God's law on homosexuality

[Aaron_3521]

The new Testament clearly states that these practices (fornication, sodomy and homosexuality) are not liked by God.

God established marriage as a coming together of a man and a woman to make them one.

So fornication with anything be it woman, man or dog was not intended for the relationship. Since gays are not under the sanctity of marriage, their relationship would be one of fornication.

Then you have sodomy, also noted as a detestable practice. So sodomy with any person or animal would be wrong. However, Sodomy is the way guys have sex with each other, through use of the anus. This is not a practice condoned by God.

Then you have homosexuality, clearly not what God intended, as again he intended a man and woman to become one.

 

[Brieuse]

More deliberate dishonesty, deception, and disengenuity. Ignores Jude 6 which I have posted several times. According to Jude the Sodomites were punished for a continuous pattern of behavior, "outlaw porn(eiea)" and "going after other flesh" that began in the past and continued into the future.

Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice

B. Malakos and arsenokoitai in I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10
Another major linguistic argument is presented in John Boswell's book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. His argument involves the interpretation of the Greek terms malakos and arsenokoitai found in I Cor. 6:9, with the latter term also found in I Tim. 1:10.

In I Cor. 6:9, Paul states that among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven are malakoi and arsenokoitai. In I Tim. 1:10 Paul states that the law is made for lawbreakers, the ungodly, the sinful, etc., among whom he includes (pornoi and) arsenokoitai. Boswell notes that it is these two terms that have been used to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven.

Boswell insists that,

malakos, whose root meaning is 'soft,' means "licentious," "loose," or "wanting in self control" in a moral context. He argues that it is "wholly gratuitous" to apply this to homosexuals.[13] "The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically." The unanimous tradition of the church through Middle Ages, the Reformation and Catholicism into the twentieth century was to understand this word as applying to masturbation.​

With that no longer censured, Boswell claims that the condemnatory sense of this term has been transferred to homosexuals, especially because of its connection with the term arsenokoitai.[14] Scanzoni and Mollenkott suggest that malakoi could well be translated as "self-indulgent." In I Cor. 6:9 they claim that it refers to men who think of nothing but chasing after women for the sake of sexual conquest. Although Scanzoni and Mollenkott differ from Boswell in their view of the exact meaning of malakoi, they agree with him in insisting that it is improper to understand this term as referring to homosexual behaviour.[15]

The thrust of Boswell's linguistic argument has to do with the term arsenokoitai, used by Paul in both I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10. He claims that this term meant "male prostitute" to Paul and his contemporaries, and it maintained that meaning well into the fourth century. It was only much later that it was confused with and applied to homosexuality.[16]

Boswell's argument involves two components. The first entails the exact meaning of this term. Since examples of its usage are difficult to find prior to Paul, the meaning of the compound word must be determined from the two parts of the compound and the way they function together. These are: arsen and koitai. The first part, arsen is generally agreed as referring to males. The second part, koitai, refers to sleeping. Boswell argues that the second part stresses the coarseness and active licentiousness of the sleeping denoted, and is equivalent to the coarse English word, "F[omitted]," that is, the one who takes an active role in intercourse.[17] He [Boswell] also maintains that in no compound words with the prefix arseno- is it ever used as an object of the second half of the compound. It always has an adjectival sense, denoting the gender of the second half of the compound. This understanding leads Boswell to conclude that arsenokoitai refers to "active male prostitutes." The term says nothing about the sex of those served by the prostitutes; they could be either male or female.[18]

The second component of Boswell's argument entails the usage of arsenokoitai in the first two or three centuries of the church. He contends that this term is never used by the patristic Greek writers of the early church.[19] He supports this with the further claim that from the time of the apostle Paul in the first century until Aquinas in the thirteenth century I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 played no role in the development of Christian European attitudes toward homosexuality.[20]

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 - [SIZE=+1]μετα αρσενος ου κοιμεθεσε κοιτεν γυναικος[/SIZE]
Lev. 20:13 - [SIZE=+1]ος αν κοιμεθε μετα αρσενος κοιτεν γυναικος[/SIZE]​

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]

CONCLUSION

It is my conclusion that the arguments in defense of homosexuality surveyed in this paper fail. They fail, not because an evangelical view of the authority of the Bible dismisses them a priori, but because they do not make their case on their own grounds. An examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong.

http://trinitysem.edu/journal/journalmain.html
​

Every homosexual argument posted thus far relies on untruth, half truth, misquoting, misrepresentation, and quoting out of context.
REAL Greek scholars established the meaning of [SIZE=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/SIZE]/arsenokoités around [SIZE=+1]250 BC,[/SIZE] when they translated the phrase, “If a man also lie with mankind” as “arsenokoites.” All the vain, frantic twisting and manipulation of the text cannot change that historical fact, and it had gone unchallenged, for more than 2200 years, until gays started trying to change, i.e. pervert, scripture, within the past several decades.

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

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

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

LXX Engl. Lev 20:13 And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.

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

1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor [[SIZE=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/SIZE]] abusers of themselves with mankind​

Other verses, in Lev., which show that “koites” meant more than simply “bed,” as early as 250 BC.

LXX [250 BC] Lev 5:20 [SIZE=+1]ει δε συ παραβεβηκας υπ' ανδρος ουσα η μεμιανσαι και εδωκεν τις την κοιτην αυτου εν σοι πλην του ανδρος σου[/SIZE]

Lev 5:20 But if being a married woman thou hast transgressed, or been polluted, and any one has lain with thee, beside thy husband:

LXX [250 BC] Lev 18:20 [SIZE=+1]και προς την γυναικα του πλησιον σου ου δωσεις κοιτην σπερματος σου εκμιανθηναι προς αυτην[/SIZE]

Lev 18:20 And thou shalt not lie with, thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Lev LXX [250 BC] 15:16 [SIZE=+1]και ανθρωπος ω εαν εξελθη εξ αυτου κοιτη σπερματος και λουσεται υδατι παν το σωμα αυτου και ακαθαρτος εσται εως εσπερας[/SIZE]

Lev 15:16 And the man whose seed of copulation shall happen to go forth from him, shall then wash his whole body, and shall be unclean until evening.​

so which of all those quotes is forbidding a loving monogamous relationship between two males?

