Contributors

Monday, January 13, 2014

Picking And Choosing

Evangelical Christians continually rip liberal Christians by saying that they pick and choose what verses of the Bible to follow and which ones not to follow. This is ridiculous when one considers, for example what God told Moses in Leviticus.

“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. (Leviticus 20:9)

‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. (Leviticus 21:09)

Considering I don't see any conservative Christians putting their kids to death for mouthing off to them, they pick and choose as well just like every other Christian. So, their protestations are completely ridiculous. In fact, nearly all of the 600+ commands of the Old Testament are no longer applicable today. Most Christians do not follow them unless they are Messianic Jews. What remains applicable today are the Ten Commandments + Jesus's New Commandment.

It would seem, then, that the issue of homosexuality should also be swept away with archaic OT laws and commands as it is mentioned with all the rest of them. The problem is that homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28. Paul, not God, is talking here so that should be the first clue as to how much weight it should hold. Further, something has clearly been lost in the translation from Greek to English as noted in this excellent piece from St. John's Metropolitan Community Church.

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is to coin a new word from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13. 

In the Septuagint, Leviticus 20:13 is something like hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos (And not lie-down with mankind [in] beds [of] a woman/wife). Notice the words arsenos koiten together there? It would have surprised no one for the scholar Paul to have compounded the noun arseno with the following Greek verb koiten into a new word, thereby repeating the prohibition of the abuse of temple prostitution in Leviticus – and it would be no surprise that his learned audience had no need of a translation or an explanation of the new word for an old idea; they, too, would have been familiar with the passage in Leviticus. (This would not be Paul’s only reference to earlier Scriptural phrasings; for example, when he wanted a phrase for ‘female’ and ‘male’ other than more common pairs, he used thelusi and arsen, words that had appeared together in the narrative of creation in Genesis.) 

Once Paul’s warnings helped temple prostitution disappear from the landscape, the force of his words very likely caused later Christians to extend the meaning of arsenokoites to cover other behaviors that Christians found regrettable. Early Christians and Jews also applied the word to incest and orgiastic conduct. For a time it designated masturbation (arseno is singular, as masturbation generally is…). The only certain statement that can be made about the word is that it has changed in its perceived meaning and translation over time.

St. John's Metropolitan Community Church also offers this link and this link for more background on the two words that Paul uses.  Given this evidence, it's quite clear that society, not God, decided that homosexuality was a sin and put that bias into later English translations of the Bible. This means that our changing culture is not violating anything in accepting gay Christians as how God made them as opposed to evil sinners who need to be deprogrammed.

When Jesus said "Keep My Commandments," He meant it quite literally. The rest of it can either be viewed as kind advice (Psalms and Proverbs) or a code of laws that no longer applies to today's society.

51 comments:

GuardDuck said...

So the Bible isn't actually wrong?

Mark Ward said...

As I have always said, GD, it's right about some things and wrong about others. You actually think that as well but you just can't admit it because Markadelphia can't win the internets (net worth=0).

From the other thread...

Ok, so by what metric do you decide the Bible is wrong?

Did God say it? Y/N

Did a person say it? Y/N

Did God change it? Y/N

After that, you have to answer the why and look at the history and the context of whatever book of the Bible you are examining. That's how you decide. Give me an example and I'll illustrate.

So how can the Bible be 'wrong' about a subject because society has 'moved on' if the Bible tells you that subject doesn't apply to your society?

Exactly what I have been saying all along. The OT doesn't apply to us. It applied to the Jewish people at the time. The only thing that still applies is the 10 commandments. The same thing is true for Paul's command of the early church in terms of gender roles.

Again, I get what you are trying to do here and it's similar to what my friend said a while back, remember?

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2013/11/right-for-that-generation.html

My friend contends it was right for the time. Maybe with some of the laws it was but not all of them. We can look back from a more advanced culture and say it was wrong to treat women and children that way. Stoning people? Neither you nor I think that is the right thing to do now or then. Conservatives in the Islamic faith say it's OK to treat women like property. They are wrong and it's never acceptable in this or any other time.

How exactly does that happen M? How does God speak in some parts but not all?

That would be the parts where it starts off with "God said, "..." How long has it been since you read the Bible? If you have a King James Bible (as I do) Christ's words are in red. Remember, the Bible was written in third person.

GuardDuck said...

Give me an example of what's it's wrong about.

Previously you've used the Bible's treatment of women.

Is it wrong about that? Why is it wrong? How did you determine it is wrong?

If you determine it is wrong based upon being able to read the Bible's context and determine what it says doesn't apply to us then IT'S NOT WRONG BECAUSE IT TELLS YOU IT DOES NOT APPLY.

Exactly what I have been saying all along. The OT doesn't apply to us. It applied to the Jewish people at the time.

No, actually NMN told you that months ago, but you argued with him. Just like you've been arguing with me about this. If something in the Bible doesn't apply to us because the Bible itself tells us it doesn't apply then you are incorrect to say the Bible is wrong about it.

Words mean things. Your contention is that the Bible is wrong. But when you claim it is wrong you use the Bible's own EXEMPTIONS to somehow prove it. USE THE RIGHT WORDS.

What you are saying is not the Bible is wrong. It is that some people fail to comprehend what the Bible actually says, they fail to read for comprehension and context. KINDA LIKE NMN AND I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU.

Mark Ward said...

If that were the case, GD, then both of you would understand that homosexuality is not a sin. Or that people no longer have to focus on sin because of Jesus. Or that most of the OT no longer applies to Christians today. I don't think that's what you are now admitting but I could be wrong:)

GuardDuck said...

If it were actually the case that you would ever bother to read what I write you would find that I never said any such thing.....

GuardDuck said...

Plus, you completely ignored my point.....again.

Mark Ward said...

Words mean things.

Yes, they do. So why do you always choose the simplest and most literal definition? You don't just do it with what I write but seemingly with every author. And what about translated words? I've demonstrated in this post that the English translation of the original Greek of the Bible is, at the very least, questionable. It seems that words may not always mean what you like or want them to mean.

The Bible says that the Earth was created in 6 days. Human days or God days? Science tells us it is not human days.

Jesus said that if we look at a woman with lust we should poke our eye out. Did He mean that literally or was He using hyperbole? Metaphor?

How you answer these questions determine whether or not you are correct about my argument being valid or not.

GuardDuck said...

Are you arguing the Bible is wrong? Or are you arguing that our reading of it is wrong?

