I keep hearing people say this and yet the NT Greek seems to capture the concept with a single word: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/arsenokoites.html. Can someone familiar with Biblical Greek explain how they pulled this one off? I don't remember that part of the story; can you tell me what chapter I should be looking in? Of course, I'm not sure if it matters if he's gay or not anyway.
That's true. The main form of male sex in those times was pederasty. Basically a young kid who was kept by an older man. The older man was seen as the dominant figure, and the young boy was the passive one, and obviously, the dominant man had a higher social status. Most of the time, these men also had wives that were basically procreation tools and who worked around the house, provided for the man and kids. It's very hard to really say "homosexuality is a sin" and basically impossible to say being gay is a sin, because the condemnations of same-sex intercourse in the Bible don't relate to what we know and understand now of sexuality in general.
Greek male homosexuality=pederasty. Pederasty was "homosexuality" in those times. I cut and pasted this from wiki (I know not the best source) but it gives sort of an insight on the type of relationship they had: Story of David and Jonathan The relationship between David and Jonathan is mainly covered in the Old Testament First Book of Samuel, although elements are to be found also in the Second Book. The episodes belong to the story of David's ascent to power, which is commonly regarded as one of the sources of the Deuteronomistic history, and to its later additions. David, the youngest son of Jesse, slays Goliath at the Valley of Elah where the Philistine army is in a standoff with the army of King Saul (Jonathan's father). David's victory begins a rout of the Philistines who are driven back to Gath and the gates of Ekron. Abner brings David to Saul while David is still holding Goliath's severed head. Jonathan, the eldest son of Saul, has also been fighting the Philistines. Jonathan takes an immediate liking to David and the two form a covenant: Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt. So David went out wherever Saul sent him, and prospered; and Saul set him over the men of war.(NASB) Saul makes David a commander over his armies and offers Michal, his daughter, in marriage. David enjoys success in battle, and his growing popularity makes Saul afraid "What more can he have but the kingdom?" Saul makes several failed attempts to kill David. Learning of one of these attempts, Jonathan warns David to hide. David flees into the wilderness. David agrees to hide until Jonathan can confront his father and ascertain whether it is safe for David to stay. Jonathan approaches Saul to plead David's cause: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" Jonathan is so grieved that he does not eat for days. He goes to David at his hiding place to tell him that it is unsafe for him and he must leave, and the episode ends with them parting ways. "...David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the LORD, saying, "The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever."' He got up and left and Jonathan went into the city." As Saul continues to pursue David, the pair renew their covenant, after which they do not meet again. Eventually Saul and David reconcile. Jonathan, however, is slain on Mt. Gilboa along with his two brothers Abinadab and Malchi-shua, and there Saul commits suicide. David learns of Saul and Jonathan's death and chants a lament, which in part says: Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in their death they were not parted; They were swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions... "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women. "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished!" David's praise in 2 Samuel 1:26 for Jonathan's 'love' (for him) over the 'love' of women is considered evidence for same-sex attraction, along with Saul's exclamation to his son at the dinner table, "I know you have chosen the son of Jesse - which is a disgrace to yourself and the nakedness of your mother!" The "choosing" (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of "nakedness" (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan's and David's relationship.
A friend of mine in college who was a Conservative Jew once told me that you could be a Jew if you followed all of the rules even if you didn't believe in God.
Do you mention it to say that there is a qualitative difference between pederasty and homosexuality such that, as we now understand the Bible, we should think pederasty is condemned in the Bible, but homosexuality is not addressed? That seems unlikely. It's clear in the Bible that David and Jonathan have a very close relationship. But, apart from a couple of literary interpretations, there isn't anything to suggest the relationship is also sexual. I sure didn't see any mention of hard-ons, which is really the only thing I was objecting to in your post. Maybe there were some, but they aren't mentioned. They could be gay, and it's not ridiculous to conclude so, but it's hardly settled. Even so, David's gayness doesn't contribute much to the homosexuality-and-the-Bible conversation unless there's something in there that shows God's approval/disapproval for his relationship with Jonathan.
1 Samuel 18:4 "Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt. 1 Samuel 20:41: And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. This is what I was talking about. Also, again, unless you think straight men make out, profess eternal love for each other greater than any woman can match, and yes, get naked and get hard for, then they aren't straight. The entire story was a celebration of love between these two men, in the face of the hate Saul had for their relationship and had towards David. Homosexuality wasn't addressed in the Bible. Pederasty was homosexuality. Do I need to keep repeating this? There was no "homosexuality" in those days. There is a huge difference between taking virgin prostitutes and basically keeping them for sexual purposes (among other things), and then two men in a committed relationship having sex. Lastly, one can have sex or not have sex and still be straight or gay, so that's irrelevant. A loving relationship is a loving relationship
Right, because men kissing each other as a customary greeting was such a foreign concept in the Middle East? Or the concept of giving another person treasured items as tokens for a covenant wasn't clearly established in Judaic tradition? All this is basically people trying to insert context between the lines that isn't there in order to somehow justify a position that homosexuality was acceptable in the bible. Why is it that the same books that made absolutely no attempt to censor David's wild sexuality with women, detail an account of one of his sons raping a sister, him sleeping with another man's wife and then having her husband killed to try to cover up the ensuing pregnancy; talk about how eventually when he got old and frail, a woman was hired to keep him warm in bed (but explicitly point out that they didn't have sex), and go on to talk about Solomon and the hundreds of women he slept with that he wasn't even married to, didn't even allude to any sexual encounters between David and Jonathan? Obviously they were trying to paint these guys as ideal role models, that's why! The bible referred to homosexuality long before Moses even delivered the law: when Lot received angelic visitors in the form of men who came to warn him to escape the impending judgment of the city, the Sodomites came banging on his door demanding that he release them "so that we can have sex with them". Lot replies by begging them not to "do so wickedly". Where do you think the word "sodomy" came from? And as has been previously pointed out, the apostle Paul explicitly used the word "homosexuals". Some argue that "yes, but Jesus himself didn't talk about it." Jesus didn't talk about incest either, does it mean he endorsed it? People are always going to have their opinions on this subject, I get that. What I don't get is attempts to rewrite the bible in order to fit those opinions. If the bible says having same-sex relations is sin, then it is sin. Like I've said before, I would never judge a homosexual or treat them differently from other people. God is the judge, and I myself will also answer before him one day for my own transgressions. And when I do, my salvation will not depend on how many times I overcame the temptation to commit adultery, how many times I told the truth, whether or not I am gay or any thing I have accomplished by my own power: it will depend on whether I accepted the gift of salvation through Jesus' sacrifice. That's it.
