church who interpreted the Bible to justify their means for slavery and mistreatment of women." Prove it and if you can prove explain how you think this is relevant to anything?

Since you have evidently never read anything written by the ECF how can you say anything about their ethics?

And once again we have that GLARING contradiction, "there isn't any word for homosexual" How many times have you said that Paul had a word for, and if he had wanted to refer to "homosexuals," he would have used that word instead of "arsenokoites" and that word was supposedly "homophilia?"
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
"the same early Church who interpreted the Bible to justify their means for slavery and mistreatment of women." Prove it and if you can prove explain how you think this is relevant to anything?

Since you have evidently never read anything written by the ECF how can you say anything about their ethics?

And once again we have that GLARING contradiction, "there isn't any word for homosexual" How many times have you said that Paul had a word for, and if he had wanted to refer to "homosexuals," he would have used that word instead of "arsenokoites" and that word was supposedly "homophilia?"
I don't know, but does it really matter?

What does that have to do with the truth? we know Paul didn't use any word for homosexual, so whether there was a word or not is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

BAFRIEND

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2007
15,847
1,173
✟23,362.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I have read a lot of your posts Dave. You just do what you need to do. i do not judge a person by their sexual orientation alone. There is such a thing as a whole person and sexuality is only one part of the person. I just hope that no one goes through life only identifying through one aspect of their whole person.
You are a good person and God loves you, Dave.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davedjy
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I have read a lot of your posts Dave. You just do what you need to do. i do not judge a person by their sexual orientation alone. There is such a thing as a whole person and sexuality is only one part of the person. I just hope that no one goes through life only identifying through one aspect of their whole person.
You are a good person and God loves you, Dave.
Yes, I agree. Thank you for that.

As for as "Identity", I personally don't care for labels...and I don't think anyone's idenitity should be wrapped up in any one thing, either.

Although, I do like the label "Worship Musican for Jesus", as that is what I care to do more than anything...worship the Lord who created us!
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't know, but does it really matter?

What does that have to do with the truth? we know Paul didn't use any word for homosexual, so whether there was a word or not irrelevant.

It only matters when you keep repeating untrue gossip as fact and then bailing out, as you are doing here, when you can't back it up.

Now that you have mentioned truth was there or was there not a word in 1st century Greek for homosexual? You have stated positively, more than once, there was. Were you telling the truth then? Or are you telling the truth now?

"we know Paul didn't use any word for homosexual" We know no such thing, as a matter of fact I have presented evidence from several sources that PROVES just the opposite. Your only response has been to quote Boswell, Campolo, Martin, Justin, none of whom are Greek scholars, and a bunch of other guys saying "arsenokoites" doesn't mean homosexual and completely ignore the evidence or repeat over and over and over "It's biased."

Previous post with irrefutable evidence from the Talmud and the early church.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
It only matters when you keep repeating untrue gossip as fact and then bailing out, as you are doing here, when you can't back it up.

Now that you have mentioned truth was there or was there not a word in 1st century Greek for homosexual? You have stated positively, more than once, there was. Were you telling the truth then? Or are you telling the truth now?

"we know Paul didn't use any word for homosexual" We know no such thing, as a matter of fact I have presented evidence from several sources that PROVES just the opposite. Your only response has been to quote Boswell, Campolo, Martin, none of whom are Greek scholars, and bunch of other guys saying "arsenokoites" doesn't mean homosexual and completely ignore the evidence or repeat over and over and over "It's biased."
I have ACTUAL translations of the Bible that disagree with your "early Church assessments". Furthermore,
Arsenokoitai means "male" and "bed", nothing more than that. Word origins always go way deeper than that. A Sodomite means "inhabitor of Sodom" or a raping male sex behavior, so you lose on many levels.

You pointed the word origin of 1 Cor to be with Leviticus. If that were true, it would be condemning a pagan worship/idolatry/ceremonial violation practice, and not homosexuality in general.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have ACTUAL translations of the Bible that disagree with your "early Church assessments". Furthermore,
Arsenokoitai means "male" and "bed", nothing more than that. Word origins always go way deeper than that. A Sodomite means "inhabitor of Sodom" or a raping male sex behavior, so you lose on many levels.

