Scriptures Don't Support Gay Arguments

[Miracle Storm]

In that case, your opinion is childish.

Do you mind if I ask what you have learned?


BTW I have seen alot of Der Alter's posts and know him on this board. He is very outspoken, but speaks truth, he is very straight forward. That is anything, BUT childish. It would do people good to listen to wisdom that comes from the Holy Spirit within.

 

[dayhiker]

Read the Apocalypse of Paul, number 39, where it discusses Sodom.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/apocpaul.html

The problem with number 39 as I see is that there is no recorded male with male sex. So it appears to me that number 39 isn't based in reality.

dayhiker

 

[dayhiker]

When they do these awful things, why are they EXCLUSIVELY SAME SEX?

So why aren't heterosexuals condemned the same way as Romans 1 UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES?

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between hetero and homo, and you know it!!!!!!!!!

do you are saying the God doesn't condemn heterosexuals when they worship idols? Strange

 

[MercyBurst]

do you are saying the God doesn't condemn heterosexuals when they worship idols? Strange

In the bible there is not a verse spelled out that condemns heteros specifically to the death sentence under the equivalent sexual circumstances where gays receive the death sentence.

That's because same-sex and hetero-sex are not equivalent AND its is because The so called "sexual idolatry" verses are not sexual idolatry verses at all. Example Lev 20:13.

There are general verses about idolatry, but the sexual idolatry that gays continue to read into certain PROOF scriptures can not be supported at all, example Lev 20:13.

Furthermore, the jews never applied Lev 20:13 to temple idolatry. Yoy can study the history of Judaism, and you will find that Lev 20:13 is a total prohibition against gay sex with no exclusions.

 

[dayhiker]

MercyBurst,
I've read things on both sides of the issue is homosexualaity in Jewish history.
In my study of of the word abombination I found its connext with idolitry about 80% of the time. The Holiness is said to seperate Isreal from their idolitrous nations around them.
So it seem likely to me that this was the idea with the verses in Lev. to me.

dayhike

 

[GwynApNudd]

MercyBurst,
I've read things on both sides of the issue is homosexualaity in Jewish history.
In my study of of the word abombination I found its connext with idolitry about 80% of the time. The Holiness is said to seperate Isreal from their idolitrous nations around them.
So it seem likely to me that this was the idea with the verses in Lev. to me.

dayhike

Exactly.

As for the context of the "Lying with Men" prohibitions, neither Lev 18:22 nor Lev 20:13 give any reason for the prohibition. However, Leviticus 18 begins:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. Lev 18:1-5​

and ends

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. Lev 18:24-30​

Likewise Leviticus 20 begins

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. Lev 20:1-8​

and ends

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20:22-27​

In other words, the prohibitions in these chapters serve two purposes. To separate the Israelites from their pagan neighbors, and more importantly to separate them from their neighbors' foreign gods. This is the real purpose of the all the non-mixing laws: to remind the Israelites that they are a separate people, dedicated to God.

Seen in that light, there are two possible reasons for forbidding homogenitality. Either (1)because homogenitality is a pagan practice and a part of idolatry, or (2) because it is the consequence of idol worship (which would agree with some people's claim about Paul's "men who hold the truth in unrighteousness" in Romans 1:18-32 -- if we choose not to account for the continuation of his argument into chapter 2), or (3) because this is another example of a non-mixing law, like the prohibition against blended fabric. In the third case, the concern might be for confusing the male (the penetrator) with the female (the one who is penetrated. Or it might be, as in other ancient civilizations, that a free, mature man should not take an "inferior" role.

In the first two cases, if there is no idolatry involved, then the reason collapses. The prohibition becomes merely another extention of the command for Jews to keep the holiness code to remind themselve that they are a separate people. And there is no prohibition on non-Jews. In the third case, that is all it ever was.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

Exactly.

