Is there a cure for homophobia? Introducing Lovelace......

[eider]

I believe that author represents the majority, which is to say "liberal," view w.r.t. authorship. There are scholars who have a more conservative or traditional approach to authorship, but who reach "liberal" conclusions on specific issues (mainly equality of men and women); they recognize the non-Pauline arguments, but believe things like topic, target audience, and differing amanuenses adequately explain the differences.

Thank you for that post and info...... I have never studied 'Pauline' scholars and their approach to Paul's letters and any questions about authorship, but I kept that piece (from years ago) because the earlier letters did not support all of the same ideas as the latter group. I don't think that Paul supported slavery in those first letters (I could be wrong). I did intend to compare the two groups intensely but my focus has always been upon earlier times.

[eider]

That phrasing makes me think I'd ask legal advice from...

Very good...!

Seriously, though, if it were a Christian theocracy, I suppose I'd want them treated comparably to adulterers. I think there should be some consequence, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as stoning.

For a while I've been pretty opposed to the notion of living under a Christian theocracy. There's always the danger that the "flavor" of Christianity that achieves the highest positions will relegate the others to second-class status in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. People like me could find it uncomfortable with people like John MacArthur in charge.

However, given the way things are going under increasingly anti-Christian rule, I'm rethinking my view.

In England many Christian churches have been falling away for decades. Before Covid I liked to cycle to tiny hamlets and villages, and some of these still left their churches (or the porches) open for folks to visit, take refuge for the night, or to think and pray. On those occasions when services were being held I might see a congregation of 3 or 5 elderly persons. But new churches have been rising, with very large congregations and these do seem to have reviewed law and theology, and lgbt folks are warmly welcomed. Some churches are ordaining gays, or supporting civil partnerships or marrying gays.

That might seem to be wrong to many other Christians, but then a massive % of them belong to congregations with law and theology that sprang up 1500 years after Jesus. So new Christian law and theology 2000 years later doesn't seem quite so strange.

And 'yes', in a country where political division has become tribal to the point of fixation, a new system could well attract many minds. If anything like a Christian theocracy or theonomy should ever have surfaced in my life, I think I would have hoped for one based upon the new churches around here rather than the older puritanical ones.

[eider]

I've already taught you how to distinguish between Old Testament ceremonial laws and moral laws. .......my earlier post in this thread[/URL] if you need a refresher. I've given you the tools you need. It's up to you to use them.

It has become quite clear to me that you have no real understanding of the old laws.
You can pick an obvious one and wave it high in pretense of education about them, but you have never studied those laws.
And so you fail to answer my questions, or acknowledge the odd law that I might show. If I pick any one at random and you are most probably (most definitely!) lost!
Bingo! Exodus 23:19 . . .................................. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

Did you ever think about that verse? No? I picked it at random, don't forget.
You'll probably just chant 'Jesus redacted that one!'

So you may never figure out why sacrificial lambs must not be cooked in milk, eh? There you are, one example plucked from hundreds that you never really thought about. And yet you cling to a couple to feed your sad prejudices and hatreds. Ones that you are equally ignorant about, imo.

It's alright.......... I don't expect an answer.... you certainly couldn't explain that law, I'm thinking. But if you keep trying to fly, and keep falling, then one day you'll see it all, and then you'll start to think about hundreds of the others.

It seems your rebuttal to these points never got off the ground. This thread remind me of the famous compilation of historical film footage depicting man's early attempts at flight, where various contraptions are launched into the air only to immediately crash.

And what did you think of those early attempts?
Come on, MM......... start to learn to fly. Just LOOK at those old laws and figure out why they were written. All of them!

[NorrinRadd]

Thank you for that post and info...... I have never studied 'Pauline' scholars and their approach to Paul's letters and any questions about authorship, but I kept that piece (from years ago) because the earlier letters did not support all of the same ideas as the latter group. I don't think that Paul supported slavery in those first letters (I could be wrong). I did intend to compare the two groups intensely but my focus has always been upon earlier times.

ISTM that in the "earlier" epistles, "slave" is used mostly in a metaphorical sense. There is little instruction regarding literal slavery.

One place where it does occur is 1 Cor. 7:21, where he encourages slaves to not be bothered by the fact that they are slaves, but also tells them to avail themselves of the opportunity to be free if it is presented.

Another two are 1 Cor. 12:13 and Gal. 3:28, both of which show that established class hierarchies are not to be continued for those in Christ.

In the "later" epistles, literal slavery is addressed in the "Pastoral Epistles" and "Prison Epistles."

