Jesus on Marriage...

[bodecea]

I've heard all these lies before. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and studied the Scriptures all his life. You have no idea what you're speaking about, and all you have are some links to sites that have an agenda.

What "scriptures" did he study? His own letters?

Obviously, Paul studied the Scriptures more than you ever did. Ignorant mockers have been around for centuries. You're nothing special.

Studying makes one god now?

 

[del]

You twits offer no counter arguments. At least Amelia made an effort.

Awe... Someone is being Conveniently Selective again.

Did you have me on Ignore?

Some Liguist with an Agenda doesn't Counter EVERY Historical Translation of the Bible over Generations and Generations...

The "What if" and "if this" and "nobody knows" crap doesn't Counter the Versions of the Book that are in your Home if you even have a Bible.



peace...

hysterical thumper is hysterical

 

[Sky Dancer]

By "studying Scripture", I hope you mean more than just reading it and thinking about it. Scripture is best understood when accompanied by question and answer dialogue, contemplation and meditation.

 

[bodecea]

I've heard all these lies before. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and studied the Scriptures all his life. You have no idea what you're speaking about, and all you have are some links to sites that have an agenda.

What "scriptures" did he study? His own letters?

Bodeys God

Hardly. But I know you want to believe that. For some reason it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[BluePhantom]

Thank you, BP, for a well written and informative post. I have to say it confirms my bias rather well, lol.

It all boils down, imo, to the original bad translation of Leviticus, later used by the gospels as fact. It does seem extremely odd that we as a culture seem far more consumed with the question of homosexuality than anyone in biblical times. There is certainly scant mention of it in the bible, if any mention.

And I still can't quite understand why Jesus kept quite about it if it was important to him.

Well I don't know. Cultures change, people change, interest rates fluctuate. But it changed because the western world went from a pagan culture to a Judeo-Christian culture and I think it's fair to say a few things in that regard.

1) We've discovered that gay marriage was legal in pagan cultures like Rome up until the late 4th century when Rome became a Christian empire. So while the anti-gay crowd must concede that there have indeed been cultures where gay marriage was perfectly legal and accepted throughout history, they have been pagan cultures.

2) While the Biblical evidence that homosexuality was considered "sinful" is at best very flimsy as we have shown, it probably wasn't widely accepted by Jewish culture even though it may have been legal.

3) When Christianity became Romanized, the religion turned into one of power, obedience, and fear. It's starting to emerge from that a bit but we still see a lot of these concepts like hell that were contrived by the Church in order to terrify people into obedience. Some of the newest versions of the Bible are starting to use original words instead of the badly translated ones. Some of them are using the words "sheol", "Gehenna", "Tartarus", and "Hades" instead of "hell" and some of them are starting to use "arsenokotai" in Timothy and Corinthians and allowing the reader to reach their own conclusions. That's a good thing....a very good thing. But more to the point, if point #2 is correct then it would make sense that gay marriage would be banned by Roman Emperors after the adoption of Christianity because they would want obedience and order and they almost certainly didn't speak Hebrew. So it would have been very easy for the Popes (who by that time were also interested in obedience and power) to tell them "homosexuality is bad, the Bible says it, just trust us" and the Emperor really would have no way to check lacking the ability to speak Hebrew. And frankly what would the Emperor care? Roman Emperors were blood-thirsty pricks. Even the good ones. Slaughtering people en masse for minor infractions wouldn't even cross their mind as problematic or immoral. So after roughly 1400 years of "you will believe this or die"....well it's going to stick.


4) When it comes to Jesus' silence on the matter. Who knows? He may have spoken on it and it just never got recorded, perhaps His take on it was in a book that was destroyed by the Church, maybe he thought it was an irrelevant topic, maybe He thought it was an obvious given one way or the other. Who knows? But lacking that evidence all we can say is "we really don't know WHAT Jesus would have said about it".

 

[NLT]

What "scriptures" did he study? His own letters?

Bodeys God

Hardly. But I know you want to believe that. For some reason it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

No
maybe this one?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an ?Abomination?? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches

 

[BluePhantom]

The Apostle Peter said Paul's letters were Scripture. Take it up with Peter.

