Re-examination of 1Cor6:9

[Jet_A_Jockey]

There is no deception with him....

within who?

 

[davedjy]

Since you agree there are specifics within porneia, why do you not agree there are specifics within koitai? You claim the 'bed' translation only, and fail to mention all others listed.

Bedder or beds, is what seems to be agreed upon, but still vague. It is still irrelevant because nobody knows the context, and we are still looking at a compound word. Your argument is sort of like saying that porneia can mean "homosexuality", without any proof this is true.

 

[Brieuse]

Bedder or beds, is what seems to be agreed upon, but still vague. It is still irrelevant because nobody knows the context, and we are still looking at a compound word. Your argument is sort of like saying that porneia can mean "homosexuality", without any proof this is true.

It's obvious to you and me, baffling how some can't or won't see it.

 

[davedjy]

It's obvious to you and me, baffling how some can't or won't see it.

Very true.

 

[OllieFranz]

Attempting to get back to the original intent of this thread, I am referencing a post from Jet to me from early in the thread that I missed:

I'm compelled to ask, for comparison, what literature of the time mentions the life and sacrifice of Christ?

I'm not sure how literature referencing Jesus and his work of Salvation is supposed to help us determine how someone of the time would have understood the word malakos, unless the word was also in that work, as it was in the case of Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25. In both cases, when it is said that John the Baptiser was not "soft" it contrasts him with courtiers with fine robes and a sinecure position.

does this mean it cannot be used to define the 'feminine' part of a male/male sexual encounter?

I suppose that you could use it to describe such a person, but it is not its natural use. Likewise you could use the English phrase "teddy bear" to describe such a person, but that is not the first thing your listeners would associate with the phrase.

If I recall correctly, you state that you believe that the term simply means male-whoremonger or something of the like. The reason I came back to this passage was from another that I was just reading over, in which I do not believe that interpretation fits.

No, you are confusing me with another poster. I am,and have been, quite willing to accept the possibility that Paul's using the word arsenokoites was a nod back to the phrase arsenos koiten in the LXX translation of Lev 20:13. But there is a big difference between saying that Paul was referring to those who broke the mishkav zakur law and saying he was referring to anyone who acted to any degree upon his feelings for a male companion.

 

[artybloke]

Why are you calling everyone who disagrees with your position a homophobe

Examine your own heart on that one.

And you did not, and have not yet, given any evidence that the definition of the words you gave meant that at the time of the writing of the epistles of St Paul, and wasn't just decided upon later. Please produce evidence that malakos refered anywhere in Greek literature to male prostitute. That would be a start.

 

[Phinehas2]

The issue with 1 Cor 6:9 s essentially arsenokoites not malakoi. We dont see that agape means the sacrifical love of God through Jesus Christ in contemporary Greek literature except the Bible, simialrly we would look at the Bible for the meaning befoe we looked elsewhere. Malakos follows moichos in the list, with pornos previous. See Matt 15 & 19 and Mark 7 & 10 and note that what breaks God's created purpose of man and woman is pornos and moichos, fornication and unfaithfulness. So you dont even need to worry what malakos means in respect to sexual sin, same-sex sex is already excluded.

 

[Tdigaetano]

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither [1]fornicators, nor [2]idolaters, nor [3]adulterers, 10 Nor the [4]effeminate, nor [5]liers with mankind, nor [6]thieves, nor [7]covetous, nor [8]drunkards, nor [9]railers, nor [10]extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Fruits of the Holy Spirit:

[1]Love vs [1]fornicators
[2]Joy vs [7]covetous
[3]Peace vs [9]railers
[4]Longsuffering vs [4]effeminate
[5]Kindness vs [6]thieves
[6]Goodness vs [5]liers with mankind
[7]Faithfulness vs [2]idolaters
[8]Gentleness vs [8]drunkards
[9]Self-control vs [3]adulterers

[10]extortioners are those who try to imitate the Fruits of the Holy Spirit to obtain worldly riches from others.

 

[MercyBurst]

arsenkoites = koites in the arsen

It's a pagan worship of a same-sex idolatry where the worshippers praise the creature more than the creator.

Listen to them praise their immutable god.

The bed is their altar where they worship on bended knee.

Oh the joy of serving this god, they tell us!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

arsenkoites = koites in the arsen

It's a pagan worship of a same-sex idolatry where the worshippers praise the creature more than the creator.

Listen to them praise their immutable god.

The bed is their altar where they worship on bended knee.

Oh the joy of serving this god, they tell us!

What on earth are you talking about?

Cite references for these claims, or please retract them.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear ChaliceThunder,

Cite references for these claims, or please retract them.

The references have been given continually so they dont need to be retracted. In fact its a good point to emphasise and show the link between lev 18 & 20 and Romans 1, its quite clealry the message.

I however would suggest a clarification that arsenokoites, same-sex sex, is pagan idolotry worship because thats what people do when they become pagans by turning away from knowledge of God.

NB. How do you feel about this slant on it Mercyburst?

 

[MercyBurst]

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the all-mighty immutable to-ebah god of same-sex idolatry that is worshipped like a religion.

Cite references for these claims, or please retract them.

I cite this entire forum as evidence. Do not talk against our god, they say. You must retract they say. You must affirm its righteousness they say, because it, it is our god, they say. It's the god of koites in the arsen. We humble ourselves and bow down to it both man and woman, to serve it with our own bodies, they say.

The bed is the altar, the giver of pleasure worships, and the receiver of pleasure is god.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear ChaliceThunder,
The references have been given continually so they dont need to be retracted. In fact its a good point to emphasise and show the link between lev 18 & 20 and Romans 1, its quite clealry the message.

