Showing posts with label bible and homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible and homosexuality. Show all posts
25.2.16
Thursday with John Holbert
Mr. Holbert is a retired Professor of Homiletics and Religion and has a PhD in the Hebrew Bible. He's Pastored in a Methodist local church, preached and taught in more than 1,000 churches in 40 states and 20 countries and authored 40 books.
10.1.16
16.5.14
Rev. Joseph Adam Pearson, Ph.D.
What I love about Pearson is that he's a Bible thumper's thumper, a real conservative and hard liner with the Word of God like your dad, he just happens to believe the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
His book on-line.
His book on-line.
14.5.14
American Theologians and Bible Scholars who do not see an anti-gay reading from the Bible
Victor Paul Furnish, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Yale University.
Laurel C. Schneider, Professor of Theology, Chicago Theological Seminary.
Laurel C. Schneider, Professor of Theology, Chicago Theological Seminary.
David L. Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary.
Virginia Burrus, Professor of Early Christianity, Drew University Theological School.
Jim Brownson, Professor of New Testament, Western Theological Seminary.
William McDonough, Associate Professor of Theology, St. Catherine University.
Dale B. Martin, Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University.
J. Philip Wogaman, Professor Emeritus of Christian ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary.
Jennifer Knust, Associate Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, Boston University.
Ted A. Smith, Assistant Professor of Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt Divinity School.
Ted Grimsrud, Professor of Theology, Eastern Mennonite University.
William O. Walker, Professor Emeritus of Religion, Trinity University.
William Schoedel, Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of Illinois
Dan O. Via, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Duke University Divinity School.
David Brodsky, Associate Professor of Judaic Studies, Brooklyn College.
James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.
Jack Bartlett Rogers, Professor Emeritus of Theology, San Francisco Theological Seminary.
Saul Olyan, Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies, Brown University.
William Stacy Johnson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary.
Frederick Parrella, Professor of Theology, Santa Clara University.
Phyllis A. Bird, Associate Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.
Walter Brueggemann, Professor of Old Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary.
Eric Barreto, Professor of New Testament, Luther Seminary.
Gale A. Yee, Professor of Biblical Studies, Episcopal Divinity School.
Neil Elliott, Professor of New Testament Theology, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.
Alan F. Segal, Professor of Judaic Studies, Barnard University.
Jeffrey S. Siker, Professor of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University.
David Gushee, Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University.
Ken Stone, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible, Chicago Theological Seminary.
Daniel Boyarin, Professor of Talmudic Culture, University of California at Berkeley.
Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History, Westminster Theological Seminary.
L. William Countryman, Professor of New Testament, Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley.
Bernadette J. Brooten, Professor of Christian studies, Brandeis University.
David E. Fredrickson, Professor of New Testament, Luther Seminary.
George Riley Edwards, Professor of New Testament Studies, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
Robin Scroggs, Professor of Bible Theology, Union Theological Seminary.
David L. Balch, Professor of the New Testament, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary.
Orlando Espin, Professor of Systematic Theology, University of San Diego.
Walter Wink, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological School.
Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Baylor University.
Marten H. Woudstra, Old Testament scholar, Calvin Theological Seminary.
Richard Hays, Professor of New Testament, Duke Divinity School.
Robert L. Brawley, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, McCormick Theological Seminary.
Karen Labacqz, Professor of Christian Ethics, Pacific School of Religion.
George R. Edwards, Professor of New Testament, Lousville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
Mark D. Jordan, Professor of Divinity, Harvard Divinity School.
Patrick S. Cheng, Assistant Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Episcopal Divinity School.
Steven Tuell, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
I didn't even tap into the Bible scholars worldwide who don't read the Bible as prohibitive of homosexuality or those who remain silent for fear of losing their employment.
I did this list back in 2014. Now I can't keep up with affirming theologians. Though it is enough for Robert Gagnon to admit his view with the Bible and homosexuality is now in the minority (that must sting).
12.5.14
Biased Bible Translators
The whole crux of who's right and who's wrong in the Bible/Homosexual debate can be found in the translations of the Biblical texts. Anti-gay proponents of the Bible, when they aren't taking words or verses out of context, insist no bias worked its way into the translations of the Bible from the translators with their readings.
They can now be proven wrong.
Link
"The question could be asked... whether the proverbial “whore with a heart of gold” may also be permitted to seek ordination while still plying her trade?"
- Bruce Metzger on gays within the church he compares to 'whores.' The supposed unbiased translator and editor of both the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible who first put the word "homosexual" in an English Bible translation for the first time in 1946.
They can now be proven wrong.
Link
"The question could be asked... whether the proverbial “whore with a heart of gold” may also be permitted to seek ordination while still plying her trade?"
- Bruce Metzger on gays within the church he compares to 'whores.' The supposed unbiased translator and editor of both the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible who first put the word "homosexual" in an English Bible translation for the first time in 1946.
11.5.14
Of Romans and Reptiles
One day I'll do a treatment of Romans 1.* Jeramy Townsley's (popular) paper makes an exhaustive case that the homosexuality in Romans is in an idolatry aspect. He even gives the name of the specific cult Paul is talking about (He's updated it since).
I want to add a few things.
Look at Romans 1:22-23:
"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."
Now look at Deuteronomy 4:16-18:
"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground..."
Now there is not a Bible scholar in the world who doesn't read Deuteronomy 4:16-18 as anything but talking only about idolatry, it's a given. Yet when Paul repeats Deuteronomy word for word in Romans, Romans is only talking about homosexuality apart from idolatry?
Another instance of Paul putting homosexuality in Romans 1 in only the context of idolatry is his quoting the 'idolatry part' of the book "The Wisdom of Solomon" (a book well known to Paul). Francis Watson in his book; "Paul And The Hermeneutics Of Faith" makes the comparison:
"Romans 1:18-32 follows Wisdom 13-14 not just at individual points but in the whole construction of the argument. Both writers argue that the true God might have been known by way of the created order, but that the opportunity has been wasted; that the most fundamental error is the manufacture and worship of idols; that idolatry is the root of all other evils; and that those who commit such sins are subject to divine punishment."
To take homosexuality outside of the context of idolatry in Romans 1, you would have to reverse the text with how it unfolds. It's not:
Homosexuality = Worship of animals, it's Worship of animals = Idolatrous homosexuality:
"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools AND exchanged the Glory of the immortal God FOR (for what?) IMAGES RESEMBLING MORTAL MAN AND BIRDS AND ANIMALS AND CREEPING THINGS.
THEREFORE (because of it) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, BECAUSE they exchanged the truth about God for a lie (Idols are called 'lies' in the OT) AND worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
FOR THIS REASON God gave them up to dishonorable passions..."
See how idolatry brought a group to a debased nature that included idolatrous homosexuality in worship? To take it any further with condemning a monogamous and loving homosexual marriage bond sanctified and given in Christ is pure eisegesis.
*I've since done this in my post refuting James White.
7.4.14
The Narrow Gate
[work in progress]
If you were able to go inside the mind of a Christian and see what's really at its core, you'll find percentages like this of what they think being a Christian is all about:
50% Loving God, 30% doing what the Bible tells you to do, 15% Loving your neighbor, and the other 5% Prayer, seeking God, a meditation on God and His Word, and whatever else.
As I said the percentages might be off by 1 or 2 between "loving your neighbor" and "doing what the Bible tells you to do," but pretty much in those percentages. We get the biggest percentage with loving God because He does say to love Him with all your heart, soul, and mind after all.