As for the context of the "Lying with Men" prohibitions, neither Lev 18:22 nor Lev 20:13 give any reason for the prohibition. However, Leviticus 18 begins:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. Lev 18:1-5​

and ends

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. Lev 18:24-30​

Likewise Leviticus 20 begins

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. Lev 20:1-8​

and ends

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20:22-27​

In other words, the prohibitions in these chapters serve two purposes. To separate the Israelites from their pagan neighbors, and more importantly to separate them from their neighbors' foreign gods. This is the real purpose of the all the non-mixing laws: to remind the Israelites that they are a separate people, dedicated to God.

Seen in that light, there are two possible reasons for forbidding homogenitality. Either (1)because homogenitality is a pagan practice and a part of idolatry, or (2) because it is the consequence of idol worship (which would agree with some people's claim about Paul's "men who hold the truth in unrighteousness" in Romans 1:18-32 -- if we choose not to account for the continuation of his argument into chapter 2), or (3) because this is another example of a non-mixing law, like the prohibition against blended fabric. In the third case, the concern might be for confusing the male (the penetrator) with the female (the one who is penetrated. Or it might be, as in other ancient civilizations, that a free, mature man should not take an "inferior" role.

In the first two cases, if there is no idolatry involved, then the reason collapses. The prohibition becomes merely another extention of the command for Jews to keep the holiness code to remind themselve that they are a separate people. And there is no prohibition on non-Jews. In the third case, that is all it ever was.

Great post. Very well thought out with logic. I've always been much more accepting of hearing someone's defense (whether I believe it or not), rather than those that just type out scripture with "because the bible said so that's why" and then bury their heads back in the sand....basically...the mind of the literalist.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]In that case, your opinion is childish.[/SIZE]

Sounds like a "Neener, neener, neener you are one too-oo," argument.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]MercyBurst,
I've read things on both sides of the issue is homosexualaity in Jewish history.
In my study of of the word abombination I found its connext with idolitry about 80% of the time. The Holiness is said to seperate Isreal from their idolitrous nations around them.
So it seem likely to me that this was the idea with the verses in Lev. to me.

dayhike[/SIZE]

Once I was driving with my wife in her native country. She read a sign out loud. "Yahweh yong hwa guk jang." I asked her, What did you say? She said the same thing. I said I heard that, what does it mean? She said, "Drive in theater."

Do I have a point? When you want to know what something means that is written/spoken in a language , you do not know, ask a native speaker. Here is what Jewish scholars have taught about the word translated "abomination" from the time Moses gave the Israelites the law.

Jewish Encyclopedia- Abomination:

By : H. Pereira Mendes

Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity. These terms differ greatly in the degree of the abhorrence implied and should be distinguished in translation, as follows:

[size=+1]תועבה[/size] (to'ebah):Abomination of the highest degree; originally that which offends the religious sense of a people. Thus (Gen. xliii. 32): "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians." The reason is that the Hebrews, as foreigners, were considered an inferior caste. According to Herodotus, ii. 41, no Egyptian would kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or even taste meat cut with a carving-knife belonging to a Greek. But especially as shepherds the Hebrews were "an abomination unto the Egyptians" (Gen. xlvi. 34). The eating of unclean animals is a religious offense called to'ebah: "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing" (Deut. xiv. 3). This is the introduction to the laws prohibiting the use of unclean animals (see Clean and Unclean Animals). Still more offensive to the God of Israel is the practice of idolatry. The idol itself is called an Abomination: "for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house and thus become a thing set apart [tabooed=kherem] like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it; for it is a thing set apart [tabooed]" (Deut. vii. 25, 26, Heb.): "Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord" (Deut. xxvii. 15). Often the word to'ebah is used for idol or heathen deity; for instance, in Isa. xliv. 19; Deut. xxxii. 16; II Kings, xxiii. 13, and especially Ex. viii. 22 (26, A. V.), it is to be taken in this sense. When Pharaoh had told the Israelites to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses replied: "How may we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians [that is, the kind of animals worshiped by them] before their eyes, and they not stone us?" (see Ibn Ezra, ad loc.).