 

[Der Alte]

so which of all those quotes is forbidding a loving monogamous relationship between two males?

IRRELEVANT. IF THE OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT GOD HAD INTENDED TO EXCLUDE SO CALLED "LOVING MONAGOMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, HE WOULD HAVE STATED IT CLEARLY IN HIS WORD.

ALL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IS CONDEMNED UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. NEITHER THE ECF NOR THE ANCIENT JEWS IN THE TALMUD EVER SO MUCH AS MENTION PAGAN RELIGIONS OR MALE PROSTITUTION ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR CONDEMNATIONS!

Please do continue to beat this dead horse without any evidence whatsoever and ignore the only credible evidence being presented.

 

[RMDY]

IRRELEVANT. IF THE OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT GOD HAD INTENDED TO EXCLUDE SO CALLED "LOVING MONAGOMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, HE WOULD HAVE STATED IT CLEARLY IN HIS WORD.

ALL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IS CONDEMNED UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. NEITHER THE ECF NOR THE ANCIENT JEWS IN THE TALMUD EVER SO MUCH AS MENTION PAGAN RELIGIONS OR MALE PROSTITUTION ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR CONDEMNATIONS!

Please do continue to beat this dead horse without any evidence whatsoever and ignore the only credible evidence being presented.

I do not condemn homosexuals. But I believe marriage is only between a Man and a Women.

Fleshly marriages are different. They can be anything they want.

 

[Der Alte]

More evidence to be ignored and blown off with inane one liners.

Homosexuality and The Apostle Paul: A Study on Romans 1:26-27
. . .
And speaking of nature, the “exchange” (“exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”) is clearly made from natural sexual intercourse to that which is para physin, or “against nature.” This phrase is incredibly important in this passage. But, first let’s deal with the word physikos, meaning “natural” in this passage. It is used only three times in the NT. Twice it is used in this passage and once in 2 Peter 2:12 where it is used to describe animals. The general definition is “given by, or according to nature” (TDNOT, V.IX, p.271). Now looking at the word, physis, translated “nature” at the end of this verse, is used often by Paul to denote things common to all people. In Romans 2:14 it is translated, “instinctively” and refers to all Gentiles. In 2:27 it again refers to all Gentiles. The same is true of 11:24, 27. In 1 Cor. 11:14 he uses it to refer to a universal principle which is observable in the physical world. In Galatians 2:15, he refers to the fact that all Jews are so by physical ancestry. In Gal. 4:8 he is referring to fact that idols are not “by nature” gods. And Ephesians 2:3 refers to all people’s status as being objects of wrath were it not for the grace of God. So, in every case, Paul uses this term to refer to a universal principle and/or complete group. He is lumping all people or items together into one category. Never does he use it to denote a minority group separate to the majority group. So when one says that this is in reference to the nature of an individual person separate from all women or men, it seems unlikely given Paul’s normal usage. If such a strange reading were legitimate it would be the first time he is using the word in that regard and does not fit with his usage of the word in other parts of the book of Romans, which he likely wrote all in one sitting with one purpose – to lay out the Gospel for the Church at Rome.

Now, let’s deal with the phrase, “against nature” or para physin specifically for a moment. It is used one other time in Romans and no where else in Scripture. In 11:24, Paul says literally, “For if you [Jews] were cut off from what is by nature [kata physin] a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [para physin] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [physikos] branches be grafted into their own olive tree.” The argument goes like this: The Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree of Abraham’s descendants (though they were by ancestry not Jews) by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ. This was unnatural or [contrary to the laws of nature] to do so. Still if God is able to do that, then surely He is able to bring those Jews who were by ancestry into their own tree as well. So again, we see this phrase used to express a universal understanding of people (and trees). Again, nothing seems to suggest that Paul is using this phrase to denote the nature of an individual or group of individuals within the larger population.

But, what is most interesting about this phrase is Paul’s use of it in Romans 1:27 when dealing with an issue with obviously sexual overtones. Remember that Paul is speaking to a Gentile audience and that he is a Roman citizen who was educated according to both Jewish law and Greek philosophy (as we seen when he goes to Mars Hill in Acts 17 and his discussion on philosophy in 1 Corinthians, as well as his use of rhetoric throughout his writings).

Knowing this, we find the either phrase “against nature” (para physin) or the effect Paul may be trying to cause with this phrase often in Greek literature. Let’s turn now to Charles Talbert for more on this:
For example, In Plato, Laws 1.2 [626B-C] said same-sex relations were ‘contrary to nature’; Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.758, had a girl involved in same sex love say ‘nature does not will it’; Ps-Lucian, Erotes 19, said female homoeroticism is contrary to nature (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary, Romans, 2002, p.66).
We also find evidence from Hellenistic Judaism. Again Talbert says, “Philo, On Abraham XXVI.135, spoke about men, discarding laws of nature, lusting after one another. In Special Laws, 2.XIV.50, he talked about men lusting unnaturally. T. Naphtali 3:4 said: “Do not become like Sodom, which departed from the order of nature” (which lends evidence to the use of “Sodom” throughout Christianity to refer not just to rape, etc., but to general homosexual practice) (Talbert, 66). He goes on:

Ps-Psocylides 190 exhorted the readers not to transgress sexually the limits set by nature. Josephus [a contemporary of Paul], Against Apion 2.25 + 199, said the law ‘owns no other mixture of sexes but that which has appointed…It abhors the mixture of a male with a male.’ Second Enoch 10:4 regards homosexual practice as a sin against nature. ​

And then we find this phrase used after the writing of Scripture, by the early Church Fathers to speak of homosexual relationships as unnatural, giving weight to the fact that the early Church believed Paul to be using “nature” and “against nature” in this way. Regarding these examples Talbert offers:

This Jewish contention was by the early fathers. Polycarp, Philippians 5.3, for example, said that those given to unnatural vice would not share in the kingdom of God. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 2.12.55 and 7.10.59, said women who married women acted contrary to nature [see there is talk about homosexual marriage in the early Church]. For him, the Genesis creation narrative laid the framework for understanding nature as gendered. John Chrysostem’s Fourth Homily on Romans treats both male and female homoeroticism as unnatural. ​

The evidence here is overwhelmingly in favor of a reading of “contrary to nature” as meaning against the nature of all men, with the term “naturally,” as we will see, referring to heterosexuality and para physin (“contrary to nature”) referring to homosexuality.