I beg to differ with those percentages because the Bible does. If you were to put the Bible in the most accurate percentages from summing up all the Bible messages from front to back cover (let's take out the equation of God loving us because when it comes right down to it, the whole of the Bible is a living love letter from God to us, the creatures He created), you'll have 99% of loving your neighbor and 1% of everything else and I'll tell you why.
Let's first go to the Hebrew (OT) verses. The Bible says only Jesus can forgive you of your sins; sins that once were, are now gone, blotted out like they were never there. But the Bible gives us another example of what can happen to our sins in Isa 1:8: "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."
If you look at the context of that verse you see why God will do this with your sins in the previous verse 17: "Learn to do good (for others); Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow."
Love for others is the key to this verse. It's even in Proverbs 10:12: "...love covers all sins."
Now this is not FORGIVENESS of sins with these verses, it's a covering, a translation of a verb word from the Greek that means continuous hiding, a veiling of sins that are still there, they just can't be seen. The love talked about comes from the command of; 'Loving your neighbor as yourself'." This love is so strong, so powerful, this love will hide your sins from the very eyes of God, a love so powerful, Paul says it is greater than having a faith that moves mountains and better than all wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor 13:2).
Christ says ALL the Laws that were given to man by His Father, ALL of what the Prophets spoke, hang on loving God and what Matthew 22:39,40 says is the same as; "Loving your neighbor as yourself."
Is the author of this post writing, "Loving your neighbor is the same as loving God," when that Scripture says loving God is the greatest? Yes.
The ancient Jews have a popular word trick (Gezera Shava) in that if two separate announcements had the same word or phrase, they were equal. It was this word trick that Jesus used against the Pharisees who tried to trap Him in Matt 22:34-39:
"But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Now if Jesus would have answered them by saying loving God was the greatest commandment, it would have taken away from what the Pharisees understood was the whole message of Jesus, loving your neighbor as yourself, but if Jesus said loving your neighbor as yourself was the greatest commandment, the Pharisees would have stoned Him for blasphemy for not placing God first. What does Jesus do? He uses the Jewish word 'trick' (Gezera Shava) to show both are equal:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Jesus putting both commandments as being the same is what get's Him out of their snare. He does it again in the parable of the Good Samaritan with the follow-up explanation; "Who IS my neighbor?"
What about the Laws we as Christians are to keep and follow? Jesus says:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)
But what is "The Law?" Laws from the Old Testament? No. Paul even goes as far as saying those who follow the old law are under a "curse" (Gal. 3:10). The answer is found in Matt 19:16-19 with what Jesus tells the rich man and it's found again with Paul in Romans 13:8,9. The 'Law' we are to keep is to be found in the commandment in Leviticus 19:18; "...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.
To many, it looks like Christ is reading laws off the top of His head to give you a general idea that old laws are to still be followed with what he says to the rich man, but every single prohibition He states is said for a reason and those prohibitions He did not include were left out on purpose.
To the rich man:
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied; "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery,* you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Paul repeats it:
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments; “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Each prohibition listed by Christ and each prohibition listed by Paul is breaking the general rule of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" From Leviticus 19:18. NOW we have the answer with the seeming contradiction Paul is saying in Romans 2:13: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous"
what Paul is saying in the following chapter has perplexed the church for ages with what looks like Paul contradicting himself in Romans 3:20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law..."
AND Jesus seemingly says we are to keep the Old Testament Laws in Matt 5:17 saying:
"...Think not that I am come to destroy the law..."
Paul and Christ, two learned Jews of the Torah, treated the Torah the way the ancient Jewish nation did, they divided the laws that were between man and man (mitzvoth bein adam lachaveiro) that involved loving and doing kindness to your neighbor that we are to keep as a general law from Leviticus 19:18, and laws that were everything else (mitzvoth bein adam lamakom) that involved Laws between God and man that Christ said is fulfilled with loving and doing kindness to your neighbor. So the answer to what looks like Paul contradicting himself with Romans 2:13 with Romans 3:20 is Paul saying the 'works of the laws' (Old Testament laws and rules) will not make you right with God, it is only the 'works of the law' (Leviticus 19:18 in our actions with loving our neighbor) that will make you right with God.**
If you stay within that commandment of Leviticus 19:18 in all you do, Christ says you fulfill ALL the Laws and Prophets in the Old Testament (Matt 7:12):
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Now we know what SPECIFIC law Jesus said He will not destroy in Matt 5:17, the law found in Leviticus 19:18. Christ fulfilled the rest of the Old Testament rules and regulations in the complete work of His sacrifice on the cross.
James 2:8 says if you do this, you're doing good with everything else:
"If, however, you are fulfilling the Royal Law (a ROYAL LAW was a law decreed by the King Himself (Christ) that trumped ALL previous laws in the Kingdom) according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.
If you truly love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, you will 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Jesus said if you truly love me, you will 'love others as I have loved you.' It will be the ONLY thing we will be held accountable for when we stand before the very Throne of God when all works and faith have passed away and it will be the ONLY thing that will that will decide whether we go to Heaven or be cast in Hell (Matt 25:31-46):
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
And always remember, the mercy you show others will always trump the judgment of God you show and say to others:
"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:12,13)
...
note: V'ahavtah L'rey-acha Kamocha (Love your neighbor as yourself) is steeped in Jewish tradition as is Gemilut Chassadim (bestowing loving kindness) which is supposed to be given with "no fixed measure."
*Adultery is a sin that breaks the command of "loving your neighbor" in that it's an offense against another (wife, husband, mate, an extension of your fellow human being) as themselves. The Jews saw sleeping with another man's wife as an extension of violating the husband. Now since one man loving one man does not constitute breaking "Loving your neighbor as yourself," homosexuality wouldn't fall in breaking that command with two people edifying each other in a relationship of mutual love and respect without a 3rd party being hurt.
**I owe a great debt to author Michael Wood who explains in more detail how the ancient Jews divided their laws with the terms mitzvoth bein Adam lachaveiro and mitzvoth bein Adam lamakom in his book "Paul and Homosexuality" and not this Christian invention of how we divide Jewish laws (ritual/purity/moral) now.
If you were able to go inside the mind of a Christian and see what's really at its core, you'll find percentages like this of what they think being a Christian is all about:
50% Loving God, 30% doing what the Bible tells you to do, 15% Loving your neighbor, and the other 5% Prayer, seeking God, a meditation on God and His Word, and whatever else.
As I said the percentages might be off by 1 or 2 between "loving your neighbor" and "doing what the Bible tells you to do," but pretty much in those percentages. We get the biggest percentage with loving God because He does say to love Him with all your heart, soul, and mind after all.
I beg to differ with those percentages because the Bible does. If you were to put the Bible in the most accurate percentages from summing up all the Bible messages from front to back cover (let's take out the equation of God loving us because when it comes right down to it, the whole of the Bible is a living love letter from God to us, the creatures He created), you'll have 99% of loving your neighbor and 1% of everything else and I'll tell you why.
Let's first go to the Hebrew (OT) verses. The Bible says only Jesus can forgive you of your sins; sins that once were, are now gone, blotted out like they were never there. But the Bible gives us another example of what can happen to our sins in Isa 1:8: "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."
If you look at the context of that verse you see why God will do this with your sins in the previous verse 17: "Learn to do good (for others); Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow."
Love for others is the key to this verse. It's even in Proverbs 10:12: "...love covers all sins."
Now this is not FORGIVENESS of sins with these verses, it's a covering, a translation of a verb word from the Greek that means continuous hiding, a veiling of sins that are still there, they just can't be seen. The love talked about comes from the command of; 'Loving your neighbor as yourself'." This love is so strong, so powerful, this love will hide your sins from the very eyes of God, a love so powerful, Paul says it is greater than having a faith that moves mountains and better than all wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor 13:2).