-- In Col. 3:11, we find the same instruction as in the above citations from 1 Cor. 12 and Gal. 3; the traditional class hierarchies should no longer exist in Christ.

-- In Col. 3:22, he seems to reverse course, telling slaves to obey masters; this is softened only slightly in 4:1, where he tells masters to treat slaves justly and fairly.

-- In the contemporaneous letter to the geographically sister church at Ephesus, Paul goes into much more detail (Eph. 6:5-8) in telling slaves how to behave, but then in Eph. 6:9 issues the radical instruction to masters to treat their slaves "the same way." Given the similarity of the passages, and the temporal proximity of the letters, and the geographical proximity of the recipients, it's reasonable to interpret the abbreviate Colossians passage in light of the more detailed Ephesians passage.

-- In 1 Tim. 6:1-2, also pertaining to Ephesus, his instructions to slaves are unilateral; but they should be interpreted in light of their purpose, to avoid unduly offending the surrounding culture.

-- In Tit. 2:9-10, the instructions relative to Crete are analogous to those for Ephesus above.

-- Philemon is a personal letter concerning Onesimus, an escaped slave, and gives further background on interpreting Colossians. Phillip Payne opines that the letter shows that Paul applies "maximum social pressure" on Philemon to manumit Onesimus, stopping just short of making it a command.

So he didn't exactly "support" slavery in any of his letters.

[NorrinRadd]

Your argument is just going in tiny little circles and hasn't advanced at all since your first post in this very lengthy thread. As I have pointed out to you already, the only Old Testament laws that have been "discarded" are those ceremonial laws that God used to set the Israelite people apart, and they weren't actually discarded but, rather, were fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God's moral commandments, however, are still in effect. ...

I have to dispute this a bit, because it's a very gray area that I wrestle with a lot.

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that divides the law into moral, ceremonial, civil, etc. Those, IMO, are labels affixed by people trying to deal with the inconsistencies among the "plain readings" of various passages. I have never been able to harmonize the various passages without doing some violence to the "plain sense" of at least one of them.

Some Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are still in force, but none of the rest of the Law; but the vast majority of Christians do not observe the Sabbath, so apparently at least *some* of the Ten are no longer in force. (And there is no place in the NT that says that "the Lord's Day" replaced the Sabbath, especially not in any "official" sense.)

The clear sense of Jas. 2:8 and esp. Rom. 13:8-10 and Gal. 5:14 is that the *only* Commandment that matters isn't even among the Ten: "Love your neighbor as yourself." This "fulfills the entire Law."

The clear sense of Matt. 7:12 is that the *only* instruction that matters is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." Doing this "fulfills the Law *and* the Prophets."

The clear sense of Gal. 3:10-13, Eph. 2:15-16, and Col. 2:14 is that the entire Law -- every ordinance, decree, Commandment -- has, in Christ, been hung on the tree, nailed to the cross.

The plain sense of Heb. 7-10 is that the entire Law of Moses passed away with the Obsolete Covenant when the New and better Covenant came into effect.


Now, having observed all this, there are clearly numerous places where each of those authors issues instructions or commands, and declares things to be "sin," or says that certain lifestyles exclude from the Kingdom; and a few of those things do not fit neatly into the category of "failing to love" or "failing to treat others as you wish others to treat you."


The bottom line is that I don't believe Scripture is as clear and unambiguous as you seem to suggest.

[tabibito]

ISTM that in the "earlier" epistles, "slave" is used mostly in a metaphorical sense. There is little instruction regarding literal slavery.

-- Philemon is a personal letter concerning Onesimus, an escaped slave, and gives further background on interpreting Colossians. Phillip Payne opines that the letter shows that Paul applies "maximum social pressure" on Philemon to manumit Onesimus, stopping just short of making it a command.

So he didn't exactly "support" slavery in any of his letters.

Not so much metaphorical.

Early church writers demonstrate an ambivalent attitude toward slavery, which probably arises from the range of circumstances encompassed by the term. Some slaves held higher status in society than did many free people, some were equivalent to prisoners in a chain gang, others sold themselves into slavery so as to obtain a fast track to citizenship - though that was a fast fading option. One writer speaks against indiscriminate manumission because it would be freeing them into dire need; another that a person should own no more than one, or perhaps two, with the aim of training them to a point where they could support themselves and then to manumit them. Any early Christian writer who addressed the matter of slavery spoke strongly against any form of mistreatment of slaves. So - Paul does not speak against slavery? Hardly surprising: slave traders (men-stealers) he did speak against.

[NorrinRadd]

Not so much metaphorical.