Turning back to the verse itself, were v.27 to have been omitted by Paul, we would still know that:
1. Paul was describing what results from a culture that has turned away from God.
2. This results in a sinful activity.
3. This sinful activity involves women and of a sexual nature.
4. A natural, non-sinful sexual activity has been exchanged for this sexually sinful activity
5. This sinful sexual activity is wrong because it goes against the nature of all women.

Now that we’ve covered the wording Paul used in v.26, let’s move on to v.27.

“And in the same way” is a phrase that indicates that the men described in v.27 were involved in the exact same type of activity. With just this phrase we can surmise that all five of the summarizing statements regarding v.26 are true of these men he going to describe in v.27.

Next Paul says, “the men abandoned the natural function of the woman.” The word for “abandoned” is best understood as “forsake” or “give up.” We have already covered the word “natural” as it denotes the normal activity of a general group. And we have also dealt with the word for “function” noting that it is used in regards to sexual activity. The phrase “of the woman” denotes a subjective genitive (the case of possession) and could be translated, “the woman’s natural function” or “the woman’s normal sexual activity.” This emphasizes that the men gave up sexual relationships with women, or said another way, they “forsook the sexual activity that they could have had with women” in favor of something else. Like the women they exchanged this “natural sexual activity” for something that was “unnatural.”

These men, abandoning the natural sexual activity of the woman, “burned in their desire toward one another.” This is actually the first main verb in this sentence. So literally, “as they abandoned, they also had a strong desire.” The word here is translated as “burned” in order to catch the emphasis in the Greek construction of the verse. Also, the verb is normally an active verb, but here its form is in the passive voice. Literally, it says, “[the men] were made to have a strong desire in their desire for one another.” This verse seems to make it clear that the men gave up the sexual activity they could have had with women and instead were inflamed with a desire for each other, which would obviously be other men.

But just in case Paul wasn’t clear, he uses the phrase, “men with men.” The first “men” in this phrase is in the nominative case (the case generally given to the subject of a sentence). This is strange for a word in the middle of a sentence to be in the nominative case, but this denotes that it has a specific function. Here it is what Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1996) calls a “Parenthetic Nominative,” whose “use is primarily explanatory and is frequently an editorial aside” (p.53). Paul wants his readers to understand what he means by “burned for one another.” He means that men had sex with other men. At this point there is no doubt that he is speaking of homosexual relationships.

Paul doesn’t stop there, but continues adding, “men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” About this sentence James R. White writes,

The mutuality of this desire is emphasized by the phrase “men with men.” The apostle leaves no doubt as to his reference: adult homosexuals. And these are active men: they act upon their desires, accomplishing what Paul identifies as literally “the shameful deed,” or as it is rendered by the NASB and NIV, “indecent acts.” The term comes from an old word that referred to something as “deformed,” and hence flows into the concept of perversion and deviation that is part and parcel of this section of the chapter. There is no possible way of reading this term as referring to anything neutral or simply “unusual” or “out of the norm.” Paul views homosexual activity as shameful or indecent.​

http://danielrandle.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html​

 

[RMDY]

More evidence to be ignored and blown off with one liners

I do not condemn homosexuals because only Christ has the power to judge and condemn
The scriptures are my guide. I believe scriptures condemn the act of homosexuality, but not the sinner if they have faith in Christ.
God's grace saves us. God's mercy allows us to be forgiven. God is rich in love. He will never leave us nor forsake us.
Most important is us to keep the two most important commandments:Love God with your heart, mind, and soul
Love each other as you would love yourself.
Even if you consider homosexuals to be sinners, love them as you would love yourself. Love the sinner!
It is better to do good then to do bad. It is better to preach God's love then to preach fire and brimestone.I believe scriptures condemns many things, but God allows us to be forgiven. God will do away with the flesh and all those who have faith in Him will be saved.
I don't always agree with what other Christians do, and I can tell them what they are doing is not right, but Christ will be the one who will throw the first stone around here

I'll be just watching the judgement and nothing more than that.

 

[Der Alte]

I do not condemn homosexuals because only Christ has the power to judge and condemn
The scriptures are my guide. I believe scriptures condemn the act of homosexuality, but not the sinner if they have faith in Christ.
. . .
I'll be just watching the judgement and nothing more than that.

That's twice you have posted a reply, to me, like this. In what way do you think I have been judging anyone? I have been very careful to concentrate on the scripture, how it was interpreted by the ancient Jews before the Christian era and how the early church interpreted and applied the scripture.

Meanwhile more scholars REAL scholars exegeting the scripture.

1 Cor 6:9 NET translator’s notes.

5tn This term [[size=+1]μαλακοι[/size]] is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior. BDAG 613 s.v. malakov" 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’ …As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” See also the discussion in G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 243-44. A number of modern translations have adopted the phrase “male prostitutes” for malakoiv in 1 Cor 6:9 (NIV, NRSV, NLT) but this could be misunderstood by the modern reader to mean “males who sell their services to women,” while the term in question appears, at least in context, to relate to homosexual activity between males. Furthermore, it is far from certain that prostitution as commonly understood (the selling of sexual favors) is specified here, as opposed to a consensual relationship. Thus the translation “passive homosexual partners” has been used here.