Mark Ward said...

I'm done answering your questions, GD. I've been more than fair up to this point. Really, you can't legitimately criticize me without having a view of your own....a view that backs up your critique of me. I'm calling into question that critique and asking for substance. Answer my questions above and we can continue. If words mean things, how should we read those two examples?

GuardDuck said...

I think I have been more than fair and explicit with you, explaining exactly what I have been arguing and why my personal view of the Bible has no relevance upon my argument with your argument.

That you keep asking is either evidence that you still cannot or will not read what is said to you or that you refuse to accept an argument that's not based in emotion or 'feelings'.


Ok, fine. I'm an agnostic. No, wait, I'm an evangelical. Nope, that's not it, I'm Muslim. Nah, I'm Buddhist.

Pick one. Pick them all. My arguments do not change based upon whatever I am, because I am not arguing that 'my' view about the Bible is right and yours is wrong.

I am arguing from the perspective of someone your argument is trying to convince. And it is failing to do so because your conclusion of 'the Bible is sometimes wrong' is not backed up by an argument that shows the Bible sometimes being wrong.

Mark Ward said...

I don't care what your beliefs are. You made an assertion that my argument is illogical and that words mean things. Fine. Now we are testing that assertion by you answering my two questions.

GuardDuck said...

I don't care what your beliefs are

Then why do you keep asking????????????



You made an assertion that my argument is illogical and that words mean things

It is. You don't claim to be an atheist who says the Bible is wrong because it's all made up.

You claim to be a Christian who places faith in things that can't be proven, but also claims parts of the Bible are 'wrong'. Further, what you claim as 'wrong' are both things that could be called 'factually incorrect' as well as 'morally wrong'. You don't distinguish between the two. What is wrong and why it's wrong you have variously described as being:

That society can decide what's wrong.

or

The Bible tells us what can be ignored.

or

Poor translation or comprehension of parts of the Bible by the people reading or translating.

We've been over the first one - and I notice you aren't sticking to that argument any more. So I would have to assume that you have given up on that argument.

The second argument is illogical based upon words meaning things. If the claim is the Bible is 'wrong' but you use the Bible's own exemptions as the reason it's 'wrong' then you are not using the words 'the Bible is wrong' properly.

The third argument is your newest grasp. But it's not new. Both NMN and I told you that weeks ago. And again - if something is taken out of context, read improperly or translated poorly then it's not a sign that the Bible is wrong - it's a sign that the person reading it is wrong.



So to answer your questions:

The Bible says that the Earth was created in 6 days. Human days or God days? Science tells us it is not human days.

So? It's God's days? Is it simile to explain God's desire for the work week? Does that make the Bible wrong? Do you believe in God? If you don't believe in God then the Bible is wrong. If you do?? Are God's days different than ours? Could a man possibly study this further and come up with what God meant? If so, then is the Bible really wrong, or is it our understanding that is wrong?

Jesus said that if we look at a woman with lust we should poke our eye out. Did He mean that literally or was He using hyperbole? Metaphor?

Well should you? Really, that's a serious question for a person who believes what Jesus says. Maybe it is hyperbole or metaphor - which would then go back to the reader's comprehension and not that the Bible is wrong.

But what if it isn't metaphor and is direct orders from Jesus? Who are you to claim it's wrong? And remember, we're not talking 'wrong' as a factually incorrect. This would be a matter of 'wrong' as morally wrong. Do you find it at all arrogant to say that the son of God could be wrong in his moral judgments? By what metric could you judge this as morally wrong as a follower of Christ? I know a non-believer could unilaterally judge this command as wrong. A non-believer does not believe Jesus to be the son of God, therefore his commands carry no weight. A person who supposedly does believe is different.

So, how could you, a believer, dismiss and call wrong Jesus' own words?

Of course you could explain it as poor comprehension of the reader. Perhaps someone who doesn't understand simile, metaphor and context. Just like NMN and I explained to you weeks ago.....

Which goes nowhere in backing up a claim that the Bible is wrong.

Mark Ward said...

Well, you didn't really answer my questions. All you did was pose more questions. The actual answers to those questions illustrate my ongoing point that it's not an either/or as you are irrationally sticking to above. You seem to be trapped eternally in the very much false law of non contradiction.

But the larger concern is this...for some reason, you are very concerned about whether or not I'm logical. This is because you hold out the hope that if you somehow "prove" me to be illogical here, that I'm wrong about EVERYTHING I say. Now, that's not logical!

GuardDuck said...

you are very concerned about whether or not I'm logical. This is because you hold out the hope that if you somehow "prove" me to be illogical here, that I'm wrong about EVERYTHING I say.


That's crap and you know it. At least I think you are intelligent enough to know it.

You posted that the Bible is wrong. Why would you post it? Not just once, but you've made multiple posts claiming such. It's almost like you are trying to convince 'somebody' of that.

But you can't convince somebody of something if the logic, the substance of your argument does not work. You start from A and conclude C but how you get there does not work.

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that your conclusion is right and trying to avoid analysing concerns over your logic. Do you not have any desire to verify the correctness of your argument. Or do you just not want to have your conclusions questioned? Or do you just 'know' that you are right and don't even need to bother double checking yourself?

You have spent the last several weeks doing the equivalent of 'la-la-la-la! I can't hear you!'. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste.

I had never heard of this word before. So I started digging, and digging. It's not among any of my references. And a search online found only the same word-for-word assertion: "the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males." Nowhere did I find an authoritative reference for this. I gave up when I started hitting mostly foreign languages sites (like Russian).

On a hunch, I looked up the definition for "pederasty" which sounds like it might have come from that Greek word. That's when I hit pay dirt.

--------------------

pederasty
noun

homosexual relations between men and boys

[C17: from New Latin paederastia, from Greek, from pais boy + erastēs lover, from eran to love]


Word Origin & History

pederasty
"sodomy with a boy," 1609, from Mod.L. pæderastia, from Gk. paiderastia "love of boys," from paiderastes "pederast," from pais (gen. paidos) "child, boy" (see pedo-) + erastes "lover," from erasthai "to love." Pederast is 1730s, from Fr. pédéraste, from Gk. paiderastes.

--------------------

Oh look, there's that Greek word right at the end of that description of where we got the word.

That was enough to lead me to the key part of that compound word: "pais".