Christ says ALL the Laws that were given to man by His Father, ALL of what the Prophets spoke, hang on loving God and what Matthew 22:39,40 says is the same as; "Loving your neighbor as yourself."
Is the author of this post writing, "Loving your neighbor is the same as loving God," when that Scripture says loving God is the greatest? Yes.
The ancient Jews have a popular word trick (Gezera Shava) in that if two separate announcements had the same word or phrase, they were equal. It was this word trick that Jesus used against the Pharisees who tried to trap Him in Matt 22:34-39:
"But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Now if Jesus would have answered them by saying loving God was the greatest commandment, it would have taken away from what the Pharisees understood was the whole message of Jesus, loving your neighbor as yourself, but if Jesus said loving your neighbor as yourself was the greatest commandment, the Pharisees would have stoned Him for blasphemy for not placing God first. What does Jesus do? He uses the Jewish word 'trick' (Gezera Shava) to show both are equal:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Jesus putting both commandments as being the same is what get's Him out of their snare. He does it again in the parable of the Good Samaritan with the follow-up explanation; "Who IS my neighbor?"
What about the Laws we as Christians are to keep and follow? Jesus says:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)
But what is "The Law?" Laws from the Old Testament? No. Paul even goes as far as saying those who follow the old law are under a "curse" (Gal. 3:10). The answer is found in Matt 19:16-19 with what Jesus tells the rich man and it's found again with Paul in Romans 13:8,9. The 'Law' we are to keep is to be found in the commandment in Leviticus 19:18; "...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.
To many, it looks like Christ is reading laws off the top of His head to give you a general idea that old laws are to still be followed with what he says to the rich man, but every single prohibition He states is said for a reason and those prohibitions He did not include were left out on purpose.
To the rich man:
Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied; "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery,* you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Paul repeats it:
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments; “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Each prohibition listed by Christ and each prohibition listed by Paul is breaking the general rule of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" From Leviticus 19:18. NOW we have the answer with the seeming contradiction Paul is saying in Romans 2:13: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous"
what Paul is saying in the following chapter has perplexed the church for ages with what looks like Paul contradicting himself in Romans 3:20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law..."
AND Jesus seemingly says we are to keep the Old Testament Laws in Matt 5:17 saying:
"...Think not that I am come to destroy the law..."
Paul and Christ, two learned Jews of the Torah, treated the Torah the way the ancient Jewish nation did, they divided the laws that were between man and man (mitzvoth bein adam lachaveiro) that involved loving and doing kindness to your neighbor that we are to keep as a general law from Leviticus 19:18, and laws that were everything else (mitzvoth bein adam lamakom) that involved Laws between God and man that Christ said is fulfilled with loving and doing kindness to your neighbor. So the answer to what looks like Paul contradicting himself with Romans 2:13 with Romans 3:20 is Paul saying the 'works of the laws' (Old Testament laws and rules) will not make you right with God, it is only the 'works of the law' (Leviticus 19:18 in our actions with loving our neighbor) that will make you right with God.**
If you stay within that commandment of Leviticus 19:18 in all you do, Christ says you fulfill ALL the Laws and Prophets in the Old Testament (Matt 7:12):
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Now we know what SPECIFIC law Jesus said He will not destroy in Matt 5:17, the law found in Leviticus 19:18. Christ fulfilled the rest of the Old Testament rules and regulations in the complete work of His sacrifice on the cross.
In Luke one man understood this with Jesus confirming his interpretation when Jesus asked the man; "What is YOUR interpretation of the "Law?" The man answered; "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus said; "You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.”
To say the 'Law' are the prohibitions in the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible, is calling Christ a liar.
John 13:35 says loving your neighbor shows the world you belong to Christ:
"By this all men will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another.”
Christ gives an example of what loving your neighbor is with the action of showing servitude in John 13:8, 12-15:
“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
John 13:35 says loving your neighbor shows the world you belong to Christ:
"By this all men will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another.”
Christ gives an example of what loving your neighbor is with the action of showing servitude in John 13:8, 12-15:
“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
Loving your neighbor shows a physical outward proof you have passed from death into Salvation according to 1 John 3:14:
"We know that we have passed from death to life because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death."
"We know that we have passed from death to life because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death."
James 2:8 says if you do this, you're doing good with everything else:
"If, however, you are fulfilling the Royal Law (a ROYAL LAW was a law decreed by the King Himself (Christ) that trumped ALL previous laws in the Kingdom) according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.
If you truly love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, you will 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Jesus said if you truly love me, you will 'love others as I have loved you.' It will be the ONLY thing we will be held accountable for when we stand before the very Throne of God when all works and faith have passed away and it will be the ONLY thing that will that will decide whether we go to Heaven or be cast in Hell (Matt 25:31-46):
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
And always remember, the mercy you show others will always trump the judgment of God you show and say to others:
"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:12,13)
...
note: V'ahavtah L'rey-acha Kamocha (Love your neighbor as yourself) is steeped in Jewish tradition as is Gemilut Chassadim (bestowing loving kindness) which is supposed to be given with "no fixed measure."
*Adultery is a sin that breaks the command of "loving your neighbor" in that it's an offense against another (wife, husband, mate, an extension of your fellow human being) as themselves. The Jews saw sleeping with another man's wife as an extension of violating the husband. Now since one man loving one man does not constitute breaking "Loving your neighbor as yourself," homosexuality wouldn't fall in breaking that command with two people edifying each other in a relationship of mutual love and respect without a 3rd party being hurt.
**I owe a great debt to author Michael Wood who explains in more detail how the ancient Jews divided their laws with the terms mitzvoth bein Adam lachaveiro and mitzvoth bein Adam lamakom in his book "Paul and Homosexuality" and not this Christian invention of how we divide Jewish laws (ritual/purity/moral) now.
28.3.14
Jewish Exegesis Methodology and Leviticus
On the basis of the exegesis of Baraitha d'Rabbi Ishmael in the Sifra, on Leviticus, written in the mid-second century of the Common Era, Rabbi Ishmael says:
"The Torah is interpreted by means of thirteen rules.... When a generalization is followed by a specification, only what specifies applies (Miklal u'frat)."
In our texts of Leviticus, the generalization is the text; "A man shall not lay with a man," ואת זכר לא תשכב and the specification is the text; "as you would lay with a woman" משכבי אשה.
Based upon Rabbi Ishmael's method of Jewish Torah exegesis, we can clearly see that the biblical passages in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13 can not refer to true homosexual activity at all, as at least one of the males is a heterosexual or perhaps a bisexual male. Otherwise, the text need not supply the words, "as (you would) lay with a woman."
To translate that prohibition, therefore, as applying to any homosexual relationship is to exit the realm of divine ordination and enter instead the realm of subjective, mortal homophobia.
The ancient rabbis must have had some sense of this problem when they ruled two thousand years ago that any homosexual sexual activity short of anal intercourse is not included in the biblical prohibition (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 54a-56a; Sotah 26b; Niddah 13a; Maimonides, Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a).
Why did they bother to offer that qualification if it was so clear to them that homosexuality was forbidden?
Also, lesbianism, according to Jewish law, was never prohibited; Maimonides, who personally abhorred such behavior, ruled that; it is neither a biblical nor a rabbinic prohibition. (Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a.)
In fact, the rabbis in the Gemara (BT, Tractate Yevamot) specifically say that the passages in Leviticus refer to an androgynous being and not to male-male sex.