6tn On this term BDAG 135 s.v. ajrsenokoivth" [[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]]
states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. malakov"…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’…It is possible that “[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]” in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakov", the passive male partner.” Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation, following the emphasis in BDAG.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Hermeneutical Issues In The Use Of The Bible To Justify The Acceptance Of Homosexual Practice

B. Malakos and arsenokoitai in I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10
Another major linguistic argument is presented in John Boswell's book, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. His argument involves the interpretation of the Greek terms malakos and arsenokoitai found in I Cor. 6:9, with the latter term also found in I Tim. 1:10.

In I Cor. 6:9, Paul states that among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven are malakoi and arsenokoitai. In I Tim. 1:10 Paul states that the law is made for lawbreakers, the ungodly, the sinful, etc., among whom he includes (pornoi and) arsenokoitai. Boswell notes that it is these two terms that have been used to exclude homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven.

Boswell insists that,

malakos, whose root meaning is 'soft,' means "licentious," "loose," or "wanting in self control" in a moral context. He argues that it is "wholly gratuitous" to apply this to homosexuals.[13] "The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically." The unanimous tradition of the church through Middle Ages, the Reformation and Catholicism into the twentieth century was to understand this word as applying to masturbation.​

With that no longer censured, Boswell claims that the condemnatory sense of this term has been transferred to homosexuals, especially because of its connection with the term arsenokoitai.[14] Scanzoni and Mollenkott suggest that malakoi could well be translated as "self-indulgent." In I Cor. 6:9 they claim that it refers to men who think of nothing but chasing after women for the sake of sexual conquest. Although Scanzoni and Mollenkott differ from Boswell in their view of the exact meaning of malakoi, they agree with him in insisting that it is improper to understand this term as referring to homosexual behaviour.[15]

The thrust of Boswell's linguistic argument has to do with the term arsenokoitai, used by Paul in both I Cor. 6:9 & I Tim. 1:10. He claims that this term meant "male prostitute" to Paul and his contemporaries, and it maintained that meaning well into the fourth century. It was only much later that it was confused with and applied to homosexuality.[16]

Boswell's argument involves two components. The first entails the exact meaning of this term. Since examples of its usage are difficult to find prior to Paul, the meaning of the compound word must be determined from the two parts of the compound and the way they function together. These are: arsen and koitai. The first part, arsen is generally agreed as referring to males. The second part, koitai, refers to sleeping. Boswell argues that the second part stresses the coarseness and active licentiousness of the sleeping denoted, and is equivalent to the coarse English word, "F[omitted]," that is, the one who takes an active role in intercourse.[17] He [Boswell] also maintains that in no compound words with the prefix arseno- is it ever used as an object of the second half of the compound. It always has an adjectival sense, denoting the gender of the second half of the compound. This understanding leads Boswell to conclude that arsenokoitai refers to "active male prostitutes." The term says nothing about the sex of those served by the prostitutes; they could be either male or female.[18]

The second component of Boswell's argument entails the usage of arsenokoitai in the first two or three centuries of the church. He contends that this term is never used by the patristic Greek writers of the early church.[19] He supports this with the further claim that from the time of the apostle Paul in the first century until Aquinas in the thirteenth century I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 played no role in the development of Christian European attitudes toward homosexuality.[20]

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 - [size=+1]μετα αρσενος ου κοιμεθεσε κοιτεν γυναικος[/size]
Lev. 20:13 - [size=+1]ος αν κοιμεθε μετα αρσενος κοιτεν γυναικος[/size]​

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]

CONCLUSION
It is my conclusion that the arguments in defense of homosexuality surveyed in this paper fail. They fail, not because an evangelical view of the authority of the Bible dismisses them a priori, but because they do not make their case on their own grounds. An examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong.

http://trinitysem.edu/journal/journalmain.html
​

 

[Der Alte]

so which of all those quotes is forbidding a loving monogamous relationship between two males?

Irrelevant! Here is the argument posted on the previous page that I was responding to.

"
There is no recorded used of "Arsenkoites" prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 6:9. English translators traditionally have related it to Sodomites. There is a double irony to this since, as it is now generally recognized, Sodomites were not punished for homosexuality.
The claim this word means homosexual, defies linguistic evidence and common sense. "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male"."

You don't follow your own advice.

And since you cannot even begin to reply to any of my posts with anything resembling a reasoned, rational response you go off on this wild eyed diversion.

Pro-Homosexual Arguments Examined

By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors
* * *
4) The "Sodom’s sin was inhospitality" Argument.

In reality, it is wrong to pick out one "sin" of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:48-50 says, "‘As I live,’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw {it}’" (NASB).

It is rather fascinating to note that the "guilt" of Sodom was arrogance, and having an abundance of things yet refusing to help the poor and needy. The result of their guilt was being haughty and committing abominations. These abominations evidently included (but were not limited to) homosexual activity (referred to as an abomination in Leviticus 18:22), but it is important to note that committing abominations was the result of their guilt, not the cause of their guilt, and this is an important distinction to make. This cycle of guilt for sin and resulting consequences is seen also in Romans 1, where Paul does not actually name homosexuality as a sin, but as a result of sin.

Understanding that the very phrase "sin of Sodom" is a misnomer, we will proceed to look at the argument that the "sin of Sodom" in Genesis 19 was inhospitality, not anything having to do with homosexual activity.

The extreme proponents of this view hold that when the men of Sodom came to the door and asked Lot to bring out the two men that they might "know" them, it was because the Sodomites were xenophobic, and only an interrogation is implied. This does not fit with the context at all; Lot certainly understood the sexual context when he offered his daughters instead (which we would agree was deplorable in its own right).
Lot knew in advance of this incident that the streets in Sodom were an unsafe place to stay, which is why he was so adamant in offering the men lodgings in the first place. It would seem that the people of Sodom regularly victimized strangers sexually and Lot wanted to spare these two men that horrible experience. Perhaps we could infer from Lot’s attempt to offer his daughters that the men of Sodom didn’t particularly care about the sex of their rape victims.