Metaphorical in the sense of "slaves to sin," "slaves of Christ," etc.

[tabibito]

Metaphorical in the sense of "slaves to sin," "slaves of Christ," etc.

Ah - apologies.

[Mountain Man]

I have to dispute this a bit, because it's a very gray area that I wrestle with a lot.

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that divides the law into moral, ceremonial, civil, etc. Those, IMO, are labels affixed by people trying to deal with the inconsistencies among the "plain readings" of various passages. I have never been able to harmonize the various passages without doing some violence to the "plain sense" of at least one of them.

Some Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are still in force, but none of the rest of the Law; but the vast majority of Christians do not observe the Sabbath, so apparently at least *some* of the Ten are no longer in force. (And there is no place in the NT that says that "the Lord's Day" replaced the Sabbath, especially not in any "official" sense.)

The clear sense of Jas. 2:8 and esp. Rom. 13:8-10 and Gal. 5:14 is that the *only* Commandment that matters isn't even among the Ten: "Love your neighbor as yourself." This "fulfills the entire Law."

The clear sense of Matt. 7:12 is that the *only* instruction that matters is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." Doing this "fulfills the Law *and* the Prophets."

The clear sense of Gal. 3:10-13, Eph. 2:15-16, and Col. 2:14 is that the entire Law -- every ordinance, decree, Commandment -- has, in Christ, been hung on the tree, nailed to the cross.

The plain sense of Heb. 7-10 is that the entire Law of Moses passed away with the Obsolete Covenant when the New and better Covenant came into effect.


Now, having observed all this, there are clearly numerous places where each of those authors issues instructions or commands, and declares things to be "sin," or says that certain lifestyles exclude from the Kingdom; and a few of those things do not fit neatly into the category of "failing to love" or "failing to treat others as you wish others to treat you."


The bottom line is that I don't believe Scripture is as clear and unambiguous as you seem to suggest.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "plain sense" reading. If you mean reading individual passages without regard for immediate context or how those passages fit into scripture as a whole or the culture in which they were written, then, yes, I can see why people would be confused, but then, I would never recommend reading the Bible in such a haphazard fashion.

JP Holding has a more detailed essay on matter which is worth reading: "The Christian and the Old Testament Law"

Regardless, this rabbit trail is nothing but eider's attempt at an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy ("Your behavior is inconsistent with your argument; therefore, your argument is false"). Even if it's true that there are Old Testament commandments that Christians should follow but don't, that does nothing to refute the fact that the Bible clearly and unambiguously condemns homosexuality.

[tabibito]

I have to dispute this a bit, because it's a very gray area that I wrestle with a lot.

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that divides the law into moral, ceremonial, civil, etc. Those, IMO, are labels affixed by people trying to deal with the inconsistencies among the "plain readings" of various passages. I have never been able to harmonize the various passages without doing some violence to the "plain sense" of at least one of them.

Some Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are still in force, but none of the rest of the Law; but the vast majority of Christians do not observe the Sabbath, so apparently at least *some* of the Ten are no longer in force. (And there is no place in the NT that says that "the Lord's Day" replaced the Sabbath, especially not in any "official" sense.)

The clear sense of Jas. 2:8 and esp. Rom. 13:8-10 and Gal. 5:14 is that the *only* Commandment that matters isn't even among the Ten: "Love your neighbor as yourself." This "fulfills the entire Law."

The clear sense of Matt. 7:12 is that the *only* instruction that matters is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." Doing this "fulfills the Law *and* the Prophets."

The clear sense of Gal. 3:10-13, Eph. 2:15-16, and Col. 2:14 is that the entire Law -- every ordinance, decree, Commandment -- has, in Christ, been hung on the tree, nailed to the cross.

The plain sense of Heb. 7-10 is that the entire Law of Moses passed away with the Obsolete Covenant when the New and better Covenant came into effect.


Now, having observed all this, there are clearly numerous places where each of those authors issues instructions or commands, and declares things to be "sin," or says that certain lifestyles exclude from the Kingdom; and a few of those things do not fit neatly into the category of "failing to love" or "failing to treat others as you wish others to treat you."


The bottom line is that I don't believe Scripture is as clear and unambiguous as you seem to suggest.

There is very little, if anything, that can be described as grey. Scripture does say that if the first law had been perfect, no occasion would have been found for a second. The Old Law is no longer in force, which is not to say there is no law. Some sections of the new law resemble sections of the Old, but that does not mean that the Old is still in force, nor does the "love fulfils the law" provision negate the existence of clauses that have no apparent impact on the expression of love. Love for God is also a part of the new law, and scripture records Jesus saying that those who do the will of God are fit for heaven.