--------------------

παις (pais), παιδος (paidos) m and f: a young person, normally below the age of puberty and without distinction as to sex — ‘child.’ ιδοντες δε … τους παιδας τους κραζοντας εν τϖ ιερϖ (idontes de … tous paidas tous krazontas en tō ierō) ‘and when they saw … the children shouting in the Temple’ Mt 21:15.

The term παις (pais) may occur with either masculine or feminine articles and corresponding adjectival attributes. These gender distinctions indicate whether the person referred to is male or female. With the masculine article or attributives one may translate παις (pais) as ‘boy,’ and similarly with female attributives one may translate παις (pais) as ‘girl.’

– Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains

--------------------

So it turns out paiderasste was NOT the word for homosexuality, but for men having sex with children. If Paul had actually used that word, you could have argued (with actual credibility) that he only intended to describe pederasty as a sin. But by (as your quote correctly points out) borrowing from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13 he produced a term that was much broader: males having sex with males. (Which was he describes using standard Greek words in Romans 1.)

The paragraph starting with "In the Septuagint…" is accurate. But then that quote goes on…

Once Paul’s warnings helped temple prostitution disappear from the landscape…

Wait! Hold it! Whiplash warning! Just a cotton pickin' minute! Where the heck did that come from?!? It's nowhere in the explanation just given. It's nowhere in the passage Paul clearly referenced. Heck, cult/temple prostitution is nowhere in Leviticus, period. Nor does Paul EVER mention the practice.

That is BLATANTLY adding something to the text THAT. IS. NOT, REPEAT, NOT. THERE!!!

Anonymous said...

And for those who can stomach wading through scholarly writing:

--------------------

κοιτη G3130 (koitē), bed, marriage bed, intercourse.

CL In secular Gk. koitē, besides its common meaning bed, connotes the marriage bed (Aeschylus, Sophocles). It was used also of the den of an animal or the nest of a bird as well as of a box or basket.

OT In Wis. 3:13 the word is used in the phrase hētis ouk egnō koitēn en paraptōmati (“who has not known intercourse in transgression”) to describe an illicit union. In Wis. 3:16 koitē occurs in combination with sperma in a sense similar to the use of šikbat-zera‘ (lit. discharge of seed) in Heb. where the connotation is that of coitus (Lev. 15:18; 18:20; 19:20; Num. 5:13; cf. Lev. 15:16 f., 32; 22:4; see further below). The Greek expression is modified by paranomou (unlawful) to connote the concept of illicit sexual congress. In Sir. 23:18 v.l. the word koitē occurs in the phrase pornos parabainōn apo tēs koitēs autou to describe “a fornicator who strays from his marriage bed.”

In the LXX koitē stands for a number of Heb. words, most frequently forms of the verb šākab, lie down. It represents the noun miškāb on numerous occasions with the basic meaning of bed, as the place of sleep or rest (e.g. 2 Sam. 11:13; 1 Ki. 1:47; Mic. 2:1). In Exod. 10:23 koitē represents the Heb. tahat, place, in the context of the plague of darkness on Egypt. The expression is probably used more generally in the Heb. than the LXX allows, for the word tahat may denote a place of sitting as well as lying. In Daniel the word miškāb is represented by koitē in the LXX and, in each instance, refers to the bed as a place of rest. In Isa. 56:10 koitē is used in the sense of rest in the phrase enypniazomenoi koitēn, dreaming of rest.

The word koitē stands for several Heb. words that connote the home of an animal such as the Heb. rēbes (Jer. 50:6) which means sheepfold. The word also represents the verbal form rābas in the phrase koitēn poimniōn, fold of flocks, in Isa. 17:2. In Isa. 11:8 koitē stands for the Heb. me‘ûrâh which connotes the den of a snake, and in Mic. 2:12 it represents the Heb. dōber, pasture. The noun mā‘ôn, lair, is represented by koitē in Jer. 10:22. And the noun me‘ōnâh, dwelling, lair, is represented by koitē in Job 37:8; 38:40. The word koitē is used of the sick bed in the LXX as in Ex. 21:18 where it represents the Heb. miškāb. See also Job 33:19; Ps. 41:3.

In the LXX koitē also stands for the Heb. šekābâh. The Heb. word can connote the idea of layer or deposit as in a layer of dew (Exod. 16:13, 14) as well as the act of lying. The word occurs in the latter sense in the phrase šikbat-zera‘ (lit. “a laying of seed”), a technical term in the Levitical legislation used to refer to the emission of semen. In Lev. 15:18 the expression šikbat-zera‘ occurs as the cognate accusative of šākab, lie, in a section describing the means of cleansing in the case of sexual defilement. Literally the statement says “If a man should lie with a woman ‘a laying of semen,’” and thus describes the act of “laying” in the sense of completion of coition. A similar usage of the expression occurs in Lev. 19:20; Num. 5:13. The word šekābâh seems to have another connotation in the same expression, however, for it is used in Lev. 15:16, 17 of emission of semen apart from coitus in which instance the word seems to be used in the sense of “deposit,” hence emission. The concluding statement to this legislative section (Lev. 15:32) uses the phrase šikbat-zera‘ to cover both instances of emission. The expression is used similarly in Lev. 22:4.

Anonymous said...

(κοιτη continued)

The word miškab is represented by koitē in the LXX in a number of instances where the connotation is that of bed in the sense of a place of rest but with associative sexual implications deriving from Levitical regulations relating to various forms of sexual impurity (Lev. 15:21, 23, 24, 26). In Prov. 7:17 the word is used of the harlot’s bed thus connoting in an implicit sense sexual intercourse. It is used similarly in Isa. 57:7 where the prophet berates the people for setting their beds on the mountains. The reference is to idolatry and hence is used also here in the sense of spiritual fornication.

Frequently the word koitē reflects a distinctly metaphorical use of the Heb. miškāb as a surrogate for sexual congress as in Lev. 18:22; 20:13, where the word occurs in the plural construct state with ’iššâh, woman. In Num. 31:17, 18, 35 and Jdg. 21:11, 12 koitē is used in a similar fashion in the expression yāda‘ miškab zākār, to know the bed of a male. The Heb. šekōbet is translated by koitē and also connotes the concept of copulation. It always occurs in construction with nātan, give. This expression occurs in Lev. 18:20, 23; Num. 5:20. In each instance the term connotes illicit sexual relationships.

The word koitē also represents Heb. words connoting the marriage bed as Gen. 49:4 where miškāb is used, and 1 Chron. 5:1 where the Heb. word is yāsûa‘, a poetic word for bed.

