Homosexuality and the Bible

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Gwyn ap Nudd


Where did Jesus change the law?

Mathew.5:18-19
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke.16:17
"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Oops…guess he didn’t.

So far that is all interpretation by you and conviently saying what you apparently want to hear.

Ossai

But what about when Jesus condoned Sabbath-breaking? Matthew 12/Mark 2-3/Luke6/Luke13-14/John 5/John 7/John 9

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. -- Mark 2:27-28

Or when He spared the life of the adulteress? (John 8)

Or when he expanded the law of divorce to protect women:"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." --Matt 19:3-9


Jesus did not change the Law in the sense of repealing it. He expanded its protection to those who were without, and when the demands of ritual purity and even religious sanctity (but never moral uprightness) were a hardship, he sanctioned easing its strictures.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Yes, I’d agree, Paul, and thus the Bible as a whole, sees same sex sex as “unseemly” and “vile”. But it should still be noted that what is described here does not apply to most every situation involving a gay person. Many now-a-days were devout Christian kids at the time they realized their orientation, far from the proud pagans described above. They never felt “lust” or anything resembling attraction to the opposite sex, ever, and therefore there was never anything for God to “give them up” to, or reason to do so. I mean, how many men would leave the “the natural use of the woman”, if it wasn’t “natural” for them to do so? I doubt I know any, and would agree with Paul that it’d take a God-sent miracle to turn most men gay .

I’m not saying this passage doesn’t pose homosexuality, even without acts, as vile. To me, Rom 1 just comes off as one straight man’s attempt, like so many others, to explain where homosexuality, among other things, comes from. Paul’s answer: God turns straight people gay, as a punishment.

I can't find anything to seriously disagree with in that analysis. One gets the definite opinion that Paul does find homogenitality distateful. And that that opinion colors a reading of all his works. Yet, he does not come right out and say that it is sinful.

It has been suggested that Paul struggled with the idea. Some have even claimed that his "thorn in the flesh" was an unrequited and unwanted attraction to one of his fellow missionaries. There is nothing definite to support this theory, nor is there anything definite to disprove it.

It is also possible that it was what we today call homophobia that was the "thorn." Intellectually he accepted that some actions he was always taught were wrong were not necessarily sinful, but his upbringing and personal disgust broke through.

What’s not odd, though, is the relatively little attention Romans 2 gets. Following just after that quote:

All those pious folks doesting the same things….

And of course, that is the main point of the letter. The Jewish-born members of the Church were playing a game of holier-than-thou with the gentile members. Paul was calling them on it.

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. " -- Romans 3:9-12

 

[SezMe]

SezMe:

That is a fair question and it deserves an honest answer.

Thanks, Gwyn, for taking my question in the spirit it was posed.

In response to my query about exploring morality, you wrote

Not necessarily morality "in general," if there is or can be such a thing*, but Biblical morality. I am comparing what the Bible says about itself and its teachings to what the people for whom and by whom it was written would have understood of the world and the issues involved.

My bolded emphasis.

As an opening aside, I agree comletely with your *ed footnote.

Here I'd like to probe the bolded portion of your response. But first I must note that I am NOT a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination. So if I make mistakes of fact or interpretation, correct me.

First, let's address the "by whom" question and limit ourselves to the gospels of the NT because these play such a prominent role in Christian morality. My understanding is that these were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that the real authors are not known. But there is clear evidence of "interplay" (I cannot think of a better word, "plagerism" is too strong)
between the various versions of Jesus' life.

Do you agree?

If so, then the gospel portion of the bible can tell us little or nothing of what the authors "understood of the world" because we don't know who they are, when they lived or any context about their lives.

If not, can you provde links to sites that support the asserted authorship?

Now, let's address the "for whom" question. I should make my assumption about authorship explicit. I assume that the gospels were written between ~60-70 AD through the first century and that the authors had AT BEST third-hand information about the putative character Jesus (again, I am not trying to be sarcastic, just accurate. I am not convinced that Jesus even existed - for me, the jury is still out). Each gospel is, in my opinion, directed at a different CONTEMPORANEOUS audience over the decades they were written. If this is true, then an audience 2000 years later (you and I) may be irrelevant. Or, more precisely, the message to the audience 2000 years ago may not have import for the current day audience.