The attempted homosexual rape would serve as evidence of Sodom’s overall sinfulness—but it alone was not the cause of the destruction of Sodom. God sent the angels there because, in His own words, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know" (Genesis 18:20-21). Seeing the attempted homosexual rape, God knew that it was the result of sinfulness, and knew that Sodom was guilty, and removed them.

5) The "word choice in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is not clear" Argument.

In the NASB, 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals…"

The word translated "effeminate" is the Greek word "malakos," and the word translated "homosexuals" is the Greek word "arsenokoites." The meanings of these words are debated by pro-gays, and not without good reason.

"Malakos" literally means "soft." It is translated as "effeminate" in some versions, as "male cult prostitute" in others. It’s something of an interpretive leap, perhaps made because of its near proximity to the word "arsenokoites." James Strong defined the word as a "catamite," the boy partner in a sexual relationship between a man and a boy.
"Arsenokoites" is a very unique word. Linguists today think the word was probably coined by Paul, because it is not used in any literature of his time period or before. Its first use in non-Biblical literature is not until the second century A.D., where it is used to describe male sexual abusers of male children. Perhaps for this reason, Martin Luther’s version translated it Knabenschänder, the German word for "boy-abuser."
"Arsenokoites" was not, in Paul’s time, the Greek word for "homosexual." There were other words available to Paul that he could have used to be more specific, such as:

1)ANDROKOITHS, having intercourse with a man
2) ARRENOGAMEW, to marry men
3) ARRENOKOITHS, a sodomite (in the Attic form)
4) ARRENOMANHS, mad after males
5) ARRENOMIKTHS, a sodomite
6) ARSENOMIKTHS, also a sodomite
7) ARRENOMICIA, the word for sodomy itself
8) ARRENOPIPHS, one who looks lewdly on males.

So, why did Paul use a word apparently of his own invention? He combined "arsenos", men, and "koites", bed, to create a word similar to "men-bedder." The source of the words Paul combined was the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of Scripture in use in Paul’s time.

Leviticus 20:13, in English, reads, "If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" (NASB).

In Greek, that reads (in transliterated form), "KAI HOS AN KOIMHQH META ARSENOS KOITHN GUNAIKOS, BDELUGMA EPOIHSAN AMFOTEROI; QANATOUSQWSAN, ENOIXOI EISIN."

It would appear that Paul turned ARSENOS KOITHN into one word. I can only guess as to why he would do this, instead of using the normal Greek words he could have used; but I do have a few ideas.

First, it could be he didn’t know the normal Greek words, and so made his own from a text he did know, the Septuagint. This is extremely unlikely because there is Scriptural evidence that Paul was well-versed in Greek literature; yet, we all know there are certain words people don’t say around their ministers. It could be no one ever shared the words that meant "homosexual" with Paul.

Second, perhaps he knew the normal Greek words, but he wanted to tie what he was saying to the passage in Leviticus, so his cause for saying it could be traced to Old Testament Scripture. (In fairness to the other side of this argument, he could have used these words to differentiate between the sort of homosexuality the other words describe, and the kind intended in Leviticus.)

Or, finally, Paul may have simply avoided the direct words for homosexuality because he considered it "disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret" (Ephesians 5:12, NASB).

7) The "Old Testament only forbids male cult prostitutes" argument.

While this may sound like a ridiculous argument on the surface, in fact it is one of the more compelling arguments the pro-gay apologists make.

If you look at the context of Leviticus 18:22, you can see that this argument seems reasonable at first glance. Using the NASB’s paragraph markers, here is the paragraph containing Leviticus 18:22:

"Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion." (Leviticus 18:20-23, NASB).

It is sort of odd to find a reference to cult worship practice in the middle of a series of sexual laws. Could it be a change of topic to the practices in the worship of Molech? I researched the practices of Molech worship, which are definitely too disgusting to relate here, other than to say they did include male homosexual prostitution and sex with animals. Molech was a fertility god and in his case, as in the case with all fertility gods, the worship practices included depraved and degrading sex acts.

At several points in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, purges were done in which male cult prostitutes were expelled from the land. (These can be found at 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Despite the fact that the King James Version translates this as "sodomites," leading us to think all homosexuals were purged, in fact the only people purged were male cult prostitutes.

The argument is that homosexual acts are only unacceptable within the context of cult prostitution. But is that true? If it is, then bestiality should also be acceptable outside of cultic worship practices, and burning your children should be acceptable as well, because these were the other two practices involved in Molech worship.

Deuteronomy 12:31 says, "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods."

This indicates that the act itself is abominable, no matter why it is done or who it is done for. And, it so happens that in Leviticus, burning sons and daughters in the fire is mentioned in the same paragraph as homosexual acts.
* * *

Pro-Homosexual Arguments Examined is Copyright © 2005 by Compass Distributors.

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/homoargs.htm​

 

[RMDY]

That's twice you have posted a reply, to me, like this. In what way do you think I have been judging anyone?

I didn't say you were judging anyone. I was just posting my opinion on the matter in general.

 

[Der Alte]

I didn't say you were judging anyone. I was just posting my opinion on the matter in general.

Kewl!

 

[BigBadWlf]

The new Testament clearly states that these practices (fornication, sodomy and homosexuality) are not liked by God.

actually that is not clearly stated at all.

despite loud chest thumping and outright denial from those dedicated to defending prejudice there remains the fact that the Greek word arsenokoitésdoes not translate as homosexual.

 

[BigBadWlf]

IRRELEVANT. IF THE OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT GOD HAD INTENDED TO EXCLUDE SO CALLED "LOVING MONAGOMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, HE WOULD HAVE STATED IT CLEARLY IN HIS WORD.

