sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sure. Here’s a link to a concise and approachable explanation: How and When the Word Homosexual Was First Introduced into the Bible | Canyonwalker Connections -- LGBTQ Advocacy
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Clear Challenges to the Trinity Doctrine
- Thread starter TiggerII
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's right, so what about the act?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This list refers to acts of violence. Loving, consensual acts of intimacy between two people who love each other are not included. As I said, the implication here is an act of male prostitution — an act of violence.
Clear said : "
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sojourner claimed : "...the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation..."
The claim that the Christians in this biblical era "had no concept of sexual orientation" is a very unusual claim.
What makes you think that such ancients had "no concept of sexual orientation"?
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Sojourner claimed : "and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. "
Can you offer a bit of data for this claim as well?"
Sojourner replied ; "Here’s a link to a concise and approachable explanation: How and When the Word Homosexual Was First Introduced into the Bible | Canyonwalker Connections -- LGBTQ Advocacy"
Hi @sojourner
1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
The LGBTQ advocacy sites article you referred me makes similar claims as you but I could not find any supporting historical data for your claim.
For example, the writer says : “For those of us who look to the Scriptures for guidance on issues of morality and sexual ethics, to imagine the writers of Leviticus, or the Apostle Paul in the first century, could have understood such things about same-sex attractions is not within the realm of possibility. “
This is simply another claim that this is "not within the realm of possibility" but offers no data to tell us WHY she thinks it is not possible.
The doesn’t provide any actual historical supporting data for your claim that the ancient Christians “had no concept of sexual orientation”.
Do you any data that might support your claim that the ancient Christians "had no concept" of sexual orientation?
2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Here, the problem with your link is similar.
The author not only makes a historically incoherent claim but doesn't support your claim with actual historical data.
For example, Your LGBTQ article claims re the R.V. that : It was here for the first time in any translation, and in any language that two Greek words in the New Testament, arsenokoitai and malakos, were combined to one word and translated as “homosexual.”
This is historically and linguistically incoherent.
The scripture in question does NOT combine these two words, but they remain, in fact and textually, separate.
The article claims this bible uses the english word "homosexual" but does nothing to tell us that the underlying greek word arsenokoitai was not associated anciently with homosexuality.
It is a very strange article that does not actually offer historical data about ancient Christians themselves.
Sojourner, are you sure your two historical claims are supportible by historical data?
If so, Do you have any data regarding why do you think that the Greek words @YoursTrue pointed to did not refer to “homosexual” or "homosexuality" in early Christianity?
Again, I thank you in advance for any data you can provide. I simply have not heard of these claims before and they are unusual historical claims.
Clear
φυακακω
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sojourner claimed : "...the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation..."
The claim that the Christians in this biblical era "had no concept of sexual orientation" is a very unusual claim.
What makes you think that such ancients had "no concept of sexual orientation"?
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Sojourner claimed : "and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. "
Can you offer a bit of data for this claim as well?"
Sojourner replied ; "Here’s a link to a concise and approachable explanation: How and When the Word Homosexual Was First Introduced into the Bible | Canyonwalker Connections -- LGBTQ Advocacy"
Hi @sojourner
1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
The LGBTQ advocacy sites article you referred me makes similar claims as you but I could not find any supporting historical data for your claim.
For example, the writer says : “For those of us who look to the Scriptures for guidance on issues of morality and sexual ethics, to imagine the writers of Leviticus, or the Apostle Paul in the first century, could have understood such things about same-sex attractions is not within the realm of possibility. “
This is simply another claim that this is "not within the realm of possibility" but offers no data to tell us WHY she thinks it is not possible.
The doesn’t provide any actual historical supporting data for your claim that the ancient Christians “had no concept of sexual orientation”.
Do you any data that might support your claim that the ancient Christians "had no concept" of sexual orientation?
2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Here, the problem with your link is similar.
The author not only makes a historically incoherent claim but doesn't support your claim with actual historical data.