You pointed the word origin of 1 Cor to be with Leviticus. If that were true, it would be condemning a pagan worship/idolatry/ceremonial violation practice, and not homosexuality in general.

"A Sodomite means "inhabitor of Sodom" or a raping male sex behavior, so you lose on many levels." Prove from the Hebrew any instance of a Hebrew word that means "ihhabitor of Sodom? Elsewhere didn't you say more than once the crime of Sodom was being rude and inhospitable?
Evaluation

David F. Wright has presented a devastating critique of Boswell's linguistic arguments. He points out that in all other similar compounds ending in -koites the first half specifies the object of the sleeping, or its scene or sphere. That is, the first part always functions in an adverbial sense.[21] This is because koites has a verbal force, in most not all instances, arseno denotes the object.[22] Hence, the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes "'male homosexual activity' without qualification."[23]

Wright also surveys the use of arsenokoites, as well as arsenokoiteo and arsenokoitia, in the patristic literature.[24] Not only does his survey find that church fathers from Eusebius to Chrysostom use these terms to condemn male homosexual activity, but he also discovers numerous appeals to I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 for the same purposes.[25] This certainly undermines Boswell's claims concerning the early church. And it calls into question his scholarly ability, if not his scholarly integrity.[26]

Another element in Boswell's argument is his claim that no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as having authority in condemning homosexual acts.[27] Wright points out that it is precisely this claim that prevents Boswell from seeing the Septuagint translation of these two verses as the probably source of arsenokites and related terms.[28] The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as follows:

Lev. 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos
Lev. 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

The use of the terms arsenos and koiten in both verses, especially their juxtaposition in 20:13, presents an obvious parallel to Paul's use of arsenokoitai.[29] Since it is clear that the Hellenistic Jews condemned the homosexuality they encountered in the Greek world, the reasonable conclusion is that arsenokoitai came into use in the intertestamental period, under the influence of the Septuagint of Leviticus, to designate that homoerotic activity the Jews condemned. The plausible conclusion[30] is that the verses in Leviticus not only encouraged the formation of the term but also informed its meaning.[31]

http://trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html
Here is part of something I posted previously, in another thread, which addresses the article by Dan Martin.

From an article titled, “Dale Martin's "arsenokoites and malakos" tried and found wanting” Full article at the link below.

First Martin trying to prove, NOT from Greek, but from two English, compound words that the compound Greek word “[size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size]/arsenokoites does not, could not, mean homosexual, although the two separate words mean, “man” and “to have sex with.” Martin's words in blue.

Martin NEVER cites any instance, in Greek, where his assumptions occur.
We begin with the dissection of the word arsenokoites. Martin notes how interpreters have frequently split the word into its two root words, arsen (=male) and koites (=to bed or sleep with sexually; like the English word coitus). Thus, they have tended to assume that it refers generally to any man having sex with another male.

This is a faulty assumption
Martin says, because the meaning of a compound word is usually more than the sum of its parts. He gives as an example the word "understand" and notes that understand does not mean to stand under. Or, consider the word "chairman." Martin says, "None of us ... takes the word 'chairman' to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did." Therefore, to leap to the conclusion that arsenokoites refers to men having sex with other males is "linguistically invalid," Martin says. It is "naive and indefensible."

Martin is correct in cautioning against jumping to conclusions regarding the meaning of compound words. To conclude that the meaning of a compound word is simply the sum of its independent parts is not always a justifiable conclusion or method. However, to assert as Martin does that this method is linguistically invalid, naive, and indefensible clearly goes too far.

Next look at Jepsen's rebuttal based on the use of the actual Greek words “[size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;[/size]/arseno” and “[size=+1]&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size]/koites, in the Septuagint, 250 BC Greek translation of the O.T.
Arsenokoites in Leviticus
More important for us is to see how the word was being used in an Old Testament Jewish context, which probably would have been the greater influence on Paul and his understanding of the word. So let us consider those passages in Leviticus that prohibit a man from lying with a male as with a woman.