ALL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IS CONDEMNED UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. NEITHER THE ECF NOR THE ANCIENT JEWS IN THE TALMUD EVER SO MUCH AS MENTION PAGAN RELIGIONS OR MALE PROSTITUTION ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR CONDEMNATIONS!

Please do continue to beat this dead horse without any evidence whatsoever and ignore the only credible evidence being presented.

all caps does not a make your argument any better nor does it cover up the fact that you didn't answer Brieuse's question.

 

[Brieuse]

all caps does not a make your argument any better nor does it cover up the fact that you didn't answer Brieuse's question.

Thank you, I thought I was going mad.

 

[Der Alte]

The new Testament clearly states that these practices (fornication, sodomy and homosexuality) are not liked by God.

actually that is not clearly stated at all.

despite loud chest thumping and outright denial from those dedicated to defending prejudice there remains the fact that the Greek word arsenokoités does not translate as homosexual.

Actually that is very clearly stated, in scripture. Since Paul used the word, [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoités, without any explanation, it is clear that both Timothy, and the church at Corinth, would have understood perfectly what Paul was saying. This is attested by the early church. Further, the meaning of [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoités was clearly established by the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint, LXX, 250 BC, see brief etymology, below. The LXX was the O.T. version most quoted in the N.T., by Jesus, and all the N.T. writers.

You are partially correct [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoités does not mean “homosexual,” per se, it means “a man who has sex with a man, see infra. N-NPM

In a previous post, in this thread.

Every homosexual argument posted thus far relies on untruth, half truth, misquoting, misrepresentation, and quoting out of context.

REAL Greek scholars established the meaning of [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoités around [size=+1]250 BC,[/size] when they translated the phrase, “If a man also lie with mankind” as “arsenokoites.” All the vain, frantic twisting and manipulation of the text cannot change that historical fact, and it had previously gone unchallenged, for more than 2200 years, until gays started trying to change, i.e. pervert, scripture, within my lifetime.

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

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

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

LXX Engl. Lev 20:13 And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.

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

1 Cor 6:9 [ca. 90 AD] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor [[size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]] abusers of themselves with mankind​

Also see credible, verifiable, historical evidence, in these posts, in this thread. In fact, between me and all the homosexuals arguing with me, this is the ONLY credible evidence being presented<period, end of story>

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33939297&postcount=65

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33963966&postcount=67

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33964023&postcount=68

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33936957&postcount=59

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33937111&postcount=60

all caps does not a make your argument any better nor does it cover up the fact that you didn't answer Brieuse's question.

If this were not so sad it would be laughable. 2 heroes who have not answered anything I posted in the last 2-3 pages making kissy face with each other because I didn’t go off down this rabbit trail.

You are correct I did not directly “answer” Brieuse’s irrelevant extraneous smoke screen question, the only purpose of which was evading, and demonstrating an inability to address, my responses to his previous questions, pointed out above. My response was indirect. I demonstrated how the question was a logical fallacy. Here is a similar argument by analogy.

The Bible doesn’t say anything about guns. There is no word for gun, in Hebrew or Greek. They only knew about clubs, stones, knives, arrows, spears, etc. Since the Bible does not specifically prohibit it, if I kill someone with a gun, I am not sinning.​

All caps makes my response more visible, so that Brieuse, and everyone else, can more readily see it. There seems to be a lot of selective myopia among homosexuals when it comes to reading rebuttals of their same old, same old, inane pro-homosexual arguments.

Thank you, I thought I was going mad.

You might well be! You did not even attempt to reply to any of my responses to your previous logically fallacious questions and comments.

Actually ALL the “loud chest thumping and outright denial” is coming from the homosexual side. I have been posting documented Biblical research; language studies, by accredited scholars; evidence from the ancient Jewish and early church writings, etc., and I have seen NONE, ZERO, NADA, similar evidence, or documentation, from anyone opposing my arguments or discussion.

And typical of the pusillanimous evasion of the issues, see the 1-2 line responses, above, blowing off several pages of documented studies, without even a minimal attempt to address a single point.

 

[Brieuse]

You might well be! You did not even attempt to reply to any of my responses to your previous logically fallacious questions and comments.

I thought we concluded that you based your beliefs on a figure of speech?

You told me the author is saying "lust after mankind" actually means homosexual acts when you take into account the figure of speech used.

 

[Der Alte]

I thought we concluded that you based your beliefs on a figure of speech?

You told me the author is saying "lust after mankind" actually means homosexual acts when you take into account the figure of speech used.

And yet another irrelevant digression away from the questions and comments I was responding to in this thread.

Still misrepresenting what I said, and still ignoring about 99% of what I have posted. You can't even begin to respond to my posts, so your resort to this "stuff." I have heard better put downs in an elementary school playground.

Context, context, context and and why don't you pretend that the O.T. did not exist when the early church wrote, and they all lived in their own little worlds and knew nothing about other contemporary writings. For example, Cyprian, Origen, and Tertullian, were contemporaries and all wrote after Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus.

 

[Brieuse]

And yet another irrelevant digression away from the questions and comments I was responding to in this thread.

Still misrepresenting what I said, and still ignoring about 99% of what I have posted. You can't even begin to respond to my posts, so your resort to this "stuff." I have heard better put downs in an elementary school playground.

Context, context, context and and why don't you pretend that the O.T. did not exist when the early church wrote, and they all lived in their own little worlds and knew nothing about other contemporary writings. For example, Cyprian, Origen, and Tertullian, were contemporaries and all wrote after Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus.

Your article said "t would appear that Paul turned ARSENOS KOITHN into one word. I can only guess as to why he would do this, instead of using the normal Greek words he could have used; but I do have a few ideas.

First, it could be he didn&#8217;t know the normal Greek words, and so made his own from a text he did know, the Septuagint. This is extremely unlikely because there is Scriptural evidence that Paul was well-versed in Greek literature; yet, we all know there are certain words people don&#8217;t say around their ministers. It could be no one ever shared the words that meant "homosexual" with Paul.