Regarding my question about the study of ancient cultures, you responsed:

As I said, it is broader. But there is only so much that a study of Greek philosophy can say about the Bible, and the Hindu vedas and Taoist literature have even less to say, so I'm limited to little more than the areas of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Golden Crescent and the time frame between the Bronze age and the First century CE.

But why the focus on the Bible in the first place? Because Jesus believed in it. Because of that I feel I need to understand it, and on its own terms.

The bolded question was going to be my next query - are you psychic ? 'Jes kidding.

But your answer is nonsensical. Jesus could not believe in the bible because it did not exist during his lifetime. Hell, it did not exist for hundreds of years after his death (again, if he ever lived at all). In that light, I would repeat the question.

Finally, at that point, you append:

But I would have to be convinced that the "new" books are consistant with the rest of the Bible, and its message, and that the dropped books aren't. Currently I am tempted to drop the letters of Jude and Second Peter because they apparently subscribe to the belief that angels have physical bodies and can interbreed with humans, producing giant offspring. If ever I become convinced that that is the proper understanding of those letters, I probably will drop them. But not without a lot of thought and, yes, prayer. After all just because it seems ridiculous to me does not prove it to be false.

Sounds to me like you are writing your own bible here. No sin in that; Jefferson did the same thing. But does it not negate the very purpose you began with, namely to discover what the bible itself says about homosexuality?

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Sounds to me like you are writing your own bible here. No sin in that; Jefferson did the same thing. But does it not negate the very purpose you began with, namely to discover what the bible itself says about homosexuality?

Not really. I begin with the assumption that the Bible as collected by the early church is correct and complete. And I only drop books that are clearly flawed. Not just problematical (like Jude), and especially I don't drop books just because I don't like what they say.

Adding a book is even harder. It has to agree with the rest of the Bible on all significant issues, and on at least one include an insight included but not obvious in the established canon.

Adding and dropping is to be done only with whole books. No picking and choosing verses or chapters. If a writer is inspired, the whole book is inspired. If a section is clearly not inspired, the writer was not insired.

As a practical matter, I fully expect that the canon I wind up with will be the same canon I began with, but my research will be intellectually dishonest if I turn all my conclusions to achieving that end.

The bolded question (But why the focus on the Bible in the first place?) was going to be my next query - are you psychic ? 'Jes kidding.

But your answer is nonsensical.....In that light, I would repeat the question.

I realize that at first glance there seems to be a measure of circularity in my position: I acept the gospels becuase of the character of Jesus, but I only know the character of Jesus because I accept the gospels. But it is more of a spiral than a circle.

Instead of starting with full acceptance of both Jesus and the Bible, I start with the proposition that the gospels record the existance of a man called Jesus and that they more-or-less accurately preserve his words. Those words include certain claims for himself and for the church.

Those claims can be tested for consistancy, and some of them can be tested in other ways. If any of those claims fail, the Divinity of Jesus and inspiration of the Bible are disproven. If they hold, then the study which tested them points out new claims that can be tested.

Granted, this still leaves the central point unproven, but the continual opportunies to disprove it which fail constrain it more and more tightly.

Jesus could not believe in the bible because it did not exist during his lifetime.

You are correct to a point. The Scriptures that Jesus knew and believed in were only the books of he OT. None of the NT was yet written. Because of this, I am even less inclined to consider dropping or adding OT books from "my" canon.

But that brings us to one of His claims: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you....These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. " (John 14:16-17, 25-26)

The early church took this claim and under the teaching of the Paraklete has collected writings it believed to be inspired. As I said earlier, this claim can be tested and disproved.

First, let's address the "by whom" question and limit ourselves to the gospels of the NT because these play such a prominent role in Christian morality. My understanding is that these were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that the real authors are not known. But there is clear evidence of "interplay" (I cannot think of a better word, "plagerism" is too strong)
between the various versions of Jesus' life.

Do you agree?