Although originally written in Hebrew, we look to see how these OT passages were rendered in Greek. In the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the OT), we find that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 both use the two Greek words arsenos and koiten together (the root words for arsenokoites).
Lev 18:22 [size=+1]&#954;&#945;&#953; &#956;&#949;&#964;&#945;[/size] [size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962;[/size] [size=+1]&#959;&#965; &#954;&#959;&#953;&#956;&#951;&#952;&#951;&#963;&#951;[/size] [size=+1]&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#957;[/size] [size=+1]&#947;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#953;&#954;&#959;&#962; &#946;&#948;&#949;&#955;&#965;&#947;&#956;&#945; &#947;&#945;&#961; &#949;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957;.[/size]

Lev 18:22 And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is an abomination.​
The phrase from Lev 20:13 is rendered in Greek: kai os an koimaythay meta arsenos koiten gunaikos bdelugma etoiesan amphoteroi ("and if a man might lie with a male as with a female, abomination/desecration they both have done").
Lev 20:13 [size=+1]&#954;&#945;&#953; &#959;&#962; &#945;&#957; &#954;&#959;&#953;&#956;&#951;&#952;&#951; &#956;&#949;&#964;&#945;[/size] [size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#957;[/size] [size=+1]&#947;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#953;&#954;&#959;&#962;, &#946;&#948;&#949;&#955;&#965;&#947;&#956;&#945; &#949;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#957; &#945;&#956;&#966;&#959;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#953; &#952;&#945;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#952;&#969;&#963;&#945;&#957;, &#949;&#957;&#959;&#967;&#959;&#953; &#949;&#953;&#963;&#953;&#957;[/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.​
Notice that arsenos and koiten not only both appear in this sentence, but arsenos immediately precedes koiten. Thus, it is no stretch to see how Paul, who undoubtedly would have been familiar with these verses from the Septuagint, could have from their influence put the two words together to form a new word, arsenokoites, and as he did so, clearly had in mind "a man bedding a male as a female" (Lev 20:13).

This conclusion is not based on arsenokoites appearing in unrelated lists from a century or two after Paul and then speculating on what might have been the intended meaning. [as Martin does] It is based directly on analysis of a text Paul would have been familiar with and whose meaning was and is clear. Even though at the time the Septuagint was written the two words had not previously (so far as we know) been joined together to make the single word arsenokoites, the essential meaning had already been established in the Septuagint's [250 BC] rendering of these verses. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would have been referring to and proscribing male homosexuality in general in the sense of a male lying with a male as with a woman as did Leviticus.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dale+...+malakos"+tried+and+found+wanting-a0153025991

Irrefutable evidence from the Talmud and the early church condemning homosexuality.
 
Upvote 0

karen freeinchristman

More of You and less of me, Lord!
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2004
14,806
481
North west of England
✟84,907.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
here's an honest question about something I don't understand. What is the purpose of homosexual sex in God's created order? Now I know you've heard this before, that some Christians will argue that the purpose of heterosex is procreation, and a counter-argument that many Christians use contraceptives or choose to remain celibate or aren't able to conceive, so that could also be said to be going against God's will. Whether or not the procreative act is successful or is thwarted is besides the point. The point is, heterosex holds the possibility of procreation. Homosex does not. I suppose I come from the view that God's will always makes sense. So my question: does homosex have a purpose in God's creative order? And what might that purpose be?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have ACTUAL translations of the Bible that disagree with your "early Church assessments". . .

You have actual translations that prove absolutely nothing about the meaning of the words arsenokoites and malakois Individual deliberate mistranslation that support various church doctrines, e.g. JW, LDS, etc. Individual translations which reflect the views of the translator. Translations which reflect the social mores of the era in which translated.

And all these translations further prove nothing any more than your constantly changing story,
"Arsenokites was interpreted by the early church as masturbation." "No, 'malakois' was interpreted by the early church as masturbation."

"There was a word in Greek for homosexual." "No, there was no word in Greek for homosexual."