Wasn't Peter BEFORE Paul? Didn't Paul persecute early Christians and then "suddenly" have this lightning conversion?

Pardon me for laughing at it all.

^Defiant to God's Word...

You have Bible in your Home Bodey?...

What's Leviticus 18 and 20 say about Homosexuality in that Book?



peace...

(sigh)....I go through all that and what do you do? Turn around and quote Leviticus again. And people wonder why I drink.

 

[Sky Dancer]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9bSGGTQarA]Krishna Das - Jesus on the Main Line - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Buford]

What "scriptures" did he study? His own letters?

Obviously, Paul studied the Scriptures more than you ever did. Ignorant mockers have been around for centuries. You're nothing special.

Studying makes one god now?

Are you hearing voices? I never said studying makes anyone god. Poor thing.

 

[Buford]

Krishna Das - Jesus on the Main Line - YouTube

Great song.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Krishna Das - Jesus on the Main Line - YouTube

Great song.

It is a great song. I LOVE it. You may like this one too. By Your Grace by Krishna Das

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqgIQc5Xr74"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqgIQc5Xr74[/ame]

 

[Amelia]

This article suggests that Paul might have chosen not to use the word "paiderastïs" because it had a more restrictive meaning than he intended.

Is Arsenokoitai Really that Mysterious? | CRI

Proposition 3. The term arsenokoitai itself indicates an inclusive sense: all men who play the active role in homosexual intercourse. Had Paul intended to single out pederasts he could have used the technical term paiderastïs.

Interesting. His argument seems based on Paul's faulty translation of Leviticus.

Whether or not Paul's translation of Leviticus is faulty, Paul's 50 A.D. understanding of the Septuagint would be germane to the discussion of the passages in question as they pertain to the OP.

 

[BluePhantom]

The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an ?Abomination?? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches

This article is correct. The meaning of the word has been pointed out...it has fallen on deaf ears.

One thing I will say is that "toevah" is used sometimes in regard to Jews themselves and it can be both major and minor transgressions, but the word itself simply denotes "a transgression of some sort". It does not imply the severity. But those instances are rare. Most often it is used in the manner the article suggests and one of those is in the context of Leviticus where it is being used very clearly in regard to rituals associated with Moloch (pagan rituals involving, as I mentioned before, temple prostitutes and orgies). When put into context instead of looked at in isolation, it becomes quite obvious that "abomination" is a very poor translation. Better would be "unclean", "inadvisable", "a bad idea", etc. Let's face it...it was a damned good way to get the clap

 

[Sky Dancer]

The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an ?Abomination?? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches

This article is correct. The meaning of the word has been pointed out...it has fallen on deaf ears.

One thing I will say is that "toevah" is used sometimes in regard to Jews themselves and it can be both major and minor transgressions, but the word itself simply denotes "a transgression of some sort". It does not imply the severity. But those instances are rare. Most often it is used in the manner the article suggests and one of those is in the context of Leviticus where it is being used very clearly in regard to rituals associated with Moloch (pagan rituals involving, as I mentioned before, temple prostitutes and orgies). When put into context instead of looked at in isolation, it becomes quite obvious that "abomination" is a very poor translation. Better would be "unclean", "inadvisable", "a bad idea", etc. Let's face it...it was a damned good way to get the clap

It makes sense to me that homosexuality and other kinds of sexual practices would be "taboo", meaning OK for other cultures, but not us.

 

[mal]

The word “abomination” is found, of course, in the King James translation of Leviticus 18:22, a translation which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” Yet this is a thoroughly misleading rendition of the word toevah, which, while we may not know exactly what it means, definitely does not mean “abomination.” An “abomination” conjures up images of things which should not exist on the face of the earth: three-legged babies, oceans choked with oil, or Cheez-Whiz. And indeed, this is how many religious people regard gays and lesbians. It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, a disease, an abomination.

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an ?Abomination?? | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches

Take out Abomination and read what I Highlighted...

Seriously, not amount of New Liguistic Translation is going to Undo what that says...