If so, then the gospel portion of the bible can tell us little or nothing of what the authors "understood of the world" because we don't know who they are, when they lived or any context about their lives.

If not, can you provde links to sites that support the asserted authorship?

Now, let's address the "for whom" question. I should make my assumption about authorship explicit. I assume that the gospels were written between ~60-70 AD through the first century and that the authors had AT BEST third-hand information about the putative character Jesus (again, I am not trying to be sarcastic, just accurate. I am not convinced that Jesus even existed - for me, the jury is still out). Each gospel is, in my opinion, directed at a different CONTEMPORANEOUS audience over the decades they were written.

You have chosen to interpret my phrase "the people for whom and by whom it was written" as the specific authors (eg. "Luke" or Paul) and their specific correspondents (Theophilus, "Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house"). I did not intend it to be so specific.

It is true that we know nothing about "Luke" the author, who likely was not the same as Luke the physician, or "Matthew" the author, as opposed to the Matthew, who had been Levi the tax-collector. But we can say some things about the fledgling religious movement which was to become the Christian Church.

My emphasis is more on properly interpreting the context of a book than the psychology of its author and/or audience. I meant the phrase to represent the book's contemporary milieu, rather than the specific personalities involved. Context is a very important aspect of proper interpretation.

On the other hand, there is much we can discover about Paul from his letters, which often included personal details.

If this is true, then an audience 2000 years later (you and I) may be irrelevant. Or, more precisely, the message to the audience 2000 years ago may not have import for the current day audience.

Yes, that is entirely possible. But inasmuch as it is, that is another way of testing the claims. If the Bible does prove to be irrelevant, it cannot be true. But the relevence of its message cannot be properly gauged until that message is properly determined.

 

[jmercer]

Wow. What a thread... and here I thought the basic problem with homosexuality and the bible was the violation of God's command "Be fruitful and multiply" - which is also supposedly part of the argument against birth control, condoms and abortions.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." --Genesis 1:28 (NASB)

But now that we have filled the earth and subdued it, etc. we have completed that command, havent we? Isn't that why we need to be concerned about overpopulation and environmentalism?

 

[jmercer]

From my perspective, yeah.

But I don't know about the Church's.

 

[SezMe]

The quest you cited in your OP requires no small amount of logic. So let me start by focusing on that aspect of your last post.

Not really. I begin with the assumption that the Bible as collected by the early church is correct and complete. And I only drop books that are clearly flawed.

How can these two statements possibly be reconciled? Either you did not write what you meant or you are asserting that the bible is "correct and complete" yet contains "clearly flawed" components.

Adding a book is even harder. It has to agree with the rest of the Bible on all significant issues, and on at least one include an insight included but not obvious in the established canon..

But how is this possible. The bible is horribly internally inconsistent on significant issues so finding an external piece of writing that is consistent with the bible would seem to be logically impossible. Please explain.

Adding and dropping is to be done only with whole books. No picking and choosing verses or chapters. If a writer is inspired, the whole book is inspired. If a section is clearly not inspired, the writer was not insired.

I have two questions here. It would seem that picking only whole books to be an arbitrary selection of an authors writing. Why not keep ONLY a given author's whole works (especially if you think that author was inspired)? Or why not just chapters? Or, at the lowest level, just a word, if it truely adds to the collection you are building? See what I mean by arbitrary?

Secondly, can you specifiy your criteria for deciding whether an piece of writing is "inspired?"

I realize that at first glance there seems to be a measure of circularity in my position: I acept the gospels becuase of the character of Jesus, but I only know the character of Jesus because I accept the gospels. But it is more of a spiral than a circle.

Instead of starting with full acceptance of both Jesus and the Bible, I start with the proposition that the gospels record the existance of a man called Jesus and that they more-or-less accurately preserve his words.

Unfortunately, the gospels cannot even "more-or-less" accurately preserve his words because they contain significant disagreement between them. In addition, if you agree with my earlier post regarding the timing of the writing of the gospels, the information the authors were using was, at best third hand and probably worse than that. Knowing, as we do, the potential fluidity of oral traditon, I don't think there is much - if any - evidence that the gospels "accurately preserve his words."

