I am surprised...

[tabibito]

Fair enough.

Here Payne summarizes several pages' worth of material from his book:

I have taken the liberty of responding on the "Paul's teachings" thread.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Wow. So your argument is that "homosexuality" wasn't condemned because English wasn't invented yet (or German I guess) when they wrote the bible. Great job, H_A. you win the Internet!

Not some of your better work.

Both of you are labouring under a misunderstanding.

It needs to be remembered that the text of Leviticus reflects the cultural mores of the society in which it was created. This work reached the form in which we have it today between 500 and 300 BCE and we cannot rule out Persian influences on the Hebrew texts that were finally redacted after the exile.

As with Roman society Hebrew society was male dominated and Hebrew men offered up prayers giving thanks they were not women.

Hence if men had sex together one would effectively be playing the role of the culturally inferior female during sex. We find similar attitudes in Roman society. For a Roman man to penetrate another man (invariably a slave) was considered neither immoral nor shameful. However, for a Roman man to be penetrated by another man was an act of humiliation because he would be renouncing his masculine role and subordinating himself, in the manner of a woman, to another man..

This attitude towards male dominated sex explains why the Hebrew bible is silent on lesbianism,. Given the inferior status of women in society neither could be perceived as adopting a dominant role during sexual encounters.

[Cow Poke]

[FONT=Arial]Both of you are labouring under a misunderstanding.

Translation: I typed something dumb again - it's the reader's fault.

[rogue06]

Translation: I typed something dumb again - it's the reader's fault.

As she is always so keen to remind us, Paul and the other Apostles were Jews, so their statements concerning lesbianism serves to reflect on how the Jews in their time viewed it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Absolute rubbish. It's liberal scholars reading into the text what simply isn't there.

On what textual evidence are you making that comment?


It should be remembered that "sexuality," with its derivatives of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality," is a modem abstraction with no equivalent in the Bible or other ancient sources. This means that the distinguishing of sexual orientations, with the accompanying rationales and justifications, is likewise a modem phenomenon with a quite different basis and motivation for argumentation from the way in which ancient sources deal with same-sex eroticism.

It is quite possible that none of the biblical authors approved of homoeroticism in any form they knew of but to understand that requires examination of the way these texts understood same sex interaction. The biblical texts are centred around physical sexual contacts, the background to which is seen either as idolatry, moral corruption, and excessive lust [Romans 1] or xenophobia [Genesis 19; Judges 19].

Love and positive feelings are not mentioned neither are responsible homosexual partnerships based on love directly mentioned. However, with the case of David and Jonathan, the Bible does mention love in a homosocial sense; and even the expressions of feeling are shown in in this "love relationship". It can never be exactly known how far Israelite men could go in expressing their mutual attachment but it seems that emotional and even the possibility of physical closeness of two males does not overly concern the editors of the story of David and Jonathan.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Translation: I typed something dumb again - it's the reader's fault.

Why do you consider what I wrote to be "dumb"?

[Cow Poke]

Why do you consider what I wrote to be "dumb"?

For example, when you ignorantly post that the Texas Heartbeat law creates a "Bounty Hunter" or "mercenary" environment because you don't have a clue how the law actually works.

That's pretty dumb.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As she is always so keen to remind us, Paul and the other Apostles were Jews, so their statements concerning lesbianism serves to reflect on how the Jews in their time viewed it.

I have never contended Paul was a Jew. I have repeatedly pointed out [much to the chagrin of @Sparko] that Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.


He may well have been a Jew but he never uses that word in reference to himself. Furthermore, it has always struck me as unusual that a Jew [even a renegade] would imbue the standard blessings of a meal with theophagic significance.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

For example, when you ignorantly post that the Texas Heartbeat law creates a "Bounty Hunter" or "mercenary" environment because you don't have a clue how the law actually works.

That's pretty dumb.

Ah so you cannot find anything in what I wrote here that fits your concept of "dumb" but instead have to revert back to a totally unrelated topic in an attempt to belittle me and possibly derail this thread.

Such behaviour might be construed as trolling.