[eider]

I have to dispute this a bit, because it's a very gray area that I wrestle with a lot.

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that divides the law into moral, ceremonial, civil, etc. Those, IMO, are labels affixed by people trying to deal with the inconsistencies among the "plain readings" of various passages. I have never been able to harmonize the various passages without doing some violence to the "plain sense" of at least one of them.

Some Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are still in force, but none of the rest of the Law; but the vast majority of Christians do not observe the Sabbath, so apparently at least *some* of the Ten are no longer in force. (And there is no place in the NT that says that "the Lord's Day" replaced the Sabbath, especially not in any "official" sense.)

The clear sense of Jas. 2:8 and esp. Rom. 13:8-10 and Gal. 5:14 is that the *only* Commandment that matters isn't even among the Ten: "Love your neighbor as yourself." This "fulfills the entire Law."

The clear sense of Matt. 7:12 is that the *only* instruction that matters is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." Doing this "fulfills the Law *and* the Prophets."

The clear sense of Gal. 3:10-13, Eph. 2:15-16, and Col. 2:14 is that the entire Law -- every ordinance, decree, Commandment -- has, in Christ, been hung on the tree, nailed to the cross.

The plain sense of Heb. 7-10 is that the entire Law of Moses passed away with the Obsolete Covenant when the New and better Covenant came into effect.


Now, having observed all this, there are clearly numerous places where each of those authors issues instructions or commands, and declares things to be "sin," or says that certain lifestyles exclude from the Kingdom; and a few of those things do not fit neatly into the category of "failing to love" or "failing to treat others as you wish others to treat you."


The bottom line is that I don't believe Scripture is as clear and unambiguous as you seem to suggest.

Thanks for that info....
Sadly, it seems that many Christians did not interpret the above verses as you do.
European, Mediterranean, African and American Christians hunted, captured, killed, sold, transported... slaves, for many centuries, as you know.

Christians can adapt the NT and OT laws to support many different kinds of activities, lifestyles and ideas. The idea that lgbt people are in horrid sin, mostly built and supported from OT laws and Paul's rants ... this is a typical example imo. Christianity has changed direction several times over the millenia, and now there are many hundreds of differing creeds, churches and congregations. A new direction for Christianity does seem to be that the LGBT laws were previously all about keeping sickness down and increasing population, but of course we now don't want to increase population, and we can keep sickness down if we encourage closed partnerships, hence civil-partnership and gay marriage.

[rogue06]

Thanks for that info....
Sadly, it seems that many Christians did not interpret the above verses as you do.
European, Mediterranean, African and American Christians hunted, captured, killed, sold, transported... slaves, for many centuries, as you know.

Christians can adapt the NT and OT laws to support many different kinds of activities, lifestyles and ideas. The idea that lgbt people are in horrid sin, mostly built and supported from OT laws and Paul's rants ... this is a typical example imo. Christianity has changed direction several times over the millenia, and now there are many hundreds of differing creeds, churches and congregations. A new direction for Christianity does seem to be that the LGBT laws were previously all about keeping sickness down and increasing population, but of course we now don't want to increase population, and we can keep sickness down if we encourage closed partnerships, hence civil-partnership and gay marriage.

You may seek to dismiss them as "Paul's rants" because you're obviously very invested in having the LGBTQ++ lifestyle embraced and celebrated, but your resentment and self-righteous indignation isn't going to alter the fact that the degeneracy that you promote is expressly rejected as immoral in both the Old Testament and New Testament.

[Mountain Man]

Christians can adapt the NT and OT laws to support many different kinds of activities, lifestyles and ideas.

If anyone is adapting scripture to conform with their beliefs, then they're doing it wrong. We should adapt our beliefs to conform with scripture.

[eider]

If anyone is adapting scripture to conform with their beliefs, then they're doing it wrong. We should adapt our beliefs to conform with scripture.

OK. Fair enough. But what is the right translation, interpretation, etc?
Christianity has branched and splintered hundreds of times in 2000 years. Which one?
Sometimes it's needed to reverse itself in to other cultures and even religions in the past.
The route of love and understanding for all is not far from what Jesus wanted, imo.

This is the 80th page. You're right about it having circulated somewhat.
For what it's worth, I've enjoyed the exchanges.

[Mountain Man]

But what is the right translation, interpretation, etc?

The right interpretation is the one that conforms with the inspired writer's original intent. Sometimes this is obvious through a plain reading. Other times it takes study and research.