For example, Your LGBTQ article claims re the R.V. that : It was here for the first time in any translation, and in any language that two Greek words in the New Testament, arsenokoitai and malakos, were combined to one word and translated as “homosexual.”
This is historically and linguistically incoherent.
The scripture in question does NOT combine these two words, but they remain, in fact and textually, separate.
The article claims this bible uses the english word "homosexual" but does nothing to tell us that the underlying greek word arsenokoitai was not associated anciently with homosexuality.
It is a very strange article that does not actually offer historical data about ancient Christians themselves.
Sojourner, are you sure your two historical claims are supportible by historical data?
If so, Do you have any data regarding why do you think that the Greek words @YoursTrue pointed to did not refer to “homosexual” or "homosexuality" in early Christianity?
Again, I thank you in advance for any data you can provide. I simply have not heard of these claims before and they are unusual historical claims.
Clear
φυακακω
Last edited:
Sorry, on my Gospel, I couldn’t find John 17:126.
And do you mean that Jesus couldn’t tell me all what a spiritual person may to need to know about himself and the real world?
In other words, do you mean that, for some reason, Jesus had to be imperfect in his teachings, so He needed some men to complete his message (as in the case of Revelation for example)?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Take a look at the abstract from this article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v12n01_01?journalCode=wjhm20. The term “homosexuality” was coined in 1869. It was in the 1950s when the APA determined that homosexuality was a “thing.” Ref: https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=orwwu
The ancients only saw it as some kind of deviant behavior.
TiggerII
Active Member
God the Father, is never called God the Father as a designated title as such in the Bible either. Saying, "God, the father of Jesus" is not a title as "God the Father" is. That title isn't in the Bible.
In fact, the word Bible is not in the Bible either. So according to your reasoning, we should not believe the Bible is the Bible, because the Bible never calls itself the Bible?
Just because theologians come up with terminology after the fact, does not mean what they are looking at doesn't come from scripture! Clearly, the non-biblical term "bible" isn't in there, yet most Christians don't claim scripture doesn't exist.
So we can't include all the times he's called "God our father," or "God and father," etc.?
Then what about these? How do they read?
Gal. 1:1; Phil. 2:11; Col. 3:17 (NASB); 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2 (NASB); 2 John 3; Jude 1
Last edited by a moderator:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What list? How do you know what the implication is?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
How many times in scripture God is referred as Father in the New testament?
Best Answer
God was referred to as "our Father" 13 times in the Old Testament, Jesus' frequent use of this title brought a whole new understanding of our relationship with God. Jesus referred to God as His father over 150 times, and He spoke of God as being our father 30 times. This infuriated the religious Jews of Jesus' day who considered it blasphemy to call God their father, because they perceived that to mean they were equal with God (John. 5:17-18).
How many times in scripture God is referred as Father in the New testament? - Answers
Hi @sojourner (and @YoursTrue)
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sojourner claimed : "...the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation..."
The claim that the Christians in this biblical era "had no concept of sexual orientation" is a very unusual claim.
What makes you think that such ancients had "no concept of sexual orientation"?
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Sojourner claimed : "and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. "
Can you offer a bit of data for this claim as well?"
Sojourner;
I want to be clear that I am not simply trying to give you grief on regarding your claims but to see if you have any historically coherent reason to make the claims you are making against @YourTrues claims regarding early Christianity and both awareness of and attitudes toward homosexuality in that period of time.
For example, Barnabas says : “You shall not be sexually promiscuous; “you shall not commit adultery”; you shall not corrupt boys...” The Epistle of Barnabas 19: vs 3-4 and 5; The concept here is that the paragraph that speaks of sexual sins, “corruption” of boys was considered among them (However, Barnabas here, is using the term παιδοφθορήσεις which implies the boy (youth) was not necessary consensual to the act. While this can be considered to be rape, some of their literature makes clear that it is not only rape that is being considered here.
For example, Enoch speaking of the many apostasies that will happen described the conditions where the world will be reduced to confusion “by iniquities and wicked nesses and |abominable| fornications |that is friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report|…” 2nd Enoch 34:1-3
The acts described here are not rape, but “friend with friend in the anus”.