Sadly, I think this transforms your spiral back into a circle. Or am I missing something?

Those words include certain claims for himself and for the church. Those claims can be tested for consistancy, and some of them can be tested in other ways. If any of those claims fail, the Divinity of Jesus and inspiration of the Bible are disproven. If they hold, then the study which tested them points out new claims that can be tested.

I find this to be quite interesting. Can you give a 2 or 3 examples of claims (in addition to the one below) that are made that can be verified. Or, rather, "tested in other ways" to more accurately quote you. Secondarily, I would not be surprised that the claims are "consistent" if, as you believe, the writing is "inspired" then it would be poor inspiration indeed that was internally inconsistent. Thus, even if the claims are consistent (a proposition I don't subscribe to) I would not glean much from that fact.

You are correct to a point. The Scriptures that Jesus knew and believed in were only the books of he OT. None of the NT was yet written. Because of this, I am even less inclined to consider dropping or adding OT books from "my" canon.

This might be a bit of a derail, but how do we know Jesus read the OT? We certainly know we have no direct writings of his so maybe he was illiterate?

You have chosen to interpret my phrase "the people for whom and by whom it was written" as the specific authors (eg. "Luke" or Paul) and their specific correspondents (Theophilus, "Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house"). I did not intend it to be so specific.

It is true that we know nothing about "Luke" the author, who likely was not the same as Luke the physician, or "Matthew" the author, as opposed to the Matthew, who had been Levi the tax-collector. But we can say some things about the fledgling religious movement which was to become the Christian Church.

It is not that Luke was "likely" not the biblical Luke, it is impossible because no contemporary of Jesus could have been alive when the gospels were written.

When I wrote "audience" I meant the general "public" that any one of the authors was writing for, not any specific correspondent. I agree with you that the gospels tell us about the early religion that has become today's Christianity. In fact, I think the gospels tell us far more about that topic than about the individual known as Jesus.

My emphasis is more on properly interpreting the context of a book than the psychology of its author and/or audience. I meant the phrase to represent the book's contemporary milieu, rather than the specific personalities involved. Context is a very important aspect of proper interpretation.

Fair enough, but in order to fully understand what the bible says about homosexuality (or any other topic, for that matter) wouldn't those aspects of the writer be important? Well, I can see where that would not be the case if the writer was truely inspired, impling that his personality was subsumed to the "inspirer" Is that what you mean?

If the Bible does prove to be irrelevant, it cannot be true. But the relevence of its message cannot be properly gauged until that message is properly determined.

Agreed! I knew we would come to a meeting of the minds.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." --Genesis 1:28 (NASB)

But now that we have filled the earth and subdued it, etc. we have completed that command, havent we? Isn't that why we need to be concerned about overpopulation and environmentalism?

Yes and “Be fruitful and multiply” has another odd problem, besides assuming it was meant for even the most crowded societies. If you’re Jewish, you’re in the clear, but the NT has a different take on sex and marriage. Paul advocates celibacy, saying, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Jesus, living the exemplary life, is supposedly a virgin as well. I mean, how many Catholics fault the Pope for not “multiplying” ?

If it’s some sex act that is supposedly the sin, fine; complain about that. But some gays raise many more children than the average human, many more than some religious figures (and may, strangely, have less sex…). It just makes no sense to attack one group for not being fruitful, while revering it in another.

 

[Ossai]

Gwyn ap Nudd

But what about when Jesus condoned Sabbath-breaking?

Apparently I glossed over my point to easily.
Does it really matter what Jesus or the bible really say about anything. As a historical text it’s laughable and as a basis for morality it ties itself into a Gordian knot.
If you really want to study it, you should start by studying the time period and culture in which it was written.

Ossai

 

[Beerina]

Diogenes-

This is based on several passages conflated.

For example the story of the attempted homogenital gang-rape in Sodom (Gen 19), and the actual cross-sex gang-rape in Gibeah from the remarkably similar story in Judges 19.

There are examples of individual relationships that seem to violate this dictum, (eg Abraham and Hagar) but that is because victim was not the person who had the power to grant or refuse consent: a slave's owner or a virgin's father or other next of kin would be.