NT In the NT koitē occurs on 4 occasions. In Lk. 11:7 it is used in the sense of bed as a place of rest. In this context, an individual in Jesus’ parable protests that he cannot help someone who has solicited aid because he is in bed.

In Rom. 9:10 the word occurs in the expression koitēn echousa, and is a euphemism for coitus, and, by expansion, conception and pregnancy. In this sense it is similar to the use of miškāb as a surrogate for coition, but no clear instance exists in Heb. where the word may connote the result of coition, i.e., conception. The theological point of the passage is that Rebekah conceived children “by one man, our forefather Isaac.” Yet before either of these male twins had done anything good or bad God in his divine sovereignty had decreed that “the elder shall serve the younger” (Rom. 9:12; cf. Gen. 25:23). The argument forms an important part of Paul’s case demonstrating to Jewish readers the consistency of divine sovereignty in the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God.

The word koitē is used in the plur. in Rom. 13:13 in the sense of illicit sexual union. In this context the word is accompanied by such terms as revelling (kōmos), drunkenness (methē), and licentiousness (aselgeia), all of which are also in the plur. Believers are warned to avoid them, together with quarreling (eris) and jealousy (zēlos), “but to put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:14).

In Heb. 13:4 the word occurs in the sense of “marriage bed” as it does in the OT. In this context the writer affirms that the marriage relationship is an honourable one, and at the same time it is to be kept honourable.

— New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:586-587.

Anonymous said...

αρσην G781 (arsēn), male; θηλυς G2559 (thēlys), female; αρσενοκοιτης G780 (arsenokoitēs), male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.

CL arsēn occurs in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards, sometimes in the Attic form arrēn (often in papyri, and also Philo, Josephus and Rom. 1:27 v.l.). (On the form see Funk ß 34 (2); Moulton, Grammar, II, 103.) It means male as opposed to female, thēlys (cf. Plato, Leg. 2, 9 p. 665c; K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, I, 1928, 15, 18). thēlys is also found from Homer onwards as an adj. meaning female, but also with the art. meaning woman (e.g. Hdt. 3, 109; Xen., Mem. 2, 1, 4). On the phrase arsēn kai thēlys, male and female, cf. Plato, Rep. 454d; Aristot., Met. 988a 5.

OT arsēn occurs some 54 times in the LXX canonical and uncanonical writings, chiefly for the Heb. zākār. It appears in the phrase arsen kai thēly, male and female, in Gen. 1:27 (Heb. zākār ûneqēbâh) of the creation of male and female in the image of God (cf. also Gen. 5:2; 6:19 f.; 7:2 f., 9, 15 f.; Lev. 3:1, 6; 12:7, referring not only to man and woman but to the male and female of animal species in the flood story and in sacrifice). The male is referred to on his own in Gen. 17:14, 23 (the institution of male circumcision as the covenant sign); Exod. 1:16 ff., 22; 2:2 (Pharaoh’s attempt to exterminate the Israelites by destroying male infants); Exod. 12:5 (the Passover lamb had to be a male without blemish); and Lev. 1:3, 10; 4:23; 22:19; Mal. 1:14 (in connection with sacrifice); Lev. 6:29, 7:6 (of priests); Lev. 18:22; 20:13 (in condemnation of homosexual practices); Lev. 27:3, 5 ff. (in the valuation of the people); Num. 1:2; 3:40 (in the census of the people); Num. 31:17 f.; Jos. 17:2; Jdg. 21:11 f. (in historical narratives); Job 3:3; Isa. 26:14; 66:7; Jer. 20:15; 30:6; Sir. 33:26 (23); 2 Macc. 7:21; 4 Macc. 15:30 (of males generally). The references to the male and female correspond to those to man and woman generally in the OT. On the one hand, there is the recognition in Gen. of the divinely instituted parity in that man and woman together constitute the image of God, and their complementary roles in the transmission of life in both the human and the animal realm. On the other hand, there are certain roles (e.g. in receiving the covenant sign, in the priesthood, and in certain sacrifices) that only the male may fill.

NT 1 The creative act in Gen. 1:27 is referred to in Matt. 19:4 par. Mk. 10:6 in connection with divorce. Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees takes it as the major premise for his teaching on marriage: “from the beginning he created them male and female.” This leads to the minor premise quoted from Gen. 2:24: “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [Matt. also gives ”and shall cleave to his wife“] and the two shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:5; Mk. 10:7 f.). The conclusion is drawn: “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God put together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:8 f.). Gen. 1:27 is also referred to in 1 Clem. 33:5 and 2 Clem. 14:2.

2 Lk. 2:23 tells how Jesus’ parents offered the sacrifice prescribed for males by Exod. 13:2, 12 at his birth (Bird).

Anonymous said...

(αρσην continued)

3 Paul’s use of arsēn is interesting in that it exhibits a tension between the creation ordinances and their abolition in the gospel age. By contrast the ungodly have abolished the creation ordinances for sexual relations in a way which can only bring judgment.

(a) In Rom. 1:27 arsēn (v.l. arrēn) is used 3 times which RSV translates by “men”: “and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” In this passage sexual perversion is seen as a result of (and to that extent as a judgment on) man’s sin in worshipping the creature rather than the creator. Because he has put something else in the place which can only properly belong to God, man’s natural relationships have become perverted. Josephus also pointed out that unnatural relations between males was punishable by death (Ap. 1, 199; cf. Lev. 20:13; 18:22, 29). On Rom. 1 generally, see G. Bornkamm, “The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)”, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 47-70. Paul uses the noun arsenokoitēs, a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite (Marriage, art. κοιτη), as one who is excluded from the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9) and condemned by the law (1 Tim. 1:10; cf. Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13; Deut. 23:17; Punishment).

(b) On the other hand, Gal. 3:28 asserts that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This, however, is not a call to abolish all earthly relationships. Rather, it puts these relationships in the perspective of salvation history. As Paul goes on to say, “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29; cf. also Rom. 10:2). All who are in Christ have the same status before God; but they do not necessarily have the same function. In the context of the circumcision question in Gal., the assertion is doubly relevant. For women could not be recipients of the sign which Judaizers were insisting as a prerequisite for full salvation. There may also be an underlying Adam-typology in the passage. Some rabbis asserted that Adam was originally androgynous (cf. J. Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of St Paul’s Epistle, 1969, 326).