Polycarp also describes “sinful desires in the world” and “neither fornicators nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God,” nor those who do perverse things.... “ The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
The phrase “nor those who do perverse things” covered a variety of sexual proclivities. Pseudo-Phocylides, for example, said : "Do not seek sexual union with irrational animals.” Nor to “transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature.” And to "Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, because many rage for intercourse with a man. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides
The desire “for intercourse with a man” in the same sentence with “boy” demonstrates that Phocylides is not merely speaking of abuse of youth though the Didache does specifically say “you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous” among its other prohibited acts.
Enoch warns those of his age against “the sin which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom,...” 2nd Enoch 10:4 in its laundry list of prohibited acts
In fact, when the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs predicts that . “…your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah…” this prediction is within a long list of acts and attitudes that are sinful in that era. - Levi 14:1-8
In the testament of Jacob, he condemns those who have sexual intercourse with males Testament of Jacob 7:18-20
In such associations, they are not speaking of women who have intercourse with males, but homosexuality as Abraham made clear in his vision where he says “I saw there naked men, forehead to forehead, and their shame and the harm (they wrought) against their friends and their retribution." The Apocalypse of Abraham 24: 1-9;
It is this sort of historical data that indicates that the ancients had a concept of sexual orientation (though what was acceptable to them differs from the modern models) and this sort of historical data demonstrates that the concept of “homosexuality” certainly DID exist in “early centuries”.
I do not think the claim that the ancient Christians “had no concept” of sexual orientation or that the Greek words meaning “homosexual” did not appear in early centuries is historically coherent.
You claim that the english word "homosexuality' was not used until later centuries is irrelevant to the concept that the ancient Christians who spoke Greek DID have both the concept of homosexuality and words that described it.
It is this sort of historical data that I was looking for in support of your claims.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is good
Clear
σετωακω
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sojourner claimed : "...the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation..."
The claim that the Christians in this biblical era "had no concept of sexual orientation" is a very unusual claim.
What makes you think that such ancients had "no concept of sexual orientation"?
REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Sojourner claimed : "and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. "
Can you offer a bit of data for this claim as well?"
Sojourner;
I want to be clear that I am not simply trying to give you grief on regarding your claims but to see if you have any historically coherent reason to make the claims you are making against @YourTrues claims regarding early Christianity and both awareness of and attitudes toward homosexuality in that period of time.
For example, Barnabas says : “You shall not be sexually promiscuous; “you shall not commit adultery”; you shall not corrupt boys...” The Epistle of Barnabas 19: vs 3-4 and 5; The concept here is that the paragraph that speaks of sexual sins, “corruption” of boys was considered among them (However, Barnabas here, is using the term παιδοφθορήσεις which implies the boy (youth) was not necessary consensual to the act. While this can be considered to be rape, some of their literature makes clear that it is not only rape that is being considered here.
For example, Enoch speaking of the many apostasies that will happen described the conditions where the world will be reduced to confusion “by iniquities and wicked nesses and |abominable| fornications |that is friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report|…” 2nd Enoch 34:1-3
The acts described here are not rape, but “friend with friend in the anus”.
Polycarp also describes “sinful desires in the world” and “neither fornicators nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God,” nor those who do perverse things.... “ The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
The phrase “nor those who do perverse things” covered a variety of sexual proclivities. Pseudo-Phocylides, for example, said : "Do not seek sexual union with irrational animals.” Nor to “transgress with unlawful sex the limits set by nature.” And to "Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, because many rage for intercourse with a man. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides
The desire “for intercourse with a man” in the same sentence with “boy” demonstrates that Phocylides is not merely speaking of abuse of youth though the Didache does specifically say “you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous” among its other prohibited acts.