LW-

1.Cor 6:9, and 1. Tim 1:10 use the never-before-encountered word arsenokoitos, "man-lying," which is almost certainly a literal translation of a rabbinical abreviation of the leviticus phrase, and therefore refers to the levitical prohibition, which was concerned with ritual purity.

Scot-

It is Paul, in Romans, who suggests that hetero men indulging in homogenitality is a punishment for idolatry, not necessarily a unique sin in itself.

The idea that (hetero/bi) men lusting for (hetero/bi)men is a sin comes from the usual interpretation of Jude 7. But Jude, who quotes from the pseudegryphal books of I Enoch and Jubilees, seems to be referring to Sodom lusting after the "strange" flesh of beings they knew to be angels and not men, rather than lusting after them because they are male.

I'm getting confused. If the act is wrong, but the feelings not, then you're gonna live a very sad life one way or the other.

Most Christians acknowledge that the feelings (temptations) are not wrong in and of themselves, but it's acting on them (perhaps including indulging fantasies in lieu of actual physical acts) that is considered wrong. Is this argument attempting to shift the "line of sin" so that fantasies are now Ok, and only real, physical acts are wrong?

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

The quest you cited in your OP requires no small amount of logic. So let me start by focusing on that aspect of your last post.

How can these two statements possibly be reconciled? Either you did not write what you meant or you are asserting that the bible is "correct and complete" yet contains "clearly flawed" components.

My starting assumption is that the Bible (the Protestant canon) and possibly the Apocrypha (canoninal to the Catholic Church) are inspired, and therefore correct and complete. To deny the possiblity that this assumption may turn out to be false would be intellectually dishonest. The second sentence is just a statement that if I found one or two books to be flawed, I would not conclude that the whole Bible is flawed.

But how is this possible. The bible is horribly internally inconsistent on significant issues so finding an external piece of writing that is consistent with the bible would seem to be logically impossible. Please explain.

Two points. One, perhaps "reconcilable" would be a better word than "consistant." And I probably have a more inclusive definition of the condition, whichever word is used.

And two, yes, I anticipate I will most likely be unable to reconcile a new book to the existing canon without several man-lifetimes of study and prayer. I'm just allowing for the possibility that one of the non-canonical books just fits so perfectly that I can't deny it.

I have two questions here. It would seem that picking only whole books to be an arbitrary selection of an authors writing. Why not keep ONLY a given author's whole works (especially if you think that author was inspired)? Or why not just chapters? Or, at the lowest level, just a word, if it truely adds to the collection you are building? See what I mean by arbitrary?

Secondly, can you specifiy your criteria for deciding whether an piece of writing is "inspired?"

I chose whole books as the least arbitrary criteria for including or rejecting. It allows for accepting the theories that a given book is not exactly as the original authors wrote it (such as the theory that there were at least four different authors [who wrote independantly] of the Torah and at least three separate editors or "redactors" who combined those separate writings into a more-or-less coherent whole). It also allows for the obvious fact that just because an author was inspired to write one book, it does not follow that every thing he said or wrote was inspired, and for the fact that not everything attributed to a given author was actually written by him.

However it came to be written, the book is the unit that has been preserved. Choosing a smaller unit, a chapter or paragraph, for example, even when there is some evidence that it might be a later addition, is to simply edit the book on your own whim.

Unfortunately, the gospels cannot even "more-or-less" accurately preserve his words because they contain significant disagreement between them. In addition, if you agree with my earlier post regarding the timing of the writing of the gospels, the information the authors were using was, at best third hand and probably worse than that. Knowing, as we do, the potential fluidity of oral traditon, I don't think there is much - if any - evidence that the gospels "accurately preserve his words."

Sadly, I think this transforms your spiral back into a circle. Or am I missing something?

On the disagreemnt:
If you ask any lawyer or judge, if several witnesses agree too closely in their testimony, there is a great likelihood that the testimony was agreed to and rehearsed and is less convincing. Even so, the synoptic gospels do agree closely enough that Matthew and Luke are considered to have edited together Mark and a conjectured common "sayings" gospel called Q. In addition Luke is claimed to have had a third source, with many incidents similar to, but not the same as, incidents in John.