4 Rev. 12:5, 13 takes up the imagery of Isa. 66:7 and Ps. 2:9 in the vision of the dragon’s attack on the woman with the male child: “she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child.” Whereas the child is here clearly Christ, the woman, in the light of the following verses, represents the mother of Jesus and also the church whose other “offspring” are now pursued by the dragon.

— New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2:570-57.

Anonymous said...

More copying and pasting:

--------------------

First, the term arsenokoites 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 paiderastes.

Second, the likely derivation of the word from the Levitical prohibitions (LXX ) strengthens the case for an inclusive meaning. What kind of same-sex intercourse would have hurdled the obstacle of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in Paul's mind? Surely none since these prohibitions speak generically of all men who have sexual intercourse with any and every kind of male.

Third, to adopt the position of Nissinen and others, we would have to ignore the viewpoints on same-sex intercourse of two prominent first-century Jews, Josephus and Philo, undoubtedly representative of first-century Jews generally. As we have seen, both reject homosexual intercourse on the grounds that it is not intercourse between a man and a woman. Josephus clearly adopted the most inclusive understanding of the prohibitions in Lev 18:22 and 20:13: "The law recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman, and that only for procreation of children. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males" (Ag. Ap. 2.199). As noted in our discussion of Philo' s perspective on the malakoi, what Philo abhorred more than anything else about homosexual intercourse was not its procreative incapacity but rather its inherent distortion of male sexuality; namely, a man substituting a male for a female in sexual intercourse. Clearly, for both Philo and Josephus, the only acceptable, complementary partner for sexual intercourse was someone of the opposite sex. If all the forms of homosexual intercourse known to the human species could have been paraded before Josephus and Philo, surely none would have met with their approval.

Anonymous said...

(continued

Fourth, the meaning which Paul gave to arsenokoitai ultimately has to be unpacked in light of Rom 1:24-27. Scholars who want to adopt a very restricted meaning for arsenokoitai usually treat 1 Cor 6:9 in isolation from Rom 1:24-27. Is it not logical to assume that what Paul says in Rom 1:24-27 tells us precisely what it is about the malakoi and arsenokoitai that Paul rejects? When Paul speaks of the sexual intercourse of "males with males" (arsenes en arsesin) in Rom 1:27, he obviously has in mind arsenokoitai. In Paul's view, the "dishonoring of their bodies " mentioned in 1:24 occurred whenever a woman had sexual intercourse with a female instead of a male, and whenever a man had sexual intercourse with another male instead of a female. Men and women exchanged the "natural use" of the opposite sex as the appropriate complementary partners in sexual intercourse for an "unnatural use" of the same sex as sexual partners. There were no exceptions for Paul. Genesis 1-2 provided only one acceptable model. Paul, like all other first-century Jews, opposed same-sex intercourse between men because he believed that woman was created by God to be man's one and only sexual partner. And he believed that the anatomical and procreative complementarity of male and female visible in nature supported this conclusion. What was wrong, first and foremost, for Paul in the case of same-sex intercourse was the fact that the participants were members of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. It was not a question of whether the sexual relationship was characterized by mutual affirmation or exploitation, parity in age or age disparity, procreative capacity or procreative incapacity, innate sexual urges or contrived sexual urges, or any other extrinsic set of antinomies. In order to determine the semantic spread of the term arsenokoitai, it is a mistake to focus exclusively on the one or two most common forms of same-sex intercourse in Paul's day at the expense of ignoring Paul's reason for opposing same-sex intercourse, which had little or nothing to do with factors that could distinguish unacceptable forms of same-sex intercourse from acceptable forms.

Anonymous said...

(continued)

Fifth, the context of the passage in 1 Corinthians makes clear why the malakoi and arsenokoitai belong with other forms of sexual immorality (pornoi [those who fornicate, commit incest, or have sex with prostitutes] and adulterers): they participate in a form of sexual behavior other than that sanctioned in the context of a monogamous, lifelong, non-incestuous, opposite-sex marriage bond. In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul draws on the Levitical proscription of incestuous behavior (porneia) in Leviticus 18 and 20, which reinforces our supposition that Paul had in mind the proscriptions against male same-sex intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 when he referred to arsenokoitai in 6:9. The overlap of the vice lists in 1 Cor 5:10-11 and 6:9-10 indicates that all unrepentant participants in porneia, be it incest, fornication, adultery, or same-sex intercourse, are to be expelled from the community of believers in a final, desperate bid to keep them from being excluded from God's coming kingdom. 1 Cor 6:12-20 forbids all porneia, here sex with a prostitute, on the grounds that it joins in a "one-flesh" union two people other than a husband and a wife in holy matrimony. This reinforces our supposition that a responsible hermeneutic today should understand the combination of malakoi and arsenokoitai in the broadest possible sense, as violaters of the model of marriage put forward in Genesis 1-2, specifically, a union between a man and a woman. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul takes up the subject of marriage. There he once more expresses concern that there be no porneia. It is because of such a concern that he modifies his wish that all Christians be unmarried like himself and advises married couples against abstaining from sex for any lengthy period of time (7:1-9, 36). Picking up Jesus' own command, he forbids remarriage of divorced women, apparently on the grounds that remarriage while one's first spouse is still alive constitutes adultery (7:10-11). At the end of the chapter he again affirms that "a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives " (7:39). Given this exclusive attention to heterosexual unions, is it reasonable to conclude that Paul had only some forms of same-sex intercourse in view in 6:9?

As if this were not enough, we can add one more element from 1 Corinthians. There is no chance that the very same Paul who was concerned about blurring the distinctions between the sexes even over such relatively minor matters as hair coverings in 1 Cor 11:2-16 could have limited the meaning of arsenokoitai in the same letter to only specific types of same-sex intercourse. If in Paul's view inappropriate hairstyles and head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another male to bed be a shameful act (Rom 1:27), lying with another male "as though lying with a woman"? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God's kingdom, but he did put same-sex intercourse on that level. Suppose the Corinthians had written back:

Paul, we have a brother in our church who is having sex with another man. But that other man does not put on makeup or heavy perfume, wear women's clothing, braid his hair, or otherwise try to look like a woman. And the other male is an adult. The two men really do love each other and are committed to spending the rest of their lives together. Neither is involved in idolatrous cults or prostitution. When you mentioned that arsenokoitai would be excluded from the coming kingdom of God, you were not including somebody like this man, were you?