I however would suggest a clarification that arsenokoites, same-sex sex, is pagan idolotry worship because thats what people do when they become pagans by turning away from knowledge of God.

NB. How do you feel about this slant on it Mercyburst?

Once again, Leviticus isn't relevant to Christians under the new covenant. Quit refering to it will ya?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Once again, Leviticus isn't relevant to Christians under the new covenant. Quit refering to it will ya?

It isn't relevant? Why is it even included in the christian bible, then? Are the actions described in leviticus things that God used to not like, but is cool with now?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I'm talking about the all-mighty immutable to-ebah god of same-sex idolatry that is worshipped like a religion.



I cite this entire forum as evidence. Do not talk against our god, they say. You must retract they say. You must affirm its righteousness they say, because it, it is our god, they say. It's the god of koites in the arsen. We humble ourselves and bow down to it both man and woman, to serve it with our own bodies, they say.

The bed is the altar, the giver of pleasure worships, and the receiver of pleasure is god.

This is not the god of gay Christians you speak of. You are referring to another group of people. I challenge you to put the words you have just stated in the mouth of ANY CF member who is gay & Christian.

Be honest. Bearing false witness does nothing for your cause, and it is sin.

"The bed is the altar..."

Please! Get a life!

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

Once again, Leviticus isn't relevant to Christians under the new covenant. Quit refering to it will ya?

Really? So Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" is relevant to Christians!. We have discussed this before, all the Old covennat is relevant to Christians in that Jesus Christ has fulfilled it. Indeed His fulfillment includes both loving ones neigbour and faithful marriage between a man and a woman, with sex outside that as error and specifically same-sex sex.
Again it seems there are two radically different worldviews claiming they are Christianity. with your one seemingly keen to tell our one not to comment.

 

[SpiritDriven]

It isn't relevant? Why is it even included in the christian bible, then? Are the actions described in leviticus things that God used to not like, but is cool with now?

Its more about we are saved by Grace through faith and not of yourselves....which excludes the Flesh and its sexuality.

We are already aware that we are all hoplessly condemecd to death under the Law...no exceptions.

The Law is so designed that we come to the relisation that our only hope now is Christ....and we turn to him, and trust in his performance and obedience on our behalf....and no longer place any trust in our own performance or obedience.

This is how the Law is used Lawfully and to whom it pertains.....

The Law is only relevant to those who wish to live a Law Based life......you will be found guilty of all...and your sentance is Death!

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear SpiritDriven,

Its more about we are saved by Grace through faith and not of yourselves....which excludes the Flesh and its sexuality.

Surely we are saved through Grace by faith rather than by grace, salvation by faith in Christ Jesus is God’s grace.

We are already aware that we are all hoplessly condemecd to death under the Law...no exceptions.

But we were condemned to death by disobedience of Adam and Eve. (Hebrews) potentially people are not condemn under the law, in practice perhaps, but as Christians we aren’t not under judgement from the law but under grace.
But with faith in Christ through God’s grace we seek to live according to the Spirit and not the flesh, indeed our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, this isnt just super-spiritual, we are to honour God with our bodies.
“Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

 

[Archer93]

There's often a point on these forums where the accusation of 'homophobia' is made.
Maybe sometimes it's the case that a poster is actively against homosexulaity; but not, I think, as often as the term is used.

I think that in a lot of cases people such as Jet_A_Jockey are trying to express exactly why they believe the bible condems same-sex relationships to the extent that it is a serious barrier between a person and God. They don't appear to have any personal views regarding the people, but their view of the practice is influenced by their faith.
Look at it from their viewpoint- many people are damning themselves daily by refusing to accept what, to Jet_A_Jockey and those like him, is blindingly obvious.
And then to have their efforts shouted down as hating and phobia- it's really not going to help anyone, that.

However, many others on this forum want to look closer at the words and imagery used in the various translations, and are spotting problems with the ways in which the relevant words are translated- not least of which is the variety of ways in which 'Malakos' and 'Arsenekoites' have been translated.

To say that 'Malakos' means 'soft' is unarguable- to say that that means in context the 'bottom' in a male/male relationship is questionable, to say the least.
'Arsenekoites' is even more debatable, but I do have one question about the currently accepted translation-

If being homosexual is so wrong, why does it have to be further qualified with 'offender'? It's a bit like saying 'a murderer who killed someone they shouldn't', it's redundant.

If we assume, as a stretch, that 'arsenekoites' is to be translated as 'homosexual offender' then a perfectly good interpretation of the phrase is that people who behave in this way with regard to the opposite sex will not be welcome in the kingdom of heaven- and neither will those who do this with the same sex, either!
In other words- sexual immorality keeps you out of heaven, but a commited same-sex relationship is no more excluded than an opposite sex one.

To be honest, given Paul's take on opposite-sex relationships, it wouldn't surprise me if he was condemning all forms of relationships full stop. Straight or gay.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Archer93,
Actually that's quite a good observers appraisal.
Yet many on this forum like Jet_A_Jockey also look at the imagery and words such as arsenokoites and see that homosexual offender is about as good a translation as one can get. Indeed the debate ragng in the recent decades has actually strengthened the translation as homosexual offender. But one will find that those who want to look closer at the translation and imagery are alomost unanimously those who dont want the Bible to says what it says.
Furthermore heterosexual offender is mentioned, adultery and fornication. And no the Bible does refer to adultery and sex being oustide marriage, and not just Paul's letters but the writer of Hebrews, Matthew Mark, and Peter.