Enoch warns those of his age against “the sin which is against nature, which is child corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom,...” 2nd Enoch 10:4 in its laundry list of prohibited acts
In fact, when the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs predicts that . “…your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah…” this prediction is within a long list of acts and attitudes that are sinful in that era. - Levi 14:1-8
In the testament of Jacob, he condemns those who have sexual intercourse with males Testament of Jacob 7:18-20
In such associations, they are not speaking of women who have intercourse with males, but homosexuality as Abraham made clear in his vision where he says “I saw there naked men, forehead to forehead, and their shame and the harm (they wrought) against their friends and their retribution." The Apocalypse of Abraham 24: 1-9;
It is this sort of historical data that indicates that the ancients had a concept of sexual orientation (though what was acceptable to them differs from the modern models) and this sort of historical data demonstrates that the concept of “homosexuality” certainly DID exist in “early centuries”.
I do not think the claim that the ancient Christians “had no concept” of sexual orientation or that the Greek words meaning “homosexual” did not appear in early centuries is historically coherent.
You claim that the english word "homosexuality' was not used until later centuries is irrelevant to the concept that the ancient Christians who spoke Greek DID have both the concept of homosexuality and words that described it.
It is this sort of historical data that I was looking for in support of your claims.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is good
Clear
σετωακω
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
1) The list that appears in the passage in question.
2) Because I can read. As I said, the term is usually used to denote prostitution. Why would it suddenly be used differently only here?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Except that 1) There is no such term as “homosexual” in either ancient Hebrew or Greek. That’s a pretty good indication that the concept wasn’t extant. If it were, there would have been a term for it. 2) we know that the term “homosexual” was coined in 1869. 3) None of the examples you cite speak of orientation — only of observable acts, which they consider to be “unnatural.” Why? Because they don’t have an advanced knowledge of human sexuality. Remember: these are the same people who think the earth is flat. These are the same people who believe we think with our hearts. There is very limited science in the ancient world.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The list in this verse?
1 Corinthians 6:9 NKJV
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 homosexuals, nor sodomites,
What gave you the idea that the term sodomy is usually used to denote prostitution?
What is sodomy in the Bible?
Originally, the term sodomy, which is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis, was commonly restricted to anal sex. Sodomy laws in many countries criminalized the behavior.
Sodomy - Wikipedia
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
My experience with Koine Greek in Biblical literature.
Hi @YoursTrue and @sojourner
1
)REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sojourner claimed : "...the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation..."
I will consider this claim debunked due to the many examples from post #70 that show the ancients had a concept of sexual orientation and referred to it in their literature as per the examples from :
The Epistle of Barnabas 19: vs 3-4 and 5;
2nd Enoch 34:1-3
The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
Pseudo-Phocylides,
2nd Enoch 10:4
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Levi 14:1-8
Testaments of the Twelve Jacob 7:18-20
The Apocalypse of Abraham 24: 1-9;
To those examples we could add :
Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13 says: “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (NIV)
John Chrysostom, the early Christian apologist argued regarding : “Romans I. 26, 27 thusly.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another.
All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that they changed the natural use. For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insanity.
When Chrysostom says : “All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. ... [The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more sense of shame than men” he is speaking, not only of sexual orientation of males to males, but women oriented to women.
Of course the ancients who wrote the Christian texts had a concept of sexual orientation.
2)REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Sojourner claimed : "and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. "
1) Sojourner said : we know that the term “homosexual” was coined in 1869.
Ummm, the "coining" of the english word is irrelevant to ancient Christian history and their descriptions of homosexuality.
2) Sojourner said : It was in the 1950s when the APA determined that homosexuality was a “thing.”
Who cares when the APA determined homosexuality was a "thing".
It is also irrelevant to ancient Christianity and their descriptions of and position toward homosexuality.
3) Sojourner said :There is no such term as “homosexual” in either ancient Hebrew or Greek. That’s a pretty good indication that the concept wasn’t extant.
The fact that the ancient Hebrews and Greek Christians who wrote the texts we are talking about speak of homosexuality, describe homosexuality, apply terms to homosexuality, and take a moral position on homosexuality is confirmation that the concept WAS extant.
4) Sojourner said : If it were, there would have been a term for it.
Actually there are multiple terms and phrases describing homosexuality among the early Judeo-Christians.