Given the context of 1 Cor 5-6 and 11, can anyone seriously propose that Paul would have said, "That's right, such a man would not be an arsenokoites"?

Anonymous said...

(continued)

Sixth, if Paul (like Philo and Josephus) condemned both active and passive partners, how does exploitation factor in the equation? A condemnation of both partners indicates that the relationship is consensual. Paul is certainly not condemning any passive partners who might be raped. Granted, even consensual relationships can have an exploitative dimension. However, if exploitation were Paul's principal concern, surely he would not have pronounced the same sentence on exploited passive partners. Nissinen and others who believe only exploitative forms of same-sex intercourse are condemned have the logic of Paul's thinking backwards. It is precisely those who willingly engage in samesex intercourse, who follow their sinful innate impulses for forbidden sex, who enjoy it, who show no remorse for their conduct and are under no coercion from others, that Paul and Philo reserve their greatest scorn for. Not the exploitative forms of same-sex intercourse but the non-exploitative and fully consensual forms are the most heinous because then the participants are entirely without excuse.

Seventh, the list of vices 1 Cor 6:9-10 contain intertextual echoes to Deuteronomic law that indicate a contrast between same-sex intercourse in all its forms and heterosexual marriage. Brian Rosner has shown that the vice list in 1 Cor 5:11 has been constructed largely on the basis of the contexts in which the refrain "Drive out the wicked person from among yourselves" (quoted in 1 Cor 5:13) occurs in Deuteronomy: 17:7 (idolatry); 19:19 (malicious false testimony); 21:21 (the rebellious son who is also a drunkard); 22:21 (sexual promiscuity, here specifically adultery); and 24:7 (theft). What is true of 5:11 is also true of 6:9-10 since 6:9-11 contains all six vices of 5:11, merely adding three additional sexual vices (adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai) to the one already mentioned (pornoi) and one additional economic vice (thieves) to the two already mentioned (the greedy and swindlers). What that indicates is that for Paul the four sexual vices in 6:9 are there because they all constitute forms of sexual intercourse which occur outside of the context of marriage between a man and a woman. In that case, the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai are meant to signify, at least as representative types, all who participate in same-sex intercourse. As we shall see, the appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes a similar point, since there it comes under the rubric of the decalogue commandment against adultery.

It is self-evident, then, that the combination of terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they are applied to every conceivable type of same-sex intercourse. A first-century Jew or Christian would regard the prohibitions in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 as absolute and affecting any male-to-male sexual intercourse, even if the primary examples of his/her culture were confined to pederastic models.

– Gagnon, Robert A (2010-10-01). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics

Mark Ward said...

I came across this piece from Gagnon a while back and was shocked that between that one and the one I posted that there was disagreement among Biblical scholars. Stunning, right?:)

Check this out...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm#

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (KJV):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word in the English language that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century. More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here as:

"homosexuals," (NASB);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV).


Do we really know what Paul meant? Unlikely, and the answer to what he meant died with him.

Let's also not forget this link with multiple sub links and analysis...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

You started to go down the path of the meaning of Paul's writing on homosexuals but then you sort of pulled up and descended into confirmation bias. Yet what you started to say is what I have been saying all along...the type of sex Paul was talking about was the debauchery of Roman orgies and the rape of young boys by older men. He was not talking about the loving and committed relationships of today between same sex partners. Being a homosexual is not a choice. It's how God made them. Why would he continue to make people who are gay if He thought homosexuality was wrong?

Of course, the entire argument is moot because this is Paul, not God or Jesus talking. There is nothing in the 10 Commandments about homosexuals nor did Jesus mention it all. That makes it very clear that there were other, more important commands to obey.

Mark Ward said...

GD, I still don't get why it's so important to you whether or not I'm logical or illogical. What's your stake in this? Why do you need to be convinced? You've spent a ton of time posting on here so it's obviously very important but I don't get why.

Further, just so we are clear, I stand by everything I've written. The Bible is wrong on some things and, as society evolved and continues to evolve, these wrongs can and should be corrected. Even God evolved between the OT and the NT and it was perfectly logical, given the coming of Jesus.

GuardDuck said...

GD, I still don't get why it's so important to you whether or not I'm logical or illogical. What's your stake in this? Why do you need to be convinced? You've spent a ton of time posting on here so it's obviously very important but I don't get why.


Why do you post Mark? I usually enjoy the conversation. I like to work through issues, something that can't get done very often in 'polite' company. I do this other places too, but here I find a person who is almost a polar opposite. That means issues we discuss aren't turning on a minor variation in viewpoint, but rather a fundamental difference in world view.

But when your argument flawed, nothing of essence can be discussed, as that flaw prevents us from discussing the fundamentals.

And when you refuse to discuss why your argument is flawed.... well that can be rather frustrating, as it is the intellectual equivalent of saying 'because I said so'...


The Bible is wrong on some things and, as society evolved and continues to evolve, these wrongs can and should be corrected. Even God evolved between the OT and the NT and it was perfectly logical, given the coming of Jesus.

Oh, you are still sticking with this argument....

Do you not want me to tell you how you are wrong? Is that what your squeals have been all about? If not, fine. But just because I don't tell you how your argument is wrong does not make your argument correct. Which it isn't.

Anonymous said...

Do we really know what Paul meant? Unlikely, and the answer to what he meant died with him.

In other words, you ignored what I posted.

the type of sex Paul was talking about was the debauchery of Roman orgies and the rape of young boys by older men.

In other words, you ignored what I posted.

He was not talking about the loving and committed relationships of today between same sex partners.

In other words, you ignored what I posted.

Why would he continue to make people who are gay if He thought homosexuality was wrong?

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
— Romans 3:23

Why would God continued to make people who are sinners if He thought sin was wrong?

the entire argument is moot because this is Paul, not God or Jesus talking.

no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
— 2 Peter 1:20b–21

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
— 2 Peter 3:15–16

Here Peter is saying that what Paul write is Scripture, and that the Holy Spirit "carried along" the writers of Scripture, which specifically includes Paul's writings.

But that's always what it comes down to with you. God is unable to have men write what He wants written. In your view, Man is more powerful than God. And Man (that's you in this case) has the authority to judge and convict God and His Word.

You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

— Isaiah 14:13–14

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
— Jesus, Luke 16:17

There is nothing in the 10 Commandments about homosexuals…

So then, you're okay with rape? Bestiality? Chattel slavery? But working on Saturday is a mortal sin?