Since the rabbis' interpretations are the basis of Halakhah, anyone claiming that Judaism is against homosexual orientation based on that passage is simply incorrect.
"The Torah is interpreted by means of thirteen rules.... When a generalization is followed by a specification, only what specifies applies (Miklal u'frat)."
In our texts of Leviticus, the generalization is the text; "A man shall not lay with a man," ואת זכר לא תשכב and the specification is the text; "as you would lay with a woman" משכבי אשה.
Based upon Rabbi Ishmael's method of Jewish Torah exegesis, we can clearly see that the biblical passages in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13 can not refer to true homosexual activity at all, as at least one of the males is a heterosexual or perhaps a bisexual male. Otherwise, the text need not supply the words, "as (you would) lay with a woman."
To translate that prohibition, therefore, as applying to any homosexual relationship is to exit the realm of divine ordination and enter instead the realm of subjective, mortal homophobia.
The ancient rabbis must have had some sense of this problem when they ruled two thousand years ago that any homosexual sexual activity short of anal intercourse is not included in the biblical prohibition (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 54a-56a; Sotah 26b; Niddah 13a; Maimonides, Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a).
Why did they bother to offer that qualification if it was so clear to them that homosexuality was forbidden?
Also, lesbianism, according to Jewish law, was never prohibited; Maimonides, who personally abhorred such behavior, ruled that; it is neither a biblical nor a rabbinic prohibition. (Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a.)
In fact, the rabbis in the Gemara (BT, Tractate Yevamot) specifically say that the passages in Leviticus refer to an androgynous being and not to male-male sex.
Since the rabbis' interpretations are the basis of Halakhah, anyone claiming that Judaism is against homosexual orientation based on that passage is simply incorrect.
25.3.14
21.3.14
Torah Up Inside
A recurring claim says Jesus would not have seen homosexuality as permissible during the time he lived because homosexuality was so prohibited by Judaism, homosexuality was almost never practiced or talked about. Two books bring to light homosexuality was prevalent in the Jewish tradition.
"Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" By Steven Greenberg.
"Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" By Theodore W. Jennings Jr.
"Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" By Steven Greenberg.
"Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" By Theodore W. Jennings Jr.
29.4.13
Toxicita
I just got off another Bible/homosexuality debate. I swear, my spirit is sapped when I get off of one of these, it's like my life force is sucked out of me through the mouth. Now keep in mind I'm debating other "Christians" so you have to ask yourself; "What's wrong with this picture?"
Some of these people are just plain deceivers when it comes to the Gospel and homosexuality (Pastors, TikTok preachers, Theologians, Church leaders in some capacity). Debating them ends with them debasing themselves. The Bible is given very little attention or no attention from their part after they finish quoting all the clobber passages. Those I dread when I wake up in the morning to think of what they wrote back because lose face if the back down. Others are just dumb sheep who don't want to hear, or care, what I say because it means they have to do some actual work in finding out what the Bible really says to see if I'm right instead of just going by what they were told. Those are in the majority. One woman wrote me a very impassioned response with saying she didn't dislike me and she hopes I have a happy life, but she just didn't agree with homosexuality because of her Bible belief. When I wrote her back in an equally impassioned way with saying I am also a believer and she's wrong on the issue of homosexuality, all the kindness melted away with her second response and she went to the old lines of saying I live a "Lifestyle" and parroting other anti-gay talking points. That showed her true colors after she gave up the gig of trying to come off as a "Compassionate Christian" to a homosexual. One guy was like I was debating a robot, no emotion, just a cold systematic issue with homosexuality (I kept looking under my bed when he and I came to blows because he came off like the boogeyman) and then one day he just stopped writing like his battery died.
Now some will ask me why I bother with putting myself in the line of fire of thesenobs people? I do it because if I don't give a counter-point to theirs, people will think their IS no counter-point. No Angel is going to float into a room and tell them; "You need to cut it out with reading into Scripture with what's your own hang-up on homosexuality and go bake some kind of pie for a soup kitchen." These folks won't go help their elderly neighbor who has no one in the world to be with them, but they'll sure spend all day typing away on their keyboard telling me God hates my sin. These people are a tangible example of the Bible talking about those who are so deep in darkness, they see the darkness as light. And It's never just one I debate, it's always a slew at a time or if I finish with one, another takes his place like some kind of Satanic whack-a-mole game.
Some of these people are just plain deceivers when it comes to the Gospel and homosexuality (Pastors, TikTok preachers, Theologians, Church leaders in some capacity). Debating them ends with them debasing themselves. The Bible is given very little attention or no attention from their part after they finish quoting all the clobber passages. Those I dread when I wake up in the morning to think of what they wrote back because lose face if the back down. Others are just dumb sheep who don't want to hear, or care, what I say because it means they have to do some actual work in finding out what the Bible really says to see if I'm right instead of just going by what they were told. Those are in the majority. One woman wrote me a very impassioned response with saying she didn't dislike me and she hopes I have a happy life, but she just didn't agree with homosexuality because of her Bible belief. When I wrote her back in an equally impassioned way with saying I am also a believer and she's wrong on the issue of homosexuality, all the kindness melted away with her second response and she went to the old lines of saying I live a "Lifestyle" and parroting other anti-gay talking points. That showed her true colors after she gave up the gig of trying to come off as a "Compassionate Christian" to a homosexual. One guy was like I was debating a robot, no emotion, just a cold systematic issue with homosexuality (I kept looking under my bed when he and I came to blows because he came off like the boogeyman) and then one day he just stopped writing like his battery died.
Now some will ask me why I bother with putting myself in the line of fire of these
10.4.13
How a straight Christian should approach a homosexual
It should go something along the lines of this:
"I was always taught to believe homosexuality was wrong because of what the Bible says. I'll be honest in saying that because it doesn't affect me, I haven't looked closely at how some Scriptures have been interpreted in the way they have. Whether you are a Christian or not, I'm still obligated to love you as myself because Jesus commanded me to, unconditionally. I can't deny you secular marriage because I won't deny it for myself. I won't make false statements using terms like "lifestyle" or "agenda" or use words to demean you because it's not Christ-like for me to speak to you in that way, again, that's not loving you as myself. God didn't put me on His throne to judge what I see as your sin while claiming to still love you. The truth is the Church in many ways has reacted to homosexuality it should repent of. I know I don't have this strong feeling for someone who's living a life God wouldn't be happy with, so maybe I do have a prejudice I'm not seeing in myself. I want to be like my Savior more and more each day and that can only happen if I repent of how I've been with this."
"I was always taught to believe homosexuality was wrong because of what the Bible says. I'll be honest in saying that because it doesn't affect me, I haven't looked closely at how some Scriptures have been interpreted in the way they have. Whether you are a Christian or not, I'm still obligated to love you as myself because Jesus commanded me to, unconditionally. I can't deny you secular marriage because I won't deny it for myself. I won't make false statements using terms like "lifestyle" or "agenda" or use words to demean you because it's not Christ-like for me to speak to you in that way, again, that's not loving you as myself. God didn't put me on His throne to judge what I see as your sin while claiming to still love you. The truth is the Church in many ways has reacted to homosexuality it should repent of. I know I don't have this strong feeling for someone who's living a life God wouldn't be happy with, so maybe I do have a prejudice I'm not seeing in myself. I want to be like my Savior more and more each day and that can only happen if I repent of how I've been with this."
4.4.13
Leviticus Loves Deuteronomy
One poor argument I hear for carrying over the Leviticus passage to the present day is this:
"If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable."