Second, perhaps he knew the normal Greek words, but he wanted to tie what he was saying to the passage in Leviticus, so his cause for saying it could be traced to Old Testament Scripture. (In fairness to the other side of this argument, he could have used these words to differentiate between the sort of homosexuality the other words describe, and the kind intended in Leviticus.)

Or, finally, Paul may have simply avoided the direct words for homosexuality because he considered it "disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret" (Ephesians 5:12, NASB)."

By posting it, I assume you agree with it?

So you're saying when he wrote his letters to the various churches he was too shy? disgusted? to use the proper word, so he made up a new word?

" It is sort of odd to find a reference to cult worship practice in the middle of a series of sexual laws. Could it be a change of topic to the practices in the worship of Molech? I researched the practices of Molech worship, which are definitely too disgusting to relate here, other than to say they did include male homosexual prostitution and sex with animals. Molech was a fertility god and in his case, as in the case with all fertility gods, the worship practices included depraved and degrading sex acts.

At several points in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, purges were done in which male cult prostitutes were expelled from the land. (These can be found at 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Despite the fact that the King James Version translates this as "sodomites," leading us to think all homosexuals were purged, in fact the only people purged were male cult prostitutes.

The argument is that homosexual acts are only unacceptable within the context of cult prostitution. But is that true? If it is, then bestiality should also be acceptable outside of cultic worship practices, and burning your children should be acceptable as well, because these were the other two practices involved in Molech worship.

Deuteronomy 12:31 says, "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods."

This indicates that the act itself is abominable, no matter why it is done or who it is done for. And, it so happens that in Leviticus, burning sons and daughters in the fire is mentioned in the same paragraph as homosexual acts."

from the above article, seeing as you posted it, I assume again you agree with it.

The author of the article is doing exactly what you accused us of doing. He is arguing the sinfulness of bestiality and comparing it to "homosexuality"

 

[Der Alte]

Your article said

[size=+1]"It would appear that Paul turned ARSENOS KOITHN into one word. I can only guess as to why he would do this, instead of using the normal Greek words he could have used; but I do have a few ideas.

First, it could be he didn’t know the normal Greek words, and so made his own from a text he did know, the Septuagint. This is extremely unlikely because there is Scriptural evidence that Paul was well-versed in Greek literature; yet, we all know there are certain words people don’t say around their ministers. It could be no one ever shared the words that meant "homosexual" with Paul.

Second, perhaps he knew the normal Greek words, but he wanted to tie what he was saying to the passage in Leviticus, so his cause for saying it could be traced to Old Testament Scripture. (In fairness to the other side of this argument, he could have used these words to differentiate between the sort of homosexuality the other words describe, and the kind intended in Leviticus.)

Or, finally, Paul may have simply avoided the direct words for homosexuality because he considered it "disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret" (Ephesians 5:12, NASB)."[/size]

By posting it, I assume you agree with it?
So you're saying when he wrote his letters to the various churches he was too shy? disgusted? to use the proper word, so he made up a new word?

Please reread the article, the author does not say the author believed that Paul, “was too shy? disgusted? to use the proper word, so he made up a new word” If you look carefully there are three possibilities. The author does not know, nor do we, what was in Paul’s mind when he wrote the word, he said “I can only guess.” it may have been one reason, or a combination of 2 or 3.

Did you happen to notice the list of other similar words the author listed? I want to look particularly at these 4.

3) ARRENOKOITHS, a sodomite (in the Attic form)
4) ARRENOMANHS, mad after males
5) ARRENOMIKTHS, a sodomite
6) ARSENOMIKTHS, also a sodomite​

The author says that “arrenokoités” means a Sodomite in the Attic Greek form. In Attic Greek the word for man was written “arreno” In Ionic Greek the word for man was written “arseno” therefore in Ionic Greek “arsenokoités” would mean Sodomite. You want proof? See words #5) and #6).

[size=+1]"It is sort of odd to find a reference to cult worship practice in the middle of a series of sexual laws. Could it be a change of topic to the practices in the worship of Molech? I researched the practices of Molech worship, which are definitely too disgusting to relate here, other than to say they did include male homosexual prostitution and sex with animals. Molech was a fertility god and in his case, as in the case with all fertility gods, the worship practices included depraved and degrading sex acts.

At several points in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, purges were done in which male cult prostitutes were expelled from the land. (These can be found at 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Despite the fact that the King James Version translates this as "sodomites," leading us to think all homosexuals were purged, in fact the only people purged were male cult prostitutes.

The argument is that homosexual acts are only unacceptable within the context of cult prostitution. But is that true? If it is, then bestiality should also be acceptable outside of cultic worship practices, and burning your children should be acceptable as well, because these were the other two practices involved in Molech worship.

Deuteronomy 12:31 says, "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods."

This indicates that the act itself is abominable, no matter why it is done or who it is done for. And, it so happens that in Leviticus, burning sons and daughters in the fire is mentioned in the same paragraph as homosexual acts."[/size]

from the above article, seeing as you posted it, I assume again you agree with it.

The author of the article is doing exactly what you accused us of doing. He is arguing the sinfulness of bestiality and comparing it to "homosexuality"

This author is using the fallacious homosexual argument against them, demonstrating that it is special pleading and a logical fallacy.

First, you conveniently omitted the first part of this section where the author shows the context.

7) The "Old Testament only forbids male cult prostitutes" argument.

While this may sound like a ridiculous argument on the surface, in fact it is one of the more compelling arguments the pro-gay apologists make.

If you look at the context of Leviticus 18:22, you can see that this argument seems reasonable at first glance. Using the NASB’s paragraph markers, here is the paragraph containing Leviticus 18:22:

"Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, [one known practice of Molech worship] nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. [another known practice of Molech worship] Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; [a third known practice of Molech worship] it is a perversion." (Leviticus 18:20-23, NASB).​

How many times have we seen the argument, “Homosexual acts are only unacceptable within the context of cult prostitution.,” or "Its part of the ritual/cermonial purity code." or something similar? Implying that homosexual acts are acceptable at any other time, and in any other circumstances.