…nor did Jesus mention it all.

In other words, you ignored what I posted.

Why don't you just change the name of your blog to "I'm Not Listening"? It would save a lot of time.

Anonymous said...

Even God evolved between the OT and the NT and it was perfectly logical, given the coming of Jesus.

Really?

“I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

— Genesis 3:15

So the plan first promised at the very beginning of humanity (and immediately after the first sin) wasn't carried out? God had to change it?

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
— Luke 24:27

So the Old Testament was setting up for Jesus' arrival, but things "changed"?

What about these verses?

“For I the LORD do not change;”
— Malachi 3:6

Wait, are you calling God a liar?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
— Hebrews 13:8

If Jesus does change, what makes you think you're going to heaven? Maybe he's just playing games with you? Teasing you and making you jump through hoops? What makes you so sure he won't change the rules (again) at the last minute and simply turn you into a grease spot (or worse) just for the fun of it?

The "god" you are describing is more like "Allah" than YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

What caused the end of the Mosaic Covenant?

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.”
— Jeremiah 31:31–32

Larry said...

It all makes me wonder whether or not the rule changes are retroactive? Were souls that were eternally damned under the original set of laws suddenly get eternally un-damned? Only to be re-damned when society changed again? Will sodomites, pederasts, and free-love fornicators share Heaven with strict heterosexual monogamists that once stoned to death some of their brethren in the past? Or do they swap places because stoning someone to death is now the mortal sin, not the other? Where in the Bible or Koran does God give over the definition of sin to popular vote? What's popular in Christian Minnesota may be very unpopular in Christian Venezuela or Christian Uganda. Who does the snout-counting and who gets to put their snout in the air for the vote? Enquiring minds want to know.

Anonymous said...

Why would he continue to make people who are gay if He thought homosexuality was wrong?

Before I say anything else, I should point out that there is no "gay gene", so it is inappropriate to say that God makes people homosexual, though he does remove restraint from people who insist on going their own way. (Romans 1)

Remember how Jesus defines marriage:

“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.”
— Mark 10:6–8

One man, one woman, for life.

It seems that Jesus did address this.

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
— Matthew 19:12

--------------------

The vb. eunouchizō is found twice linked with eunouchos in Matt. 19:12, where three types of eunuchs are described: (a) those who are such from birth, due to corporal malformation, (b) those who have been made such by men, (c) those who made themselves eunuchs “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.

Jesus is clearly speaking not merely of celibacy, but also of unfitness for marriage. He is dealing only with the physical, without considering other causes that might prevent marriage. Under the first two headings Jesus adopts the division accepted by the rabbis. Only the third category, those who are eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, presents something new, showing that the real stress falls here.   Physical inability by nature or castration is intended in the first two, but this is improbable in the third.

— New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1:560-561.

--------------------

Given Jesus' definition of marriage as exclusively one man and one woman, someone who feels no attraction for women would fall under "unfitness for marriage". It seems that God intended such people to be able to remain unmarried (celibate) as a gift so they could focus better on God:

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

— 1 Corinthians 7:7–9

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,
— 1 Corinthians 7:32–33

Anonymous said...

Well what do you know! I found an online resource for a complete lexicon of the entire ancient Greek language.

Here is it's entry on paiderastēs:

παιδεραστ‑ής, οῦ, ὁ, lover of boys, mostly in bad sense,

Gee, I wonder why Paul wouldn't use that word (as Mark insists he should have)? Maybe because he did not intend its more limited meaning, but explicitly wanted the broader meaning used in Leviticus?

Mark Ward said...

Why do you post Mark? I usually enjoy the conversation. I like to work through issues, something that can't get done very often in 'polite' company. I do this other places too, but here I find a person who is almost a polar opposite. That means issues we discuss aren't turning on a minor variation in viewpoint, but rather a fundamental difference in world view.

Basically the same reason as you list here except I don't really give a shit about polite company. Honestly, no one should. We have far too many problems in this country and the world to be polite and not discuss politics or religion.

I also don't think we are polar opposites, really. I think you and the others have developed a natural contrarian policy towards me because of some sort of adolescent need to prove me wrong. This leads to the ad hom and genetic fallacy, unfortunately, and we lose track of the substance of the debate.

NMN, can you say with complete certainty that you know what Paul meant when he used those words? That the English translators were certain it was homosexuals and not something else? Words do indeed mean things. And why is it OK for Paul to speak for God?

Anonymous said...

why is it OK for Paul to speak for God?

Congratulations, Mark. You just made it into the class I'm teaching tomorrow. It's on how we got the Bible. That is actually a legitimate question that any Christian should be expected to answer.

I will answer when I have time. In the mean time my jaw dropped when I read because you claim to be a Christian. You should already know the answer to this one, part of which I just gave you. In other words, once again, you ignored what I posted.

Mark Ward said...

when I read because you claim to be a Christian.

If I follow the 10 commandments and every word that Jesus spoke (taking into account His use of hyperbole and metaphor), I am a Christian. The rest of it should be taken in context and weighed accordingly.

I'm still wondering if you are a Messianic Jew or not.

Juris Imprudent said...

I don't really give a shit about polite company

You aren't here for the hunting then, are you?

Mark Ward said...

Uh, juris? This is my blog, not TSM. Why do you guys think it's your site?

Anonymous said...

Third, Paul was recognized as a genuine Apostle by the other Apostles, and was in agreement with them. (See Acts 15. Compare it to Galations 2. Peter admitted that Paul was right and he was wrong.)

Fourth, Paul performed miracles and signs that only genuine prophets of God could perform.

The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.
— 2 Corinthians 12:12

It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
— Hebrews 2:3b–4

But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.
— Acts 13:9–11

Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, said in a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And he sprang up and began walking.
— Acts 14:8–10

And on, and on, and on. (Acts 16:16-18; 16:25-26; 19:1-6; 19:11-12; 20:7-12; 28:3-9)

Finally, you claim Paul's writing to justify your claim to be a Christian:

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
— Romans 10:9

Anonymous said...

Juris: You aren't here for the hunting then, are you?

Mark: This is my blog, not TSM. Why do you guys think it's your site?

Why go hunting when you can encourage the bears to come to your place?

Mark Ward said...

I'm not saying you did say that, NMN. That's what I am stating for myself. Remember what I said about people inserting themselves between me and Jesus?