On the timing:
I believe that you have exaggerated the time frame a little. But it is a fair question, particularly when the oldest non-Christian writings with mentions of Jesus are even later than your estimates, or are suspected of being later (Christian) insertions. However the letters, especially those of Paul, were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to His life. Granted, Paul does not write much about Jesus earthly life, but what he does is reconcilable with the gospels.

In general:
There is the difference that you are starting from an agnostic position, and I am starting with the assumptions of a believer. When the accuracy of the Gospels can neither be proven nor disproven, you have no basis to accept that they may be accurate. I on the other hand, have no reason to drop the assumptions. So to you my spiral collapses into a circle. There is circumstantial evidence that tends to flatten the spiral, but it is not enough in itself to overcome the starting assumptions.

As more evidence comes in as the study continues, there might come a point where the evidence overwhelms the assumptions, or there may be a point where the assumptions are supported more than they are "attacked."

I find this to be quite interesting. Can you give a 2 or 3 examples of claims (in addition to the one below) that are made that can be verified. Or, rather, "tested in other ways" to more accurately quote you. Secondarily, I would not be surprised that the claims are "consistent" if, as you believe, the writing is "inspired" then it would be poor inspiration indeed that was internally inconsistent. Thus, even if the claims are consistent (a proposition I don't subscribe to) I would not glean much from that fact.

I'm having a little trouble responding to this. It may point to a fuzziness in my communcation skills, or a fuzziness in my logic, or it may be an artifact of our different starting assumptions. I suspect that it is a combination of all three.

But as to the consistancy not proving inspiration, you are quite right. However a lack of consistancy (which you you seem to strongly suspect) would prove that it was not inspired.

This might be a bit of a derail, but how do we know Jesus read the OT? We certainly know we have no direct writings of his so maybe he was illiterate?

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias [Isaiah].

And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. Luke 4:16:20

Yes, I know that we only know this through the writings of "Luke." Again what to make of that fact goes to our different starting positions.

It is not that Luke was "likely" not the biblical Luke, it is impossible because no contemporary of Jesus could have been alive when the gospels were written.

Actually, the timeline does (barely) allow the possibility a second hand account of a younger student of an aged apostle (Luke or Mark). I had agreed it not very likely that the books attributed to Luke were written by Paul's physician. But I do not agree that it was simply impossible.

When I wrote "audience" I meant the general "public" that any one of the authors was writing for, not any specific correspondent. I agree with you that the gospels tell us about the early religion that has become today's Christianity. In fact, I think the gospels tell us far more about that topic than about the individual known as Jesus.

There's not much to disagree with in that statement, except...

I may be reading more into it than you intended, but the phrasing of the last sentence seems a little sarcastic. By that, I mean that even though the phrase "far more than" does not disallow the possibility that there is something to learn about Jesus, the "tone" seems to express a doubt that such a something will actually be found.

Fair enough, but in order to fully understand what the bible says about homosexuality (or any other topic, for that matter) wouldn't those aspects of the writer be important? Well, I can see where that would not be the case if the writer was truely inspired, impling that his personality was subsumed to the "inspirer" Is that what you mean?

Only partially. While the inspiration does ensure that God's message rather than the individual author's opinion is what has been preserved, the author's beliefs are a part of the process.

What I meant was that we don't have a complete biography for most of the authors. For many we know nothing about them beyond their words.

But that does not mean we can't get a feel for the author. We just need to pay more attention to his words, and to understand the world and the Church as they would have been understood by someone living in that time and place. In other words, place the book in context.

Agreed! I knew we would come to a meeting of the minds.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I'm getting confused. If the act is wrong, but the feelings not, then you're gonna live a very sad life one way or the other.

Most Christians acknowledge that the feelings (temptations) are not wrong in and of themselves, but it's acting on them (perhaps including indulging fantasies in lieu of actual physical acts) that is considered wrong. Is this argument attempting to shift the "line of sin" so that fantasies are now Ok, and only real, physical acts are wrong?