Every prohibition in Leviticus that involved the death penalty (incest, adultery, bestiality, child sacrifice, etc) are re-stated, in Deuteronomy (a man prohibited from having sex with his daughter-in-law in Lev. 20:12? Found in Deut. 27:23, a man or woman having sex with animals found in Lev. 20:15 and 16? Found in Deut. 27:21 and so on with the other prohibitions or elsewhere in the Bible). Guess which one is nowhere to be found, unlike all the others? That's right; "Man shall not lie with a male" you only find in Leviticus.
"If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable."
Every prohibition in Leviticus that involved the death penalty (incest, adultery, bestiality, child sacrifice, etc) are re-stated, in Deuteronomy (a man prohibited from having sex with his daughter-in-law in Lev. 20:12? Found in Deut. 27:23, a man or woman having sex with animals found in Lev. 20:15 and 16? Found in Deut. 27:21 and so on with the other prohibitions or elsewhere in the Bible). Guess which one is nowhere to be found, unlike all the others? That's right; "Man shall not lie with a male" you only find in Leviticus.
So now we know the Leviticus verse is talking about a man laying with a male in the context of idolatry, the religious prostitution services involved in the "Moloch" idolatry of the Canaanites, the setting Leviticus was written in. Let me say it again. ALL prohibitions are re-stated in Deuteronomy or elsewhere in the Bible outside of the idolatry of Leviticus as a general prohibition but only one is absent; "Man laying with a male..." because it was never meant as a general prohibition with the proof you can't find "Man lying with a male" or any variation of it anywhere else in the Bible.
Remember, the context of the Leviticus passage starts with the mention of "Moloch" and child sacrifice to him (Leviticus 20:2) and then mentions the prostituting of Canaanite males in the priestly service to Moloch (Leviticus 20:5) that book marks the "Man with male... " verse in idolatry.
Deuteronomy DOES give a replacement for the "Man shall not lie with male" Leviticus verses where it SPECIFIES BY NAME who Leviticus IS talking about, the Canaanite priests called the "Qa-desh or Kadesh" (קָדֵשׁ) found in Deuteronomy 23:17 (mistakenly translated as "Sodomite" in most later Bible translations). The same Hebrew word קָדֵשׁ is also mentioned several times in 1 and 2 Kings (also mistakenly translated as "Sodomite"). It's only when we get to Job 36:14 where we get the correct translation; "And their life perishes among the cult prostitutes (קָדֵשׁ)."
Now knowing all of this, look at Leviticus again? "If a man (Hebrew for man here is "ish") lies with a male (Hebrew for male here is "zakhar")... " A "Zakhar" is almost always a male in a religious role (the other is a male child without a religious distinction). Many other times the word Zakhar is used in the Bible denotes a male in some type of religious function including even male animals about to be sacrificed in a religious ceremony.
I posted a later argument for the Kadesh in Leviticus.
A question was asked in the comments section here on the incest verses and I go further on the incest topic in my "Late Nite Tapas" thread.
Remember, the context of the Leviticus passage starts with the mention of "Moloch" and child sacrifice to him (Leviticus 20:2) and then mentions the prostituting of Canaanite males in the priestly service to Moloch (Leviticus 20:5) that book marks the "Man with male... " verse in idolatry.
Deuteronomy DOES give a replacement for the "Man shall not lie with male" Leviticus verses where it SPECIFIES BY NAME who Leviticus IS talking about, the Canaanite priests called the "Qa-desh or Kadesh" (קָדֵשׁ) found in Deuteronomy 23:17 (mistakenly translated as "Sodomite" in most later Bible translations). The same Hebrew word קָדֵשׁ is also mentioned several times in 1 and 2 Kings (also mistakenly translated as "Sodomite"). It's only when we get to Job 36:14 where we get the correct translation; "And their life perishes among the cult prostitutes (קָדֵשׁ)."
Now knowing all of this, look at Leviticus again? "If a man (Hebrew for man here is "ish") lies with a male (Hebrew for male here is "zakhar")... " A "Zakhar" is almost always a male in a religious role (the other is a male child without a religious distinction). Many other times the word Zakhar is used in the Bible denotes a male in some type of religious function including even male animals about to be sacrificed in a religious ceremony.
I posted a later argument for the Kadesh in Leviticus.
A question was asked in the comments section here on the incest verses and I go further on the incest topic in my "Late Nite Tapas" thread.
1.4.13
Bad Father
I had the unfortunate (for lack of a better word) luck of having an exchange with a Fr. John W. Morris.*
Father Morris: How is it that such commentators as St. John Chrysostom who died in 407 saw a condemnation of homosexuality in the Holy Scriptures. How is it that St. Basil the Great who died in 379 saw the same thing and advocated that a person who committed an homosexual act should be excommunicated for 30 years.
Me: Funny that you bring up John Chrysostom when it was he who stated 1 Corinthians had nothing to do with homosexuals. All Saint Basil did was put male homosexuals in the same category as adulterers, he didn't seem too worried about either.
Father Morris: You are quite mistaken St. John Chrysostom actually taught that homosexual acts are sinful. Unfortunately the pro gay movement resorts to all sorts of deception such as misquoting the Fathers or rewriting the Bible to support their cause. St. Basil taught that a person committing a homosexual sin should be excommunicated for 30 years, a decision that was ratified at the Council in Trullo in 695 and the 7th Ecumenical Council, the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787.
Me: I'm not saying Chrysostom wasn't against homosexual acts in no uncertain terms, it's just he saw no homosexuals in any part of Romans 1. He saw heterosexuals who made a conscious decision to turn from their desired want of a woman to men.
As for Basil, it's a far cry from his excommunication for 30 years to being cast into a forever damning in Hell because you're a practicing homosexual. He's one of the least damning of the Church fathers on homosexuality.
Father Morris: You have been misinformed. I just looked at St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Romans. Read his 4th homily. The golden mouthed saint very clearly states that Romans 1:27 refers to homosexual and lesbian acts.
No one teaches that homosexual sins cannot be forgiven. The 30 years penance is applied after the person repents of the sin of homosexual acts. If they do not repent, they are excommunicated and not restored to the Sacramental Life of the Church until they repent. No one today would impose such a severe penance. In fact, I probably would not impose a penance for one act of homosexual sin if the person were truly repentant, but would have to increase the severity of the penance if the person repeated this sin, making the penance more severe with each offense.
Me: Ummm, do you even know what the 4th homily is saying? He's talking about heterosexual men who leave the use of a woman for another man in that it's against their nature. Since I was never heterosexual, how do you think that applies to us who have a homosexual nature?
"No one today would impose such a severe penance. In fact, I probably would not impose a penance for one act of homosexual sin if the person were truly repentant, but would have to increase the severity of the penance if the person repeated this sin, making the penance more severe with each offense."
*sarcasm* I thank you for that kind mercy you've extended to me.
Father Morris: (now he goes to personal insults) All of the ancient commentators agree that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sinful. If I want to know the meaning of a Greek word, I will ask a Greek. I studied ethics and the Bible at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. I believe that since my professors were Greeks, that they had a much better understanding of the original Greek text than any modern American pseudo-scholar . The word "arsenokoitai" literally means men beders or men who have sex with men. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of New Testament Greek or is lying.