From the article,

Homosexual acts are only unacceptable within the context of cult prostitution. But is that true? If it is, then bestiality should also be acceptable outside of cultic worship practices, and burning your children should be acceptable as well, because these were the other two practices involved in Molech worship.​

Child sacrifice, temple homosexuality, and bestiality are all part of the Molech package. Only by special pleading can homosexuals take the one sentence out of its context and try to argue that homosexuality is permitted as long as it is not part of cultic worship, but child sacrifice and bestiality are always condemned. Note the author’s conclusion.

This indicates that the act itself is abominable, no matter why it is done or who it is done for. And, it so happens that in Leviticus, burning sons and daughters in the fire is mentioned in the same paragraph as homosexual acts.​

 

[SwordOfGod]

REAL Greek scholars established the meaning of [SIZE=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/SIZE]/arsenokoités around [SIZE=+1]250 BC[/SIZE]

Interesting, but the fact remains that 250 years later they took their best guess because they could not possibly have known the true intent of this verse. IT has translated variously by different sources and the fact remains that the term EXACTLY means "male sex". Whether this means male ON male sex or male prostitution or temple prostitution or male child sex or male child prostitution or.... fill in the blank.

God bless y'all!!!

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Interesting, but the fact remains that 250 years later they took their best guess because they could not possibly have known the true intent of this verse. IT has translated variously by different sources and the fact remains that the term EXACTLY means "male sex". Whether this means male ON male sex or male prostitution or temple prostitution or male child sex or male child prostitution or.... fill in the blank.

God bless y'all[/SIZE]!!!

Stick head in sand. Disregard/ignore ALL evidence presented. Repeat same old, same old false copy/paste argument over and over and over again until other side quits in disgust.

For the first 300 years, at least, the early church clearly understood Paul's writing to condemn ALL homsexual copulation, any male with any other male, in ALL circumstances, and in ALL places, just as the O.T. condemned ALL homsexual copulation, any male with any other male, in ALL circumstances, and in ALL places

The early church interpreted [size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size]/arsenokoités 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”, etc. See below quotes IN CONTEXT, if you even know what that means.

Note the dates of these writings extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years.

And OBTW the Greeks had a specific word for "male child sex." The English "pederasty" is derived from it. There was also a specific word for "prostitute" but Paul did not use either one of those words but a word that had meant male with male sex for hundreds of years. Just as the Jews had done for thousands of years before him, Paul very clearly condemned ALL same gender sex, in ALL circumstance, in ALL places. And you will note that the early church, for at least 300 years, clearly understood that.

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.

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.

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 [1 Cor 6:9]. 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."

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] 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.

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? 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, 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. 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.

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.”

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness!

Tertullian 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; " 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.

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]

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 [1 Cor 6:9][/b]. 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.”[Rom 1:27]​

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

More TRUTH according to the LSJ classical Greek lexicon. Classical period: ca. 800 BC - 200 AD.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

[size=+1]&#922;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;, &#951;, &#954;&#949;&#953;&#956;&#945;&#953;[/size] koit-ê , hê, keimai

A. = koitos 1, once in Hom., Od.19.341 (v.l. oikôi); bedstead, IG12.330.16, al., Wilcken Chr.244.3 (iii B.C.), , etc.; esp. marriage-bed, A.Supp.804 (lyr.), S.Tr.17; ou gar ek mias k. eblaston Id.Fr.546 ; tas aplêstou k. eros E.Med.152 (lyr.), etc.; anandrou koitas lektron ib.436 (lyr.); also petrinê koitê, of a cave, S.Ph.160 (anap.); teiromenan noserai k. on a sick-bed, E.Hipp.132 (lyr.); koitan d' echei nerthen, of one dead, S.OC1706 (lyr.); k. sklêra Pl.Lg.942d , Aret.CA1.1: pl., ennuchoi k. Pi.P.11.25 ; numphidioi k. E. Alc.249 (lyr.): metaph., of the sea, en mesêmbrinais koitais . . heudoi pesôn A.Ag.566 ; of the bed of a river, Procop.Aed.5.5, Phlp.in Ph. 586.21, Lyd.Mens.4.10.

2. lair of a wild beast, nest of a bird, etc., E.Ion 155 (lyr.); chelidonôn Aët.16.15 ; k. poieisthai, of the spider, Arist.HA623a12; of the fish exôkoitos, Thphr.Fr.171.1.

3. quarters, tôn phulakitôn BGU1007.14 (iii B.C.), cf. PTeb.179 (ii B.C.); v. infr. VI.

4. pen, fold for cattle, PLips.118.15 (ii A.D.).

II. act of going to bed, tês koitês hôrê bed-time, Hdt.1.10, 5.20; trapezêi kai koitêi dekesthai to entertain 'at bed and board', ibid.; tên skênên eis k. dieluon for going to bed, X.Cyr.2.3.1 (but keisthai koitan to lie still in death, A.Ag.1494 (lyr.)).

III. lodging, entertainment, PTeb. 122.1 (i B.C.), al.

IV. of sexual connexion, k. didonai LXX Nu.5.20 , cf. Le.18.20; k. spermatos ib.15.16; k. echein ek . . to become pregnant by a man, Ep.Rom.9.10; in bad sense, lasciviousness, ib. 13.13 (pl.).

V. parcel, lot of land, PAmh.2.88.9 (ii A.D.), PRyl. 168.9 (ii A.D.).

VI. chest, case, or basket, Pherecr.122, Eup.76, IG 22.120.37,40, Men.129.2, PPetr.2p.10 (iii B.C., unless in signf. 1.3), Luc.Ep.Sat.21; hai mustikai k. Plu.Phoc.28 .

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=Greek​