All idolatrous practise is an Abomination because of its defiling character: "Every abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their gods" (Deut. xii. 31; compare Deut. xiii. 15, xvii. 4, xx. 18). Also magic and divination are an Abomination (Deut. xviii. 12). Sexual transgression is particularly denounced as an Abomination (to'ebah) (Deut. xxii. 5, xxiii. 19 [18, A. V.], xxiv. 4); especially incest and unnatural offenses (Lev. xviii. and xx.): "For all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you, and the land became defiled; lest the land vomit you out also when ye defile it" (Lev. xviii. 27, 28, Heb.; compare also Ezek. viii. 15 and elsewhere).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=352&letter=A​

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Exactly.

As for the context of the "Lying with Men" prohibitions, neither Lev 18:22 nor Lev 20:13 give any reason for the prohibition. However, Leviticus 18 begins:
* * *
. . . Lev 18:1-5. . .
* * *
Lev 18:24-30

Likewise Leviticus 20 begins
* * *

Lev 20:1-8

and ends

* * *
Lev 20:22-27

In other words, the prohibitions in these chapters serve two purposes. To separate the Israelites from their pagan neighbors, and more importantly to separate them from their neighbors' foreign gods. This is the real purpose of the all the non-mixing laws: to remind the Israelites that they are a separate people, dedicated to God.

Seen in that light, there are two possible reasons for forbidding homogenitality. Either (1)because homogenitality is a pagan practice and a part of idolatry, or (2) because it is the consequence of idol worship (which would agree with some people's claim about Paul's "men who hold the truth in unrighteousness" in Romans 1:18-32 -- if we choose not to account for the continuation of his argument into chapter 2), or (3) because this is another example of a non-mixing law, like the prohibition against blended fabric. In the third case, the concern might be for confusing the male (the penetrator) with the female (the one who is penetrated. Or it might be, as in other ancient civilizations, that a free, mature man should not take an "inferior" role.

In the first two cases, if there is no idolatry involved, then the reason collapses. The prohibition becomes merely another extention of the command for Jews to keep the holiness code to remind themselve that they are a separate people. And there is no prohibition on non-Jews. In the third case, that is all it ever was.[/SIZE]

There is no prohibition on non-jews IF we ignore the N.T., but first, as with the preceding post, if we want to know what the Hebrew scriptures mean, we should consult the written history of the Jewish people.

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The Talmudic scholars did NOT mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

Talmud -- tractate Sanhedrin, portfolio 54a

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

Sanhedrin 54b

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

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

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind. [sup]13[/sup] . . .

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), . . .(see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

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

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . .

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy;

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

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

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

The following citations document the interpretation by contemporary orthodox Judaism.

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halakhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth

The two verses in the book of (Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah’s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.”​

http://www.uscj.org/POINTRoth6331.html

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":

"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -— their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."

Official Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the sex act, which the Torah flatly prohibits, and homosexuality as a sexual identity. "Homosexuality is not a state of being in traditional Judaism; it's an act," Freundel says. "Desires are … not relevant."​

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/moment.html​

 

[GwynApNudd]

There is no prohibition on non-jews IF we ignore the N.T., but first, as with the preceding post, if we want to know what the Hebrew scriptures mean, we should consult the written history of the Jewish people.

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The Talmudic scholars did NOT mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

Talmud -- tractate Sanhedrin, portfolio 54a ​

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

Sanhedrin 54b​

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

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

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind. [sup]13[/sup] . . .​

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><​

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog​

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), . . .(see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).​

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity​

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

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE - ​

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.​

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . .​

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime​

In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy;​

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

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.​

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

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

The following citations document the interpretation by contemporary orthodox Judaism.

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halakhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth​

The two verses in the book of (Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah’s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.​

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.”​

http://www.uscj.org/POINTRoth6331.html

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":

"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -— their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."​

Official Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the sex act, which the Torah flatly prohibits, and homosexuality as a sexual identity. "Homosexuality is not a state of being in traditional Judaism; it's an act," Freundel says. "Desires are … not relevant."​

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/moment.html





​

Your point being?

That the fact that a Jewish law which prohibits certain actions means that Jews are prohibited from those actions is a tautology. I don't disagree with anything you posted, in as much as it is Jewish teaching for the Jews.