That is precisely why I began this study. What I'm finding is that there are only five or six passages that provide "sound bites" against homogenitality, and another three or four stories that can be referenced to illustrate the point.

But there are also four or five stories that can be referenced to illustrate that homogenitality may not always be condemed. And examining the "sound bites" in context eliminates all except the original religious* Levitcus passages, and Jude 7's "going after strange flesh."

*Did you know that the same word toevah ("abomination") that is used in Leviticus to describe homogenitality is used earlier in the same book to describe the eating of "unclean" animals. In other words, it is exactly the same sort of abomination to eat pork or lobster as it is to lie with a man.

 

[Ossai]

Gwyn ap Nudd

And two, yes, I anticipate I will most likely be unable to reconcile a new book to the existing canon without several man-lifetimes of study and prayer. I'm just allowing for the possibility that one of the non-canonical books just fits so perfectly that I can't deny it.

What does prayer have to do with it?

However it came to be written, the book is the unit that has been preserved. Choosing a smaller unit, a chapter or paragraph, for example, even when there is some evidence that it might be a later addition, is to simply edit the book on your own whim.

And your disagreement with that is what exactly? After all that has been done numerous times before.

Ossai

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

OK, its been a few weeks, and I am closer to the end of my study.

I can give more complete conclusions rather than just state my assumptions and a couple of partially vetted possible conclusions.

Starting with the New Testament.

Canon: I have not definitely added or eliminated any books.

I do have a problem with the Letter of Jude, and so have considered eliminating it and Second Peter, but it seemed extreme to do so over one verse that I admit that I'm not sure how to read. Instead, I decided to temporarily shelve the question of Jude's "strange flesh." In any case, one should not claim to understand God's will based on a single half-understood verse. So whether Jude is condemning seducing/being seduced by angels or homogenitality, I cannot use this one verse alone to proclaim on high.

Of all the alternative gospels, acts, letters and apocalyptics, all were composed much later than the ones which were admitted to the official canon, and have definite signs of doctrinal bias. (I know that many of you would raise the same objections to some canonical books. I, myself might have considered eliminating Hebrews, the epistles of John, and Revalations for those reasons, but they don't contribute to my study on homosexuality anyway.)

There was one that I probably would have added were it not hypothetical, however. That would have been the expanded version of Mark. That the current version of Mark is abridged seems clear by three pieces of evidence. 1) There are certain passages in Mark (sometimes just a phrase, less than a whole verse) that are not repeated in either Matthew or Luke, and whose purpose is not clear in Mark as we have it now. 2) There is one passage in both Matthew and Luke (other than the sayings from Q). Both of these are conjectural and neither adds anything new.

The third piece of evidence was a letter by Clement of Alexandria which objectively stated that a "secret version" (actually two secret versions) of Mark existed, and quotes two passages. The problem is that the single manuscript of this letter has disappeared, and no one except the original discoveror has ever seen it. So while these passages are interesting, I cannot in good conscience proclaim them to be inspired if I don't even know that they are authentic.

Doctrine: There are four New Testament passages that condemn homogenitality, or seem to.

One is the Jude verse, I've decided to shelve.

Two are "sin-lists" in Pauline (or, according to some, pseudo-Pauline) letters. In both cases the more important of two words is the invented compound arseno-koitais. (The other word in both cases does not always refer to homogenitality, and is so translated in these cases because of their proximity to arseno-koitais.) As an invented compound word (meaning man-lying), it seems a direct translation of the Hebrew mishkav-bzakur (lying with a man), which might have evolved as an abreviated way to refer to the Levitical prohibition. This seems especially likely since the LXX, in both Levitical verses, translates mishkav as arseno and bzakur as koitais.

This defers the teaching on homogenitality to the Levitical verses, and although Paul (or pseudo-Paul) may have understood those verses differently than earlier generations of Israelites, I'll defer further comment until I'm discussing those verses.

That leaves Romans 1:26-27. If verse 26, as many claim, condemns female homogenitality, it is the only passage in the entire Bible that does so. The parallel of female passions "contrary to nature" to male on male "unseemliness" is clear, but the exact nature of those unnatural passions is not.