Me: You went to a lousy school if you believe the Church has been condemning homosexuality for 2000 years (Catholic historian and theologian John Boswell shows this wasn't the case in his unprecedented research). Who told you that? Homosexuality wasn't even thought to be the reason God destroyed Sodom until the 11th Century. Your great school "Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology" (in Massachusetts no less) is run by the Greek Orthodox Church of America with American teachers. You make it sound you came from a school of wise old sages in Greece. Of course they are going to tow the line of these crappy interpretations, the Greek Orthodox Church is especially virulent on the subject of homosexuality because it's so steeped in their dead traditions, screw tradition! It's the Word of God we need to dive into like it was a swimming pool, and if it goes against long-held tradition, so be it.
I'll turn it around and say this. Anyone who claims 'arsenokoitai' means homosexuality outside the context of exploitation is either ignorant of New Testament Greek or is lying.
Father Morris: I suppose that if a person cannot answer an argument, they resort to personal attacks (after he just called me a "pseudo-scholar").
Me: Can you show me the personal attack here?
Father Morris: (now he turns arrogant) Just what qualifies you to pontificate on the meaning of any word in the Greek New Testament or the historic teaching of Christianity on any subject? You are simply wrong, the word "arsenokoitai" refers to homosexuality. I will trust the Holy Fathers and my seminary professors who were all of Greek heritage to tell me the meaning of the Greek text of the New Testament before I will trust any modern pseudo-scholar with a politically correct pro-gay agenda. If you want to reject the Bible, that is your right, but when you insist on misrepresenting the teaching of the Bible, as a Bible believing Christian, I certainly have a right to correct the false information that you are spreading.It is historical fact that all Christians agreed on this issue until a few dying mainline Protestant sects surrendered to the pressure from the pro-gay movement. If your movement has to resort to fraud to prove its point, it obviously must be rejected by any intelligent person. I also trust what I have learned through a study of church history, since I have a PhD in history, which I earned before I even converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and went to seminary, and have taught church history on the college level above your ranting and raving on a subject about which you absolutely know nothing.
Me: "...before I will trust any modern pseudo-scholar with a politically correct pro-gay agenda."
Not only did you make a baseless claim of me making a personal attack (that you never showed), but you turned around and did that very thing. The rest of what you say are insults and boasting of how smart you are. You noticed how in all of this you still haven't given me a point by point argument of how I'm wrong? All you've done is brag about your schooling (is it too late to ask for your tuition fee back?) and attack me for having the nerve to open a Bible to see for myself. The Koine Greek and Masoretic Hebrew translations of the Bible are not hidden in a deep vault somewhere, it is available for all to access, including the translations in other languages that preceded our own, I also studied ancient Near-Eastern languages to flush out the more accurate rendering of words and phrases the Bible uses without being taught biases from church tradition, that unlike the Bible, are influenced by cultural, social and political prejudices of the time. What ever happened to the great sin of usary for instance?
At this point I think the kind Father Morris went to get another cruller with whole milk and forgot to come back. To bad, I would like to know what he thinks of Saint Basil (who he just quoted to me) saying; "For just as water that irrigates many furrows makes those furrows fertile, so also the vice of gluttony, proceeding from your heart, irrigates all of your senses, raising a whole jungle of evils within you, making your soul a lair of wild beasts" (St. Basil the Great, On Renunciation of the World). I don't think he realizes what an arrogant and pompous ass he's coming off as with attempting to belittle me.
Father Morris: How is it that such commentators as St. John Chrysostom who died in 407 saw a condemnation of homosexuality in the Holy Scriptures. How is it that St. Basil the Great who died in 379 saw the same thing and advocated that a person who committed an homosexual act should be excommunicated for 30 years.
Me: Funny that you bring up John Chrysostom when it was he who stated 1 Corinthians had nothing to do with homosexuals. All Saint Basil did was put male homosexuals in the same category as adulterers, he didn't seem too worried about either.
Father Morris: You are quite mistaken St. John Chrysostom actually taught that homosexual acts are sinful. Unfortunately the pro gay movement resorts to all sorts of deception such as misquoting the Fathers or rewriting the Bible to support their cause. St. Basil taught that a person committing a homosexual sin should be excommunicated for 30 years, a decision that was ratified at the Council in Trullo in 695 and the 7th Ecumenical Council, the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787.
Me: I'm not saying Chrysostom wasn't against homosexual acts in no uncertain terms, it's just he saw no homosexuals in any part of Romans 1. He saw heterosexuals who made a conscious decision to turn from their desired want of a woman to men.
As for Basil, it's a far cry from his excommunication for 30 years to being cast into a forever damning in Hell because you're a practicing homosexual. He's one of the least damning of the Church fathers on homosexuality.
Father Morris: You have been misinformed. I just looked at St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Romans. Read his 4th homily. The golden mouthed saint very clearly states that Romans 1:27 refers to homosexual and lesbian acts.
No one teaches that homosexual sins cannot be forgiven. The 30 years penance is applied after the person repents of the sin of homosexual acts. If they do not repent, they are excommunicated and not restored to the Sacramental Life of the Church until they repent. No one today would impose such a severe penance. In fact, I probably would not impose a penance for one act of homosexual sin if the person were truly repentant, but would have to increase the severity of the penance if the person repeated this sin, making the penance more severe with each offense.
Me: Ummm, do you even know what the 4th homily is saying? He's talking about heterosexual men who leave the use of a woman for another man in that it's against their nature. Since I was never heterosexual, how do you think that applies to us who have a homosexual nature?
"No one today would impose such a severe penance. In fact, I probably would not impose a penance for one act of homosexual sin if the person were truly repentant, but would have to increase the severity of the penance if the person repeated this sin, making the penance more severe with each offense."
*sarcasm* I thank you for that kind mercy you've extended to me.
Father Morris: (now he goes to personal insults) All of the ancient commentators agree that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sinful. If I want to know the meaning of a Greek word, I will ask a Greek. I studied ethics and the Bible at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. I believe that since my professors were Greeks, that they had a much better understanding of the original Greek text than any modern American pseudo-scholar . The word "arsenokoitai" literally means men beders or men who have sex with men. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of New Testament Greek or is lying.
Me: You went to a lousy school if you believe the Church has been condemning homosexuality for 2000 years (Catholic historian and theologian John Boswell shows this wasn't the case in his unprecedented research). Who told you that? Homosexuality wasn't even thought to be the reason God destroyed Sodom until the 11th Century. Your great school "Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology" (in Massachusetts no less) is run by the Greek Orthodox Church of America with American teachers. You make it sound you came from a school of wise old sages in Greece. Of course they are going to tow the line of these crappy interpretations, the Greek Orthodox Church is especially virulent on the subject of homosexuality because it's so steeped in their dead traditions, screw tradition! It's the Word of God we need to dive into like it was a swimming pool, and if it goes against long-held tradition, so be it.
I'll turn it around and say this. Anyone who claims 'arsenokoitai' means homosexuality outside the context of exploitation is either ignorant of New Testament Greek or is lying.
Father Morris: I suppose that if a person cannot answer an argument, they resort to personal attacks (after he just called me a "pseudo-scholar").
Me: Can you show me the personal attack here?
Father Morris: (now he turns arrogant) Just what qualifies you to pontificate on the meaning of any word in the Greek New Testament or the historic teaching of Christianity on any subject? You are simply wrong, the word "arsenokoitai" refers to homosexuality. I will trust the Holy Fathers and my seminary professors who were all of Greek heritage to tell me the meaning of the Greek text of the New Testament before I will trust any modern pseudo-scholar with a politically correct pro-gay agenda. If you want to reject the Bible, that is your right, but when you insist on misrepresenting the teaching of the Bible, as a Bible believing Christian, I certainly have a right to correct the false information that you are spreading.It is historical fact that all Christians agreed on this issue until a few dying mainline Protestant sects surrendered to the pressure from the pro-gay movement. If your movement has to resort to fraud to prove its point, it obviously must be rejected by any intelligent person. I also trust what I have learned through a study of church history, since I have a PhD in history, which I earned before I even converted to Eastern Orthodoxy and went to seminary, and have taught church history on the college level above your ranting and raving on a subject about which you absolutely know nothing.