The 10 Commandments were only for Israel? Huh? So, when Jesus said keep My Commandments, what was he talking about?

Anonymous said...

That's what I am stating for myself.

It didn't sound that way, but okay.

Then we're back to this question:

If the 10 Commandments apply to Christians today, then you consider working on the Sabbath (Saturday) to be a sin?

And why is it OK for Paul to speak for God?

I've answered your question. What is your response?

Mark Ward said...

Answering questions with questions again, NMN? Tsk tsk:)

I think you may have worked yourself into a spot here where you have to admit that you don't follow all of the Bible...just what I have been saying I and most Christians do all along. Unless you are a Messianic Jew, of course. Are you?



Juris Imprudent said...

This is my blog

You claim one thing when that doesn't really seem to be your intent at all. That was the nature of my allusion, and NMN clearly caught it.

Anonymous said...

Answering questions with questions again, NMN? Tsk tsk:)

Well, I could act like you and simply attempt to cram words into your mouth. Instead, I prefer to do the honest thing and ask you about what you believe.

And why is it OK for Paul to speak for God?

I've answered your question. What is your response?

Anonymous said...

Answering questions with questions again, NMN? Tsk tsk:)

BTW, I'm perfectly willing to answer the questions you asked because I do have answers to them. I am not, however, willing to let you use those additional questions to hide the fact that you are once again using Standard Response #1; nevermind the complete waste of time involved in giving an answer that you promptly ignore.

You have claimed you want to debate on debate.org. Ignoring your opponent's responses is a classic way of losing a formal debate.

Mark Ward said...

. Ignoring your opponent's responses is a classic way of losing a formal debate.

Yes, it is. Does this mean you've changed your mind about debating me on there? They don't allow ad (Standard Responses) hom on there either:)

Paul is neither God nor Jesus. His words have less weight. I think it does the latter Two a great disservice to equate a human with them.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean you've changed your mind about debating me on there?

No. Just pointing out that if it's invalid there, it's invalid here.

They don't allow ad … hom on there either:)

That's two strikes against you. Given your love of using logical fallacies (especially ad hominem and straw man), why are you so hot to debate there?

(No, pointing out that you follow the same habits is not the ad hominem fallacy because pointing out logical flaws in your tactics and/or reasoning is a legitimate part of debate; especially when that habit is itself a logical fallacy. "Voices In Your Head" is just another way of saying "straw man".)

Paul is neither God nor Jesus. His words have less weight. I think it does the latter Two a great disservice to equate a human with them.

And I'll point out for the THIRD time that Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit (First time, Second time).

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
— 2 Peter 1:21

The Greek word translated as "carried along" is φερομενοι (pheromenoi) is also used of a ship being driven by the wind or a storm. The prophet Amos put it this way:

“For the Lord GOD does nothing
without revealing his secret
to his servants the prophets.
The lion has roared;
who will not fear?
The Lord GOD has spoken;
who can but prophesy?”

— Amos 3:7–8

In other words, God drove or compelled the writers of Scripture to write what He wanted written. And as I pointed out before, Paul wrote Scripture.

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
— 2 Peter 3:15–16

Remember, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the Apostles as the means by which they would teach the truth.

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
— John 14:26

Also remember that Paul was called explicitely by Jesus for the purpose of revealing what God wanted revealed.

And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ … And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard.
— Acts 22:10, 14–15

And if it was 'just Paul speaking, not God,' then why would God give Paul the ability to do miracles as proof that God was speaking through him?

In fact, except for the 10 Commandments which God personally write, not a single verse of Scripture was written by God or Jesus. And even that was copied by Moses into Exodus and Deuteronomy.

So in order to consistently hold this position, you must conclude that ALL of the Scriptures are being nothing but the product of men, or claim that the Holy Spirit is not equal to God and Jesus in some fashion.

So which is it? Are you really willing to claim that the work of the Holy Spirit was not done by the Holy Spirit?

Mark Ward said...

I still want to know if you are Messianic Jew or not. That's your only out on believing all of the Bible. Me? I don't have to worry about any of it because, like most Christians, I don't believe all of the Bible and think parts of it are wrong.

Anonymous said...

I still want to know if you are Messianic Jew or not. That's your only out on believing all of the Bible.

Whether I am or not has zero bearing on this debate.

Me? I don't have to worry about any of it because, like most Christians, I don't believe all of the Bible and think parts of it are wrong.

You don't have to worry about claiming that God either lied or is wrong? You don't have to worry about doing a "disservice" to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by pretending that you are superior to Him? Oooookkkkkkaaaaayyyy then. ::: steps back quickly casting worried glances at the sky :::

They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the LORD of hosts.
— Zechariah 7:12

Since you claim that you are required to obey the 10 Commandments as a Christian, who did you last stone for breaking the Sabbath (working on Saturday) and how long ago was it?

Mark Ward said...

Since you claim that you are required to obey the 10 Commandments as a Christian, who did you last stone for breaking the Sabbath (working on Saturday) and how long ago was it?

Well, now you are finally supporting what I have been saying all along:) Thankfully, we have finally come to the point where you admit that you don't follow all of the Bible. What a relief! Obviously, you are not a Messianic Jew.

Perhaps now you'd like to discuss the differences between the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Fourth Commandment.

Anonymous said...

we have finally come to the point where you admit that you don't follow all of the Bible.

Are you REALLY that blasted DENSE?!?

REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?

I've long known you were hard headed, but I didn't think even you were capable of this level of denial.

Do the words "say to the sons of Israel" produce the slightest flicker of recognition in you?

How about these words?

If I follow the 10 commandments and every word that Jesus spoke (taking into account His use of hyperbole and metaphor), I am a Christian.
Markadelphia

And when I complained that this was attempting to put words in my mouth, you responded with this:

I'm not saying you did say that, NMN. That's what I am stating for myself.
Markadelphia

And now it turns out that you really were trying to shove those words into my mouth.

Here's a hint, Mark. It's too hard to keep track of lies. You inevitably trip yourself up trying to keep them straight. Keeping track of the truth is far easier.

I pity you. I really do.

Anonymous said...

The difference between Mark and I:

Me: We don't have to obey the Sabbath law. Here is what Scripture say about why…

Mark: We don't have to obey the Sabbath law. Because I say so…

One approach treats Scripture as being entirely the Word of God, the other attempts to destroy Scripture. Which approach reflects how Jesus treated Scripture?