The purpose of these two chapters of Leviticus is to separate the Jews from heathen. The heathen don't care about Jewish law. If you include modern freethinkers (atheists, agnostics, deists, non-committed, etc.) among the heathen, then Jewish law cannot, simply because it is Jewish law, be a basis for the laws of non-Jewish nations. (But that is an argument for another day.)

Christians accept the Torah as part of the Christian Bible, so they are in a different situation than the heathen. They recognize the value and purpose of the Jewish law. But Acts 11 and Acts 15 tell us those portions of Jewish law whose only purpose is to remind the Jews that they are a separate people do not apply to Christians. Acts 15 also recognizes that there are some laws for which it is not immediately clear whether or not they serve a more legitimate purpose, and list the four that do:

And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The matter of mishkav bzakur, however you or I chose to interpret the phrase is not one of the four.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Your point being?

That the fact that a Jewish law which prohibits certain actions means that Jews are prohibited from those actions is a tautology. I don't disagree with anything you posted, in as much as it is Jewish teaching for the Jews.

The purpose of these two chapters of Leviticus is to separate the Jews from heathen. The heathen don't care about Jewish law. If you include modern freethinkers (atheists, agnostics, deists, non-committed, etc.) among the heathen, then Jewish law cannot, simply because it is Jewish law, be a basis for the laws of non-Jewish nations. (But that is an argument for another day.)

Christians accept the Torah as part of the Christian Bible, so they are in a different situation than the heathen. They recognize the value and purpose of the Jewish law. But Acts 11 and Acts 15 tell us those portions of Jewish law whose only purpose is to remind the Jews that they are a separate people do not apply to Christians. Acts 15 also recognizes that there are some laws for which it is not immediately clear whether or not they serve a more legitimate purpose, and list the four that do:

The matter of mishkav bzakur, however you or I chose to interpret the phrase is not one of the four.[/SIZE]

How you or I "choose" to interpret "mishkav bzakur," or any other Hebrew term, is irrelevant to anything. I have posted credible, verifiable historical evidence for how it should be translated. How it may be interpreted by any nonjewish website, of any persuasion, is also irrelevant.

You are partly correct about Acts 15, Christians are responsible for obeying all OT commandments reiterated in the NT, e.g. the prohibition against homosexual sex is reiterated in the N.T.

And while certain commandments are specifically for the Israelites, homosexuality was so repugnant to God that the people who committed it, he caused them to be spewed or vomited out. Lev 18 and 20.

 

[GwynApNudd]

How you or I "choose" to interpret "mishkav bzakur," or any other Hebrew term, is irrelevant to anything.

That is my point exactly! Since we are not bound by the commandment, the fact that we may or may not disagree on its scope is irrelevant.

I have posted credible, verifiable historical evidence for how it should be translated. How it may be interpreted by any nonjewish website, of any persuasion, is also irrelevant.

As I said, I don't disagree with your authorities, at least not on the surface reading that I did. But it doesn't matter how credible, or verifiable they may be. The interpretation -- any interpretation -- is irrelevant, because the prohibition is irrelevant.

You are partly correct about Acts 15, Christians are responsible for obeying all OT commandments reiterated in the NT, e.g. the prohibition against homosexual sex is reiterated in the N.T.

Where? Not in Romans. Not in 1 Corinthians. Not in 1 Timothy. and not in Jude.

And while certain commandments are specifically for the Israelites, homosexuality was so repugnant to God that the people who committed it, he caused them to be spewed or vomited out. Lev 18 and 20.

Neither Leviticus 18:22 nor Leviticus 20:13 say anything like that, and in the passages that open and close those two chapters, the abominations for which the "nations before" were spewed out are clearly idolatrous in nature.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]That is my point exactly! Since we are not bound by the commandment, the fact that we may or may not disagree on its scope is irrelevant.[/SIZE]

My reply also encompassed the usual homosexual argument that the Levitical prohibitions only refer to temple prostitution, etc.

[SIZE=-1]As I said, I don't disagree with your authorities, at least not on the surface reading that I did. But it doesn't matter how credible, or verifiable they may be. The interpretation -- any interpretation -- is irrelevant, because the prohibition is irrelevant.[/SIZE]

See previous reply.