Right. Getting naked, having a hard-on, making out with someone and professing an unwavering and never ending love for them, is completely normal heterosexual behavior. Happens all the time in the Middle East, sure. I'm sure right now there are thousands of Iranian men making out and disrobing on the street, and going back to their wives afterward. The whole entire point of Jonathan and David was their love was stronger than any love that they felt for anyone else. Their love was more than just sexual. It was a natural connection that had no bounds. Jonathan and David in the Bible was written as a celebration of that love. Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. Read Ezekial 16:49-50. Sodomy generally means/meant unnatural sex (ie. oral/anal sex, bestiality). Sodomy doesn't=gay. The word homosexual was not even CREATED until the 1800s, so to say Paul used the word is simply incorrect. The Bible isn't the judge on morality, so therefore, it's not correct to say just because the Bible says something, that's the end of the matter. The Bible says a lot of things, but it's also 2000+ years old and many of those things are not relevant to today. Believing homosexuality is a sin, in itself is a moral judgment. And one that is not justified by Biblical teaching.
Obviously you've decided to go write your own bible, because the scriptures never said they got naked, had a "hard on" or "made out". Kissing another man on the cheek is a normal Middle-Eastern greeting custom till this day. And the reason why don't get the story is that you equate "love" = "sex". Right. "Where are the men that came to you today? Bring them out so that we can have sex with them." -- that obviously has absolutely nothing to homosexuality. Are you just making up arguments as you go? In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul uses the Greek word "arsenokoites", which unequivocally means "homosexual", or literally, "one who lies with a male as with a female." Fixed that for ya.
wrong. arsen which means 'male' and koite meaning 'bed' does not unequivocally mean homosexual. the meaning of a compound word cannot necessarily be determined by breaking it apart. Take the word 'understand'. when broken up...it has nothing to do with being under or standing. there are instances where this word is used independently and does not refer to sexual relations of all, but rather economic exploitations. Think about this...we use the term screw as a euphemism for sex..i.e. 'yea man I screwed that girl last night' however...you could also use it as economic exploitation that has nothing to do with sex...i.e. 'I really got screwed on that deal' or how I think this might be being used...how many times have you heard somebody refer to something as 'really gay' with no intentions at all of insinuating sexual behavior? (ghey) the word arsenokoites does not unequivocally or literally mean "homosexual". I know this is a tough pill to swallow, believe me...I didn't want to accept it either...but there is enough evidence to suggest that you are wrong. What you choose to do with that literature is up to you.
wait a minute. my fiancee, girlfriend at the time, was a member of the choir at that church for years, when it used to be called Duane United Methodist. I used to go when she would solo, and then the merger happened with two other churches. this was around 2005-2007. were you a member then? since them, i have been attending Methodist Church regularly but do not identify myself as a Christian. the United Methodist all-inclusive ideology seems to be very open minded and welcoming to all members. that church of the village is a hoot...
They are partly Dutch? :grin: Now to add the needed comedy to the thread: <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9UbqZ_oN5do" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
So what? Should he preach from a different scripture? Should he not preach at all? Should no one preach at all? I don't think it is unreasonable for a minister to preach from the scripture he believes in. If other people don't believe in that scripture, they are free to ignore him and find something more to their liking. I know I don't watch Joel Osteen, but it doesn't bother me that there are people who find him uplifting.
That is an excellent point and one that should give pause to declaring definitively what any ancient document that has been translated multiple times says.
Actually in Greek this is not a compound word, the word is derived from two root words- arsen, (man), and koite, (which has the Greek translation to bed with, the marriage bed, sexual intercourse) The word should be viewed in the context of the list that Paul is giving, which is a list of what is unrighteous- in Greek the list goes- pornos, eidōlolatrēs, moichos, malakos, arsenokoitēs. arsenokoites is a masculine noun which by phrase translates to- man who beds with man. The King James Bible translation does not translate it as homosexual, most all other modern translations do. Most older translations like Darby, Webster etc translate it as a man who abuses another man. Considering Paul is specifically listing sins that keep people out of God's kingdom whether Paul is right or not he is implicitly saying this is one of them. Some people dismiss parts or even all of Paul's letters so my clarification is meant more for someone who takes his letters serious.
so you're saying that paul was a bigot but that he may not have been speaking for the boss man, right?
Me? Paul wrote in concern and care for the Christians in Corinth, he was a loving person, he didn't attack too many people, some hypocrites and the like but he wasn't a bigot. Paul was like a father to these Christians. Some people did not take Paul's letters serious even in his time, he wrote about that and defended himself as far as speaking for God.