Me: "...before I will trust any modern pseudo-scholar with a politically correct pro-gay agenda."
Not only did you make a baseless claim of me making a personal attack (that you never showed), but you turned around and did that very thing. The rest of what you say are insults and boasting of how smart you are. You noticed how in all of this you still haven't given me a point by point argument of how I'm wrong? All you've done is brag about your schooling (is it too late to ask for your tuition fee back?) and attack me for having the nerve to open a Bible to see for myself. The Koine Greek and Masoretic Hebrew translations of the Bible are not hidden in a deep vault somewhere, it is available for all to access, including the translations in other languages that preceded our own, I also studied ancient Near-Eastern languages to flush out the more accurate rendering of words and phrases the Bible uses without being taught biases from church tradition, that unlike the Bible, are influenced by cultural, social and political prejudices of the time. What ever happened to the great sin of usary for instance?
At this point I think the kind Father Morris went to get another cruller with whole milk and forgot to come back. To bad, I would like to know what he thinks of Saint Basil (who he just quoted to me) saying; "For just as water that irrigates many furrows makes those furrows fertile, so also the vice of gluttony, proceeding from your heart, irrigates all of your senses, raising a whole jungle of evils within you, making your soul a lair of wild beasts" (St. Basil the Great, On Renunciation of the World). I don't think he realizes what an arrogant and pompous ass he's coming off as with attempting to belittle me.
*He now knows the truth in Glory.
I blame all those crullers.
24.9.12
Ron Goetz
I sometimes get accused of reading the Bible on homosexuality through the eyes of someone who wants to justify his own homosexuality, Ron Goetz who started a blog called Bible-Thumping Liberal is accused of the same because he has a gay son. The thing with that, truthfully, is that I don't think I would have searched the Scriptures so intensely if I wasn't gay and Ron will tell you the same if his own child didn't come out to him, unlike a Bruce L. Gerig who did his own search because the condemnation of two loving homosexuals just didn't sit well in his spirit. Don't fault us because we didn't just accept what was told to us from a pulpit on an issue that would turn out to be so close to us, we had no choice but to look ourselves because the stakes were too high, my own soul and the soul of Ron's son.
Ron and I had a disagreement on the place the Apostle Paul has in our lives as Christians and like with another brother in Christ whom I loved deeply, but wouldn't sever himself from legalism of the Old Testament, the fellowship will be no more.
18.9.12
My Justice, Your Job
"For the last 1,900 years, Christianity had been assuming that ancient Jewish law was divided into two categories: ritual and morality.
To be sure, the Jewish nation did divide their commandments into two groups. However, the historical record shows that the dividing line was nothing other than the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Every commandment summarized by this precept was a Justice. Every remaining commandment was a Job.
Jesus, Paul, and James all used the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Now we know that they used this precept to reference a well-established group of commandments—the Justices. This historical discovery completely changes our understanding of the New Testament. Each, in his own particular way, used the precept to explain that the Justices alone are the Christian law.
The English terms "Justices" and "Jobs" are in consonance with Paul’s terms for the two great divisions of the Torah. "Justices" translates Greek dikaiomata; while "Jobs" translates Greek erga, literally "works." "Justices of the Torah" (dikaiomata tou nomou) is used by Paul in Romans 2:26; "Jobs of the Torah" (erga tou nomou) is used by Paul in Romans 3:20. (See "Dr. Berg on the Justices of the Torah" for documentation on the translation of dikaiomata tou nomou).
The Jewish nation divided their commandments into two groups: commandments between man and God (mitzvot bein adam lamakom) and commandments between man and man (mitzvot bein adam lachaveiro). (mishna Yoma 8:9) Philo documents that the commandments between man and God included all the piety and purity regulations; whereas the commandments between man and man included ethics and justice (Special Laws 2.63). Philo further explained that the commands between man and God are encapsulated by love of God and the commands between man and man are encapsulated in love of neighbor (Decalogue 108-110). Philo presents this dual division of the law based on the two love commandments "as though obvious or well-known." (Resurrecting Jesus: the earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters by Dale C. Allison, p. 154, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005).
The notion that the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) encompass all of God’s commandments is presumed throughout the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (t. Issachar 5:2, 7:6-7; t. Dan 5:1-3; t. Gad 4:1-2; t. Jos 11:1; t. Benj. 3:-1-3; t. Reub. 6:8-9). Of particular note is t. Dan 5:1-3, "Observe, therefore, my children, the commandments of the Lord, and keep His law… Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart." The New Testament further documents that the ancient Jewish nation considered the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) to encompass all of God’s commandments. Luke 10:26-27, "And Jesus asked the expert in the law, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read it?’ And the legal expert answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
That the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbor as yourself") were an independent group of commands is further documented in multiple sources. For example, Hillel, the head of one of the greatest Pharisaic schools, stated that the Golden Rule (which was interchangeable with Leviticus 19:18 during his day) contained within it all the commands that a Gentile convert must follow (t. Shabbos 31a). Jesus referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Matthew 19:16-20). Paul referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Romans 13:9). James declared Leviticus 19:18 to be the Messianic King’s Law and then proceeded to give examples of Old Testament commandments based upon it; commands such as "Do not murder," "Do not commit adultery," and "Don’t show favoritism" (James 2:8-10). Murder and adultery were forbidden in the Decalogue and showing favoritism was forbidden in Leviticus 19:15. James’ entire letter deals exclusively with Old Testament commands based on Leviticus 19:18 and is structured around this concept.
The implications of this revolutionary historical discovery couldn’t be more profound, especially when it comes to the hot button issue of homosexuality. Surprisingly, the prohibition on homosexuality was a Job (not a Justice). In other words, it turns out that the prohibition on homosexuality wasn’t originally part of Christian law. But then, in the second century, when Gentiles dominated the Faith, they introduced the erroneous assumption regarding the dividing line (ritual/moral) which caused Christianity to err on this very important matter.
- Michael Woods; "Jesus on Homosexuality." (April 25, 2012)
The historical record documents that this simply wasn’t so. Christianity had been interpreting Jesus’ teachings based on an erroneous assumption.
To be sure, the Jewish nation did divide their commandments into two groups. However, the historical record shows that the dividing line was nothing other than the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Every commandment summarized by this precept was a Justice. Every remaining commandment was a Job.
Jesus, Paul, and James all used the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Now we know that they used this precept to reference a well-established group of commandments—the Justices. This historical discovery completely changes our understanding of the New Testament. Each, in his own particular way, used the precept to explain that the Justices alone are the Christian law.
The English terms "Justices" and "Jobs" are in consonance with Paul’s terms for the two great divisions of the Torah. "Justices" translates Greek dikaiomata; while "Jobs" translates Greek erga, literally "works." "Justices of the Torah" (dikaiomata tou nomou) is used by Paul in Romans 2:26; "Jobs of the Torah" (erga tou nomou) is used by Paul in Romans 3:20. (See "Dr. Berg on the Justices of the Torah" for documentation on the translation of dikaiomata tou nomou).