[SIZE=-1]Where? Not in Romans. Not in 1 Corinthians. Not in 1 Timothy. and not in Jude.[/SIZE]

Yes of course, the Jews who formed the nucleus of the early church just threw out all the moral mandates of the O.T.

The early church interpreted &#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;/arsenokoités [1 Cor 6:9] variously as,

• “sodomy,”
• “filth of sodomy,”
• ”lawless lust,”
• “lust,”
• “impurity,”
• “works of the flesh,”
• “carnal,”
• “lawless intercourse,”
• “shameless,”
• “burning with insane love for boys,”
• “licentiousness,”
• “co-habitors with males,”
• “lusters after mankind
• “monstrosities,” etc.​

Quoted from;

• Ignatius, 30-107 AD;
• Polycarp 65 - 155 AD;
• Irenaeus, 120-202 AD;
• Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD;
• Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD;
• Tertullian, 145-220 AD;
• Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and
• Origen, 185-254 AD.​

Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years. The early church fathers interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.html

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

So also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle [Paul] testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers],

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.html


Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.

And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body opening is used for “lechery”/“libidinousness.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.

Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God;" [1 Cor 6:9]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.vi.html

Tertullian VII. On Modesty.[sup]1[/sup] Chapter IV.-Adultery and Fornication Synonymous.

Accordingly, among us, secret connections as well-connections, that is, not first professed in presence of the Church-run risk of being judged akin to adultery and fornication; nor must we let them, if thereafter woven together by the covering of marriage, elude the charge. But all the other frenzies of passions-impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes-beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.viii.html

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65. That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.html

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and
integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.html​

[SIZE=-1]Neither Leviticus 18:22 nor Leviticus 20:13 say anything like that, and in the passages that open and close those two chapters, the abominations for which the "nations before" were spewed out are clearly idolatrous in nature.[/SIZE]

compare these scriptures with my citations above.

Lev 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.​

 

[GwynApNudd]

That is my point exactly! Since we are not bound by the commandment, the fact that we may or may not disagree on its scope is irrelevant.

My reply also encompassed the usual homosexual argument that the Levitical prohibitions only refer to temple prostitution, etc.

I never advanced any of those arguments against the Levitical prohibition because any argument is irrelevant, Any interpretation is irrelevant. The prohibition is irrelevant. It has been superceded by Acts 11 and Acts 15. All laws whose only purpose is to mark the Jews as Cherem, set apart, do not apply.

Laws against fornication (Acts 15) and adultery (Romans 13:9-10) still apply, so under many conditions the acts are still sin. Paul's admonition in 1 Cor 6:12 and 1 Cor 10:23 provide more reasons to avoid the acts.

But that is not the same thing as saying we are still bound by the Jewish Cherem laws. Especially when we are told specifically that we are not.

As I said, I don't disagree with your authorities, at least not on the surface reading that I did. But it doesn't matter how credible, or verifiable they may be. The interpretation -- any interpretation -- is irrelevant, because the prohibition is irrelevant.

See previous reply.

I did, and it's still irrelevant.

Where? Not in Romans. Not in 1 Corinthians. Not in 1 Timothy. and not in Jude.

Yes of course, the Jews who formed the nucleus of the early church just threw out all the moral mandates of the O.T.
<snip>

Of course not. All of the moral laws still apply. Acts 11 and Acts 15 only apply to the "Holiness Code"

Neither Leviticus 18:22 nor Leviticus 20:13 say anything like that, and in the passages that open and close those two chapters, the abominations for which the "nations before" were spewed out are clearly idolatrous in nature.

compare these scriptures with my citations above.

Lev 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled​

28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.​

29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.​

Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.​

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.​

Where do those passages say that "the nations that were before you" were spewed out specifically because of homosexuality? I don't see it anywhere.