"The crime of Sodom was raping the angels." "No the crime of Sodom was "arrogance, overfed and they they did not help the poor and needy."​
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You have actual translations that prove absolutely nothing about the meaning of the words arsenokoites and malakois Individual deliberate mistranslation that support various church doctrines, e.g. JW, LDS, etc. Individual translations which reflect the views of the translator. Translations which reflect the social mores of the era in which translated.

And all these translations further prove nothing any more than your constantly changing story,
"Arsenokites was interpreted by the early church as masturbation." "No, 'malakois' was interpreted by the early church as masturbation."

"There was a word in Greek for homosexual." "No, there was no word in Greek for homosexual."

"The crime of Sodom was raping the angels." "No the crime of Sodom was "arrogance, overfed and they they did not help the poor and needy."​
Nope. None of those Bibles had the LDS church. Why would you add things that were not posted? I quoted Christian Bibles, and most of them translated those words differently.
 
Upvote 0

karen freeinchristman

More of You and less of me, Lord!
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2004
14,806
481
North west of England
✟84,907.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Dave, my post may have been lost in the last page:

here's an honest question about something I don't understand. What is the purpose of homosexual sex in God's created order? Now I know you've heard this before, that some Christians will argue that the purpose of heterosex is procreation, and a counter-argument that many Christians use contraceptives or choose to remain celibate or aren't able to conceive, so that could also be said to be going against God's will. Whether or not the procreative act is successful or is thwarted is besides the point. The point is, heterosex holds the possibility of procreation. Homosex does not. I suppose I come from the view that God's will always makes sense. So my question: does homosex have a purpose in God's creative order? And what might that purpose be?

:pray:
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Dave, my post may have been lost in the last page:



:pray:
Oh...the purpose?

The only thing I can think of is diversity. I can ask you "what is the purpose of God making someone black as opposed to white"? = same answer, same logic...

It doesn't have to be a part of God's "creative" order...we gay, bi and lesbian people only make up a very small part of the population (1% I believe). 450 other creations who are bi, gay, lesbian...and even transgender! All those creations still exist, because of radical diversity too.

God's way of not making everything and everyone the same, over and over...
 
Upvote 0

UberLutheran

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
10,708
1,677
✟20,440.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi Dave,

You seem bent on remaining homosexual. What scriptures do you have to allow homosexuality among Christians? Just wondered.

God bless.

Do you really think Dave could change?

Could you change and become lesbian if someone insisted that you do so?
 
Upvote 0

cutie76

Regular Member
Mar 4, 2007
262
30
Florida
Visit site
✟15,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you really think Dave could change?

Could you change and become lesbian if someone insisted that you do so?
With God NOTHING is impossible.

My prayer for myself, Dave and everyone is that our mind be bound to the mind of God, that our heart be bound to the heart of God and that our will would be bound to the will of God.

With that being said, since God does not will me (or anyone) to be homosexual, I will remain heterosexual - forever.
 
Upvote 0

inyourarmsalways

A Sinner Saved By Grace (Romans 3:23)
Dec 26, 2006
49
18
69
✟22,825.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
With God NOTHING is impossible.

My prayer for myself, Dave and everyone is that our mind be bound to the mind of God, that our heart be bound to the heart of God and that our will would be bound to the will of God.

With that being said, since God does not will me (or anyone) to be homosexual, I will remain heterosexual - forever.
God does not change people like this. Only Bisexual men and women can overcome homosexuality by amplifying opposite sex attraction.

Furthermore, there are plenty of Churches that are accepting of people like Dave, that affirm them for what they believe.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God does not change people like this.

God said NOTHING was impossible for him. You say there is something God cannot do. Who do you think I believe? And OBTW when did God appoint you his spokesman stating what he can and cannot do?

Only Bisexual men and women can overcome homosexuality by amplifying opposite sex attraction.

And you can back this up with medical studies, clinical data, real evidence not just your opinion?

Furthermore, there are plenty of Churches that are accepting of people like Dave, that affirm them for what they believe.

I wonder if there are "churches" that affirm Billy and his goat, Betty and her St. Bernard, or Pete the pedophile?
 
Upvote 0