For example, Polycarp uses the same greek word arsenokoitai as Paul used in reference to homosexuality.
If you check the Greek of the other ancient quotes I’ve given you, you will find this term and other descriptions as well.
For examples from ancient Judeo-Christian literature :
"friend with friend in the anus" is a reference to homosexuality
men with "deep lust/raging for intercourse with a man" is a reference to homosexuality
"corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom",..is another reference to homosexuality
Males who have “sexual intercourse with males” is another reference to homosexuality
“naked men, forehead to forehead,” is another euphemism reference to homosexuality
All of these examples from ancient Judeo-Christian literature have already been given.
Sojourner claimed : "None of the examples you cite speak of orientation"
Of course they refer to sexual orientation (and sexual desires and sexual acts as well).
It is irrational to be given so many examples where a man has a “deep desire” for intercourse with a man and to then claim such examples do not refer to a specific sexual desire/orientation.
Readers : I will consider both the claim that ancient Judeo-Christians who wrote the biblical text did not have a concept of sexual orientation and the claim that the ancient Judeo-Christians had no words to describe homosexuality debunked due to the many examples that demonstrate otherwise. Thus, @YoursTrue original claim (in post #41 that we are referring to) is correct.
Clear
σεακειω
1
)REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS "HAD NO CONCEPT" OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sojourner claimed : "...the ancients who wrote the texts had no concept of sexual orientation..."
I will consider this claim debunked due to the many examples from post #70 that show the ancients had a concept of sexual orientation and referred to it in their literature as per the examples from :
The Epistle of Barnabas 19: vs 3-4 and 5;
2nd Enoch 34:1-3
The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians
Pseudo-Phocylides,
2nd Enoch 10:4
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Levi 14:1-8
Testaments of the Twelve Jacob 7:18-20
The Apocalypse of Abraham 24: 1-9;
To those examples we could add :
Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13 says: “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (NIV)
John Chrysostom, the early Christian apologist argued regarding : “Romans I. 26, 27 thusly.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another.
All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that they changed the natural use. For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insanity.
When Chrysostom says : “All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. ... [The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more sense of shame than men” he is speaking, not only of sexual orientation of males to males, but women oriented to women.
Of course the ancients who wrote the Christian texts had a concept of sexual orientation.
2)REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE GREEK WORDS MEANING "HOMOSEXUAL" DID NOT APPEAR IN EARLY CENTURIES
Sojourner claimed : "and the word “homosexual” does not appear until centuries after the text was written. "
1) Sojourner said : we know that the term “homosexual” was coined in 1869.
Ummm, the "coining" of the english word is irrelevant to ancient Christian history and their descriptions of homosexuality.
2) Sojourner said : It was in the 1950s when the APA determined that homosexuality was a “thing.”
Who cares when the APA determined homosexuality was a "thing".
It is also irrelevant to ancient Christianity and their descriptions of and position toward homosexuality.
3) Sojourner said :There is no such term as “homosexual” in either ancient Hebrew or Greek. That’s a pretty good indication that the concept wasn’t extant.
The fact that the ancient Hebrews and Greek Christians who wrote the texts we are talking about speak of homosexuality, describe homosexuality, apply terms to homosexuality, and take a moral position on homosexuality is confirmation that the concept WAS extant.
4) Sojourner said : If it were, there would have been a term for it.
Actually there are multiple terms and phrases describing homosexuality among the early Judeo-Christians.
For example, Polycarp uses the same greek word arsenokoitai as Paul used in reference to homosexuality.
If you check the Greek of the other ancient quotes I’ve given you, you will find this term and other descriptions as well.
For examples from ancient Judeo-Christian literature :
"friend with friend in the anus" is a reference to homosexuality
men with "deep lust/raging for intercourse with a man" is a reference to homosexuality
"corruption in the anus in the manner of Sodom",..is another reference to homosexuality
Males who have “sexual intercourse with males” is another reference to homosexuality
“naked men, forehead to forehead,” is another euphemism reference to homosexuality
All of these examples from ancient Judeo-Christian literature have already been given.