Even if you restrict the abominations to those listed in chapters 18 and 20, you have many variations on adultery and incest, idolatry (Lev 18:21), and other pagan practices (Lev 20:5, Lev 20:27), all of which are still prohibited. Not to mention bestiality and sex "during that time of the month." So how do you get that God permitted all of that and only evicted the Canaanites because they were gay?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I never advanced any of those arguments against the Levitical prohibition because any argument is irrelevant, Any interpretation is irrelevant. The prohibition is irrelevant. It has been superceded by Acts 11 and Acts 15. All laws whose only purpose is to mark the Jews as Cherem, set apart, do not apply.[/SIZE]

You keep repeating the same "irrelevant" mantra over and over, then you dredge up your assumptions/presuppositions about "set apart."

Please read my earlier post, throughout its history the Jews, remember them they spoke Hebrew, did NOT consider the ban against homosexual acts only part of the holiness code. I posted the evidence which you keep blowing off as irrelevant. Your assumptions/presuppositions and smattering of Hebrew are irrelevant.

[SIZE=-1]Laws against fornication (Acts 15) and adultery (Romans 13:9-10) still apply, so under many conditions the acts are still sin. Paul's admonition in 1 Cor 6:12 and 1 Cor 10:23 provide more reasons to avoid the acts.[/SIZE]

Did you read the early church fathers I posted? Church history contradicts you.

[SIZE=-1]But that is not the same thing as saying we are still bound by the Jewish Cherem laws. Especially when we are told specifically that we are not.[/SIZE]

Irrelevant, I have never argued that we were.

[SIZE=-1]Of course not. All of the moral laws still apply. Acts 11 and Acts 15 only apply to the "Holiness Code"[/SIZE]

Are Acts 11 and 15, & you forgot 21, the only verses in your N.T.?

[SIZE=-1]Where do those passages say that "the nations that were before you" were spewed out specifically because of homosexuality? I don't see it anywhere.[/SIZE]

Please read what I wrote. I did NOT say "specifically." I understood you to be implying that God did not include homosexuality as one of the reasons for spewing out the original inhabitants.

[SIZE=-1]Even if you restrict the abominations to those listed in chapters 18 and 20, you have many variations on adultery and incest, idolatry (Lev 18:21), and other pagan practices (Lev 20:5, Lev 20:27), all of which are still prohibited. Not to mention bestiality and sex "during that time of the month." So how do you get that God permitted all of that and only evicted the Canaanites because they were gay?[/SIZE]

Please read what I wrote. I did NOT say "ONLY"

And were you to actually read the passages you will note it does NOT require that all guilty parties commit all the abominations, any act, alone, was an abomination. And none of the passages specify "only" in a pagan worship context.

God did not make abominations permissible in the N.T. As I have documented above the prohibition against homosexual acts was total anyone, any time, any place, any circumstances was an abomination, it was NEVER understood as only applying to the holiness code.

For, at least, the first 300-400 years of the church, church leaders interpreted the N.T. as proscribing all homosexual acts, anyone, any time, any place, any circumstances.

 

[MercyBurst]

Der,

Here is a good set of references form Justin Martyr's writings:

Justin Martyr's Writings

I've been linking up to your web-page references (which are quite excellent), but I'm having trouble with the Jewish Ensyclopedia links.

Could you post your favorite study links about jewish and christian history, doctrine, tradition, law, interpretation, hebrew studies, etc, etc.?

They have proven invaluable. thanks much.

Oh BTW, good luck with Gwyn. He thinks Sodom was destroyed for "attempted angel rape", and this is the so-called "strange flesh" mentioned in Jude.

As I already pointed out, Gomorrah and the surrounding towns were also destroyed, but there wasn't an "angel" to be found in any of them (pun intended). Like in your dreams buddy.

 

[GwynApNudd]

MercyBurst--

Please stop lying about me.

 

[MercyBurst]

MercyBurst--

Please stop lying about me.

You proposed the angel rape argument, then backed off and said you aren't comfortable with it. Why propose it if you don't believe it?