And it's Repeated throughout the Bible, Old and New.

"Sin" was also not Translated Correctly?...

Really?...

And none of you have Dealt with how the Beastiality Passage in Moral Law :Translates:...

Convenient that.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

Obviously, Paul studied the Scriptures more than you ever did. Ignorant mockers have been around for centuries. You're nothing special.

Studying makes one god now?

Are you hearing voices? I never said studying makes anyone god. Poor thing.

Ah, so Paul was not a god, he was just a guy, and what he wrote was just.....letters from a guy. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Buford]

Studying makes one god now?

Are you hearing voices? I never said studying makes anyone god. Poor thing.

Ah, so Paul was not a god, he was just a guy, and what he wrote was just.....letters from a guy. Thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever makes you comfortable, dear.

 

[bodecea]

Are you hearing voices? I never said studying makes anyone god. Poor thing.

Ah, so Paul was not a god, he was just a guy, and what he wrote was just.....letters from a guy. Thanks for clearing that up.

Whatever makes you comfortable, dear.

I really don't rely on millenium old letters to make me comfortable.

 

[BluePhantom]

This article suggests that Paul might have chosen not to use the word "paiderastïs" because it had a more restrictive meaning than he intended.

Is Arsenokoitai Really that Mysterious? | CRI

Interesting. His argument seems based on Paul's faulty translation of Leviticus.

Whether or not Paul's translation of Leviticus is faulty, Paul's 50 A.D. understanding of the Septuagint would be germane to the discussion of the passages in question as they pertain to the OP.

And that may indeed be the case, but do not overlook that you are talking about almost 600 years between the time Leviticus was written to the time of Paul. That's a long time for original intent to change, become misunderstood, and become ingrained.

Think of Easter. Ask anyone today what the meaning of Easter is and they will tell you it's about the resurrection of Jesus. Then ask them what bunnies and eggs have to do with the resurrection of Jesus and the vast majority will say: "Uh......I don't know." Ok so why do we have bunnies and eggs all over the place on Easter when it's a celebration of the resurrection? Well the answer I have alluded to before. Bunnies and eggs are symbols of fertility linked to the goddess Eos (earlier Isis in Egypt, later Eostre in England, etc) and at Spring Equinox there would be a massive celebration to give thanks to Eos (or whichever goddess depending on your time frame and geography) and pray for fertile crops, children, etc. Through Eos the world was being resurrected. The fields would grow food again, the rivers would thaw and flow, and there would be plenty.

So the people would color eggs and offer them to Eos as a gift and paint bunnies on things and give her offerings of rabbit, etc but it was all fertility rituals about the rebirth of the Earth. Now the Popes, with their new found power granted by Rome, weren't going to have this because it was pagan, but no matter how hard they tried the people would still celebrate the Festival of Eos. So the Church simply declared that it was not the resurrection of the Earth, it was the resurrection of Jesus. They were not giving thanks and prayer to Eos, they were giving thanks and prayer to Jesus and to God. And they backed this up by killing anyone who said that they were celebrating Eos instead of Jesus.

So when children were raised parents made damned sure they told them that they were celebrating Jesus because of they didn't they would get killed and their children would probably get killed too. Over the centuries, it stuck...the idea became ingrained into our culture that we are celebrating the resurrection of Christ instead of Spring Equinox, Eos, and the resurrection of the Earth.

Now the same stuff happened way back then. Leviticus was written but then 600 years passed between it being written and the life of Paul. During that time similar stuff happened as it did with Easter and Eos, although it was more limited to Jewish culture. The Pharisees and Sadducees gained great power and through it the ability to influence behavior according to their wishes and personal agenda. Jesus flat out flipped a royal bitch over their corruption of the word of God, their arrogance, their hypocrisy, etc if you recall.

So it's not at all inconceivable for Paul's or anyone's understanding of the Septuagint (which was a Greek translation of the original Hebrew by the way) to be seriously flawed by that time due to corruption, power, simple misunderstanding sometimes, faulty tradition ingrained over time, etc. And again, as Paul had never met Jesus there would be no way for him to verify