Sojourner claimed : "None of the examples you cite speak of orientation"
Of course they refer to sexual orientation (and sexual desires and sexual acts as well).
It is irrational to be given so many examples where a man has a “deep desire” for intercourse with a man and to then claim such examples do not refer to a specific sexual desire/orientation.
Readers : I will consider both the claim that ancient Judeo-Christians who wrote the biblical text did not have a concept of sexual orientation and the claim that the ancient Judeo-Christians had no words to describe homosexuality debunked due to the many examples that demonstrate otherwise. Thus, @YoursTrue original claim (in post #41 that we are referring to) is correct.
Clear
σεακειω
Last edited:
Probably the Christian, i.e., the one claiming to worship God but is a hypocrite, has more blame.... he (or she) is turning people away from Christianity (although, really, it’s not Christ’s fault that people claim to follow him but don’t live up to his standards.)
You said something interesting: that the (professed) Christian is doing “all the things in this building that the rest do.”
That’s a corrupting influence, wouldn’t you say?
Such actions (lying, stealing, ‘sleeping around’) are still wrong in God’s view / the Christian context. That’s why the leaders of Christendom, who should’ve taught their members accurately, have greater responsibility & accountability before Jehovah God, than the fleeced sheep.
Do you know the Bible speaks of a “Great Harlot”, “Babylon the Great”, in Revelation 17 & Revelation 18, being destroyed by God?
If you read the description given of her, it only fits one entity: all religion, as a group, that has supported conflicts / war and through other means alienates humankind from Jehovah God! (“In her was found the blood of....all who had been slain on the Earth.” - Rev.18:24)That’s just about all of it!
(BTW, sometimes “Beasts”, as used in the Bible, represent political powers / governments. If you’re genuinely interested and would like to know why we {JW’s} say that, just ask.)
Take care.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
thanks for that superb and thoughtful reply
i didn’t realize you were JW
it is quite likely that I see some of the same things you do in Revelation
i know I don’t see revelation the same as the catholic or most protestant churches.
Hi @Jeremiah Ames and @Hockeycowboy
I agree with Jeremiah regarding Hockeycowboys point regarding the hypocrite.
I also think that the hypocrite that has greater moral knowledge and understanding has greater responsibility to act according to that greater light and knowledge and understanding than those with lessor moral knowledge and lessor understanding. I like your logic on this point HockeyCowboy.
Clear
I agree with Jeremiah regarding Hockeycowboys point regarding the hypocrite.
I also think that the hypocrite that has greater moral knowledge and understanding has greater responsibility to act according to that greater light and knowledge and understanding than those with lessor moral knowledge and lessor understanding. I like your logic on this point HockeyCowboy.
Clear
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
indeed
you point out the burden that comes with greater understanding
luke 12:48 ….. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required”……..
adding this:
john 9:41 even shows that the blind person is considered sinless:
“Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”
Pretty powerful. No sin.
but those who claim to see, have a problem
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
None of these mention anything about orientation, though. They mention only acts. In fact, when John C. Mentions changing the natural use, it’s a clear indication that he didn’t know about a natural same-sex attraction (homosexuality). You’ve managed to prove my point here.
They’re not describing homosexuality. They’re describing actions. It’s relevant because it shows where science recognizes that there is such a thing as an orientation by coining a term for it that previously did not exist.
Because it shows where science recognized that an orientation exists.
They don’t speak of an orientation; only acts.
No, there are multiple terms and phrases for specific acts that are not specifically the result of an orientation.
Nope. It refers to an act, not an orientation.
This is closer, but even lust isn’t the same as orientation.
Actually, this is a reference to rape.
Nope. It only refers to an act.
See above.
No they don’t, because none of the acts mentioned are specifically the result of an orientation.
There was only one example where that was mentioned, and “deep desire” =/= orientation. It only = “lust.”
Sexual orientation is much more complicated than these passages allow for. Sexual orientation was not recognized as a unique facet of sexuality until the 20th century.