So what do you propose for the destruction of Sodom, Gomorah, and neighboring towns, when sexual perversion is explicitly stated in Jude?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36093649&postcount=102

That does not change my statement that your agreement that Genesis 18 proves that Sodom was not destroyed because of the attempted rape, but rather for its previous sins shows that you know that the traditional claim about Genesis 19 (that it illustrates the sin -- and the judgment on that sin -- of homosexual lust) is wrong.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36102221&postcount=104

I can't. I have already said that there are problems with all interpretations of Jude that I have seen. I don't know how to interpret it. But the problems with the various interpretations that make it a gay-bashing proof-text are just as great as any of the others

 

[Der Alte]

Der,

Here is a good set of references form Justin Martyr's writings:

Justin Martyr's Writings

I've been linking up to your web-page references (which are quite excellent), but I'm having trouble with the Jewish Ensyclopedia links.

Could you post your favorite study links about jewish and christian history, doctrine, tradition, law, interpretation, hebrew studies, etc, etc.?

They have proven invaluable. thanks much.

Oh BTW, good luck with Gwyn. He thinks Sodom was destroyed for "attempted angel rape", and this is the so-called "strange flesh" mentioned in Jude.

As I already pointed out, Gomorrah and the surrounding towns were also destroyed, but there wasn't an "angel" to be found in any of them (pun intended). Like in your dreams buddy.

The main Jewish Encyclopedia seems to be down at the moment. Here is a link to an alternate website with the JE. The drawback to this site is it is not searchable, as the main JE site.

http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Jewish_Encyclopedia_Articles_P

Someone doesn't "like" any of the interpretations of Jude 7. Here is one that includes exegesis by A.T. Robertson, who taught PhD level Greek for 47 years.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jud 1:7 &#969;&#962; 5613 ADV &#963;&#959;&#948;&#959;&#956;&#945; 4670 N-NPN &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#947;&#959;&#956;&#959;&#961;&#961;&#945; 1116 N-NSF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#953; 3588 T-NPF &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; 4012 PREP &#945;&#965;&#964;&#945;&#962; 846 P-APF &#960;&#959;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#962; 4172 N-NPF &#964;&#959;&#957; 3588 T-ASM &#959;&#956;&#959;&#953;&#959;&#957; 3664 A-ASM &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; 5125 D-DPM &#964;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#957; 5158 N-ASM &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; 1608 V-AAP-NPF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; 565 V-2AAP-NPF &#959;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#969; 3694 ADV &#963;&#945;&#961;&#954;&#959;&#962; 4561 N-GSF &#949;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#945;&#962; 2087 A-GSF &#960;&#961;&#959;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#953;4295 V-PNI-3P &#948;&#949;&#953;&#947;&#956;&#945;1164 N-ASN &#960;&#965;&#961;&#959;&#962;4442 N-GSN &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#953;&#959;&#965;166 A-GSN &#948;&#953;&#954;&#951;&#957;1349 N-ASF &#965;&#960;&#949;&#967;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953;5254 V-PAP-NPF ​

The verbs translated “giving themselves over to fornication” i.e. &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; and “going after,” i.e. &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; are AAP and 2AAP, respectively, aorist, active, participles, an action began in the past, continuing into the future.

God knew about the cumulative sins, the “outlaw porn, [size=+1]*[/size] ” of Sodom when he was talking with Abraham, at Mamre, before he went down to Sodom. Gen 13:13, Gen 18:20-26, The perverts of Sodom were prevented from doing anything against the angels, by blindness, and certainly did not do anything with any flesh afterward. Gen 19:24ff.

Robertson Word Pictures in the N.T. -- Jud 1:7 {Even as} (\&#969;&#962;\). Just "as." The third instance (Jude passes by the deluge) in Jude, the cities of the plain. {The cities about them} (\hai peri autas poleis\). These were also included, Admah and Zeboiim (De 29:23; Ho 11:8). Zoar, the other city, was spared. {In like manner} (\ton homoion tropon\). Adverbial accusative (cf. \&#969;&#962;\). Like the fallen angels. {Having given themselves over to fornication} (\ekporneusasai\). First aorist active participle feminine plural of \ekporneu“\, late and rare compound (perfective use of \ek\, [size=+1]*[/size]outside the moral law), only here in N.T., but in LXX (Ge 38:24; Ex 34:15f., etc.).​