In any case, a reading of the entire chapter shows that Paul's concern is for idolatry, and these verses on unnatural lusts seem more a consequence of, almost a punishment for, that idolatry. These verses alone do not justify a blanket condemnation of all homogenitality, particularly if there is no idolatry involved. For other types of situations, we must look elsewhere.

The Gospels: All of the insufficiently suppressed passages from the expanded Mark that are still in the canonical gospels make more sense with a "queer" reading than with an anti-homosexual one. In particular there is the miracle of the centurian's catamite (pais), recorded in Matt 8 and Luke 7. Both tried to "clean up" the story, and if we only had the one or the other, it would be possible to deny the relationship between the centurian and his boy. If we only had Matthew, we might think that the boy was the centurian's son. (Indeed, there are many who claim that John 4:46-54 is another version of this story.) If we only had Luke, we would believe that this was just another slave. But together, it is almost impossible not to see the pais clearly for exactly what he is.

The non-canonical Markan passages from the Clementine letter go even further.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

The Hebrew Scriptures

Canon: Because the Hebrew canon was already established at the time of Jesus, and was accepted by Him, additions (other than possibly those dutero-canonical books from the LXX accepted by some denominations) and eliminations were not considered.

Doctrine: The only doctrinal passages concerning homogenitality are the Levitical prohibitions. Both concern a man "lying with a man with the lyings of a woman". Although at least one source seriously proposes that this refers to "lying together" in a woman's bed -- in other words, it just means "Don't bring your tricks home" -- most people agree that it refers to homogenitality in general, and more specifically to genital-anal penetration.

Both call this action an "abomination" (toevah). Toevah is one of almost a dozen words that are translated in at least one context as "abomination" in the AV. An examination of Hebrew usage distinguishes three levels of "abomination" or sin.

Sheqets is ritual defilement. It can happen by such things as approaching too closely to a pig, a corpse or a woman at "that" time of the month. Generally, a short period of quarentine (so you don't infect others) and a ritual cleansing suffice to purify the defiled person, although in serious cases, a minor sacrifice is required.

Zimmah is purposeful wickedness. Murder and adutery are zimmah. Most sexual perversities are zimmah.

Toevah is in between these two extremes. For the most part, it involves tolerating foreign idols, or blurring the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Secondarily it includes any action that involves the mixing or confusion of two similar but not identical things: planting two different crops in the same field, yoking an ox and an ass to the same plow, weaving linen and wool in the same garment, cross-dressing.

It seems likely that homogenitality is toevah because, like cross-dressing, it allows a confusion between male and female. One of the male partners is acting like a female and is penetrated. On the other hand, the verses at the begining and end of the chapters (Lev 18, 19, 20) indicate that the prohibited behaviors are common practice in Gentile religions, particularly Egyptian and Canaanite. So the mixing that it may be prohibiting might be idolatry and true worship -- in other words the prohibition is against temple prostitution. Or the confusion might be the Jew/Gentile one.

In Acts 10-11 and again in Acts 15, (Gentile-born) Christians are exempted from many Old Testament prohibitions. Certainly these include all of the sheqets prohibitions, but it also seems to include some toevah prohibitions as well. The question then becomes, "Does this include the prohibition against homogenitality?"

According to Acts 15:20, the only toevah prohibtions not so repealed are the contamination of idolatry, fornication*, and eating the meat of an animal that was strangled and still contains the blood, and even then the concern is the confusion of the converts, and a clear separation from their old lives.

Now is the time to look at the three New Testament verses we deferred.

In the same letter (1 Corinthians) in which he wrote "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God," Paul continues "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." He goes on to say, not once but twice, "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient, " indicating that even the few toevah prohibitions left are not forbidden in the same sense that they were in the Old Testament, but rather that they should be avoided so as not to become stumbling blocks to those whose faith is not yet firm.

Likewise, the other sin list (in 1 Timothy) is followed up with "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus."

Even in Romans, where the emphasis is on the relationship of the unnatural lusts to heathen worship, Paul repeats the promise of rescue from the consequences of commiting toevah acts: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."