The Jewish nation divided their commandments into two groups: commandments between man and God (mitzvot bein adam lamakom) and commandments between man and man (mitzvot bein adam lachaveiro). (mishna Yoma 8:9) Philo documents that the commandments between man and God included all the piety and purity regulations; whereas the commandments between man and man included ethics and justice (Special Laws 2.63). Philo further explained that the commands between man and God are encapsulated by love of God and the commands between man and man are encapsulated in love of neighbor (Decalogue 108-110). Philo presents this dual division of the law based on the two love commandments "as though obvious or well-known." (Resurrecting Jesus: the earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters by Dale C. Allison, p. 154, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005).
The notion that the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) encompass all of God’s commandments is presumed throughout the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (t. Issachar 5:2, 7:6-7; t. Dan 5:1-3; t. Gad 4:1-2; t. Jos 11:1; t. Benj. 3:-1-3; t. Reub. 6:8-9). Of particular note is t. Dan 5:1-3, "Observe, therefore, my children, the commandments of the Lord, and keep His law… Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart." The New Testament further documents that the ancient Jewish nation considered the two love commands (love God and love neighbor ) to encompass all of God’s commandments. Luke 10:26-27, "And Jesus asked the expert in the law, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read it?’ And the legal expert answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
That the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbor as yourself") were an independent group of commands is further documented in multiple sources. For example, Hillel, the head of one of the greatest Pharisaic schools, stated that the Golden Rule (which was interchangeable with Leviticus 19:18 during his day) contained within it all the commands that a Gentile convert must follow (t. Shabbos 31a). Jesus referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Matthew 19:16-20). Paul referenced the commands based on Leviticus 19:18 as an independent group (Romans 13:9). James declared Leviticus 19:18 to be the Messianic King’s Law and then proceeded to give examples of Old Testament commandments based upon it; commands such as "Do not murder," "Do not commit adultery," and "Don’t show favoritism" (James 2:8-10). Murder and adultery were forbidden in the Decalogue and showing favoritism was forbidden in Leviticus 19:15. James’ entire letter deals exclusively with Old Testament commands based on Leviticus 19:18 and is structured around this concept.
The implications of this revolutionary historical discovery couldn’t be more profound, especially when it comes to the hot button issue of homosexuality. Surprisingly, the prohibition on homosexuality was a Job (not a Justice). In other words, it turns out that the prohibition on homosexuality wasn’t originally part of Christian law. But then, in the second century, when Gentiles dominated the Faith, they introduced the erroneous assumption regarding the dividing line (ritual/moral) which caused Christianity to err on this very important matter.
- Michael Woods; "Jesus on Homosexuality." (April 25, 2012)
9.9.12
8.9.12
in a nutshell
Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuals other than to have a side note about rape that broke the ancient life and death code of hospitality. The Interpretation backed by all ancient Hebrew writings, Ezekial, and Jesus in Matthew.
Leviticus was only for the bloodline of Jacob while they were among the Canaanites, not "rules" for those in the new birth. Paul says it over and over again that Leviticus are dead laws to us.
Romans 1 is about idolatry (tip-off: Paul deliberately paraphrasing chapter 14 of the book "Wisdom of Solomon" from top to bottom, all about idolatry). Context.
You don't have to go outside of the Bible narrative to understand what "effeminate" (Malakoi) means in 1 Cor 6:9 when Jesus uses the same word to indict the character of the rich for their extravagance with clothing in Matt 11:8.
And even if the word (Arsenokoitai) translated in 1 Cor 6: 9,10 and 1 Tim 1:9, as "homosexuals" is a compound word from Leviticus, Leviticus is only talking about one, specific, sexual act (according to the writings of the ancient Israelites who existed in those laws) and puts it in the context of the idolatrous homosexuality of the Canaanites in verse 21 while ignoring female homosexuality altogether.
Jude echoes back to the Sodomites wanting the "strange flesh" of the Heavenly visitors and not the "same flesh" of the same sex.
Now have a good night's sleep.
4.9.12
How Softie Got Lost in Translation
The Aramaic word m'khab-le was translated as ma-la-koi in the Greek NT. Ma-la-koi (plural) is translated as effeminate in the (KJV) and as homosexuals in the (Gideons Bible). Elsewhere in the New Testament, malakos (singular) is translated as “soft” (Mt. 11:8 [2x] & Lk. 7:25 [1x]), as in “soft” clothing. Most likely, the Greek translator meant for the word malakoi to mean people that are “licentious,” “loose,” “wanting in self-control,” “unrestrained,” and / or effeminate. Those meanings would match how that word was translated in the Latin Vulgate as molles (plural). The Hebrew New Testament translated by The Bible Society in Israel (copyright 1991) agreed more with the prior meanings, and interpreted malakoi to mean “workers of desire.” Malakos (singular) also means: “delicate,” “gentle,” “weak,” and “cowardly.”
Apparently the Greek language doesn’t have a word that means “corrupt ones.” Though it does have the verb phtheiro “to corrupt” or its composite spelling diaphtheiro “to corrupt thoroughly.” The above verb spellings were conjugated and used in the Greek Old Testament when the Hebrew text has the word “corrupt” in the text. It would have been better for the Greek translator to have made up a new Greek word meaning “corrupt ones” from either of those verb roots. Otherwise to have translated the Aramaic word m’khab-le as anomon “lawless ones.” The root word anomos “lawless” also being one of the translations for the word “corrupt” in the Hebrew Bible. At Isaiah 1:4, the Hebrew text calls Israel “corrupt children,” while the Greek translation of that verse calls Israel “lawless children.”
Defining malakoi to mean people who are “lacking in self control” or “unrestrained” doesn’t match the Aramaic word, meaning “the corrupt ones.” Someone doesn’t need to be corrupt to be “voluptuous” or “indulgent.” I understand “corrupt ones” to mean “those tainted with evil,” or “perverted ones.” Additionally, malakoi can also mean “effeminate ones.”
This Greek translator shouldn’t have translated this Aramaic word by using a misleading Greek word. His interpretation was so misleading that Christian believers have interpreted malakoi to mean “effeminate ones” (i.e. the passive partners in homosexual intercourse), while the following word, arsenokoitai, has been interpreted as “homosexuals who take the active role.” Thus I believe the translator was deceptive in his translation. He found a context that talked about certain people who wouldn’t enter God’s Kingdom; so he decided to not translate the correct meaning for the Aramaic word. He wanted to make sure his bias and hatred for gay people were put into the Bible to deceive others and give them justification to discriminate against them. This same thing happened when the Hebrew word Qede-shim was translated as “effeminate” (Latin) or sodomites (KJV). Qedeshim means “pagan ministers and/or male prostitutes.” Qedeshim was a good candidate for the Church to translate biasly as “effeminates or sodomites” because then they could use those scriptures to discriminate against gay people.
31.8.12
Against Nature
Homosexuality is said to be against nature because it goes against the natural order of a man with a woman.
But celibacy goes against the nature of heterosexual human desire given to us by God, undermines the traditional family unit and if everyone became celibate (like the argument is with homosexuality) the world would die out. Celibacy goes against God's command to; "Be fruitful and multiply." Yet Jewish tradition says Moses chose to be celibate after his encounter with God. John the Baptist was also celibate. Paul said to prefer celibacy to marriage like himself and Christ lived that example as did the Disciples who weren't already married prior to meeting Jesus according to Tertullian. The early church fathers advocated celibacy over marriage. Celibacy is the ideal way of existing according to the New Testament because Paul said the attention you would give your spouse, would instead go to God. So where is this emphases on marriage and the "family" Jesus Himself downplays (Matthew 12:46-50)? The Bible says there is no marriage or procreation in Heaven and this shows the lack of importance Christ gave to this now and in the next world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
copyright
