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.
The Roman culture explains the idolatrous practices. It doesnt remove the FACT that men lusting after and being with other men is spoken against by Paul in Romans.HH - I am not convinced, despite your exegesis, that the matter is not as 'clear' as you would like. You have not taken into account the Roman culture of Paul's day. You have look at scripture in isolation. I think you have to look at the social forces at play with which Paul had to deal.
The Roman culture explains the idolatrous practices. It doesnt remove the FACT that men lusting after and being with other men is spoken against by Paul in Romans.
Additionaly, it really doesnt matter if I convince anyone who wants for homosexuality to be 'ok' as Id expect that type to close their eyes to any and all evidence anyway...even if God Himself presented it to them.
Paul wasnt quoting Plato....he was presenting GODS instruction for man to obey.
The only thing condemned in Romans 1 is same sex lust...and that is the only thing that can be proven. All lust is seen as a "degrading passion". Paul clearly thought these men were heterosexual (I'm sure he even thought ALL men were heterosexual by inborn nature). If you take a part the Greek words they have to do with one's natural instincts AS WELL as the natural order. Gays and lesbians are not the focus of the passage...as a result of their total depravity, they were turned over to complete spiritual ruin. Gays and lesbians have a natural disposition to the same sex, and that is proven.
Paul is not observing same sex couples or gays and lesbians...he is observing idolatry with worshiping graven images of human beings, birds, animals, and reptiles (material images). Cult pagan ritual orgies IS the proven historical context, and it fits with this analysis.
Even if he viewed it as shameful...Paul also mentions that men with long hair is shameful (1 Corinthians 11:14). The historical context always has to be taken into account.
Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1Wikipedia is not reliable. Do you own research with reliable scholars.
Anyone who has a different opinion is wrong.
Read the Bible - you might actually learn something. There is no conclusive evidence within the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin.
i am done with this thread as it has devolved to nothing but throwing stones. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong no matter how you slice it.
looking to change the meanings of greek words, especially without the help of God who would not change the meaning just to suit people of the 21st century, you try to justify practicing sin and you can't.
Nope. Homosexual acts in any context are condemned in Romans and elsewhere. Moreover, the natural order is heterosexuality, regardless of one's sexual orientation.
i am done with this thread as it has devolved to nothing but throwing stones. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong no matter how you slice it.
looking to change the meanings of greek words, especially without the help of God who would not change the meaning just to suit people of the 21st century, you try to justify practicing sin and you can't.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...d=265548&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers
"Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality In the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants "alternative lifestyle" status to homosexuality. Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior.
The authors write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject, explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality—including Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans. Expanding on these Scriptures, they refute the revisionists' arguments—including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the Law. In a straightforward and loving manner, they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and return to God's plan for His people."
I would ask you the same thing. Even if Paul were intimately familiar with Plato, that does not detract from the fact that he, an eminent Christian authority, condemns homosexual acts.
Incidentally, you should have provided this from the get go in light of your claim that Paul quoted Plato "almost verbatim."
Paul wasnt quoting Plato....he was presenting GODS instruction for man to obey.
I provided them.
Josephus
Homoeroticism refers to sexual acts between members of the same sex.
The Roman culture explains the idolatrous practices. It doesnt remove the FACT that men lusting after and being with other men is spoken against by Paul in Romans.
Additionaly, it really doesnt matter if I convince anyone who wants for homosexuality to be 'ok' as Id expect that type to close their eyes to any and all evidence anyway...even if God Himself presented it to them.
If you re-read my first post, you will see that the quote from Plato is there (albeit only in English translation), and that there have been no edits done after the next post, much less after your post. So I did provide it "from the get-go."
And the only evidence that Paul "condemns homosexual acts" are this very passage -- which in the original did not condemn "homosexual acts," but intemperance, and in which Paul made changes to downplay the homosexual nature of the example and to emphasize the fact that it was, indeed intemperance and addiction that were the sins -- and two occasions of the word "arsenokoites."
Even if we accept that "arsenokoites" is translated from "mishkab zakar" and means "man-lying" and refers to Leviticus 18:22, does not indicate that Paul is saying that Leviticus 18:22 is any more binding on those under grace than Deuteronomy 7:3.
Paul did advise , on practical grounds, against mixed marriages, but did not forbid them despite Deuteronomy 7:3. In fact, he said that unless the other party asked for a divorce, Christians should remain in mixed marriages.
Thank you. However, Josephus was a traitor to the Jews.
Historians treat his work with caution.
Much of his work is know not to have been written by him.
No - you are referring to homosexuality.
homosexuality is sin, it is wrong no matter how you slice it.
If Plato were under copyright, and the holders of that copyright sued Paul for plagiarism, any jury comparing the two passages, especially comparing the phrases I highlighted in color in post #13, would have to rule in Plato's favor.
I agree that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul's writing, but under His guidance Paul referenced a passage He knew would be familiar to some of the Romans in order to make a point. Your claiming that it was not intended to to be known as coming from Plato is calling God a plagiarist, a thief. You might want to reconsider that.
And also consider the fact that all of the differences in Paul's version downplay the homosexual aspects of the example and emphasize the addictive nature of intemperance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?