[Cow Poke]

I have never contended Paul was a Jew. I have repeatedly pointed out [much to the chagrin of @Sparko] that Paul never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself.


He may well have been a Jew but he never uses that word in reference to himself. Furthermore, it has always struck me as unusual that a Jew [even a renegade] would imbue the standard blessings of a meal with theophagic significance.

That would be yet another example of something dumb you typed. Paul CLEARLY identifies himself as a Jew, despite your attempts to narrow the language to exclude him.

1. An Israelite, Seed of Abraham (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4–6; Rom 11:1)
2. Of the Tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:4–6; Rom 11:1)
3. A Hebrew of Hebrews (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4–6)
4. A Jew (1 Cor 9:20–21; Gal 1:13–14
5. In Judaism (Gal 1:13–14)
6. A Zealot (Phil 3:4–6; Gal 1:13–14)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That would be yet another example of something dumb you typed. Paul CLEARLY identifies himself as a Jew, despite your attempts to narrow the language to exclude him.

1. An Israelite, Seed of Abraham (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4–6; Rom 11:1)
2. Of the Tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:4–6; Rom 11:1)
3. A Hebrew of Hebrews (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4–6)
4. A Jew (1 Cor 9:20–21; Gal 1:13–14
5. In Judaism (Gal 1:13–14)
6. A Zealot (Phil 3:4–6; Gal 1:13–14)

Read the original Greek.

I Corinthians 9.20 translation

"and I became to the Jews as a Jew in order that Jews I might gain one [to the] under law as under law not being [myself] under law in order [that] the [ones ] under law I might gain."

[Cow Poke]

Read the original Greek.

I have, albeit that was along ago, and I haven't kept up with my Greek like I should have.

You're trying way too hard to see what you want to see, and a lot of people way smarter than you see something different.

[Bill the Cat]

It isn't, actually. Every other Christian sect would say the same wrt you.

And they'd have to have actual proof. Perhaps you have some that you'd like to discuss?

[Gondwanaland]

I have not been following this particular part of the discussion closely, but I won't let that stop me from barging in.

I am actually sympathetic to your complaint. Too many Christians are far too glibly confident in making dogmatic assertions about the Mosaic civil, ritual, and moral laws, as if they are clearly and explicitly delineated. I think those divisions can reasonably be inferred, but that's a long way from saying with certitude which laws, if any, are still extant under the New Covenant.

Eph. 2:15 uses the same word for "commandments" that is elsewhere in the NT and LXX used for the Decalogue and the Great Commandments. In the NASB, ESV, and NKJV it is paired with "dogma" translated as "ordinances," probably to call to mind the various places in the Law where "commandments" and "ordinances" are paired. The context does not suggest that Christ only bore the "ceremonial" parts of the Law.

Col. 2:14 also uses "dogma," but more often translated as "decrees." The context does not suggest that our only transgressions causing indebtedness were "ceremonial" ones, and that only they were nailed to the Cross.

Jesus Himself said that the entire Law -- and Prophets -- could be summed up as "Treat others the way you wish others to treat you."

Paul *repeatedly* said that the entire Law, explicitly including the Ten Commandments, is fulfilled by "Love your neighbor as yourself."

For my part, I am willing to live with the tension, cognitive dissonance, whatever, of knowing that the entire Law of the Obsolete Covenant has been taken away, that the New Covenant comes with the New Commandment to "love one another," and yet that those who engage in homosexuality, adultery, other sexual misbehavior, drunkenness, verbal abuse, greed, and swindling will be excluded from the Kingdom.

Thank you for your thoughts, I like seeing a Christian that's actually honest (most aren't wittingly dishonest, but the cognitive dissonance/etc. get them) about this and willing to admit this like you have. I respect that, and this way of looking at it. I personally disagree (the earth and heavens have not passed away) on it being 'obsolete' and 'taken away', but respect your much more nuanced look at the issue, as it means you actually put thought into it instead of just kneejerk repeating what your pastor taught.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have, albeit that was along ago, and I haven't kept up with my Greek like I should have.

That is a neat " cop out".

You could try here https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/9.htm

All the other verses you cited will likewise be available.