Personally, I find it interesting that where the verses are the clearest in condemning the act, some are the quickest to say, "Well, it doesn't mean that at all."
Even in their arguements, they hang themselves. "Well it all about lust" well lust is still a sin then isn't it. So as Christians we have to be pure so no lust at all is allowed.
So porn has to go and a monogamy has to rule. Ask your gay friends in a "committed relationship" how often they stray and think they are being faithful.
"Well it refers to prostitution!" Then no one should frequent prostitures (gay or straight)
The bible says Christians are to have no sexual immorality at all in their lives.
So no living together. No pre-marital sex, no adultery, no gay sex — despite how good it might feel and despite how nice somebody might be.
Here's a site to look at as well. He has written a scholarly work about all the verses relating to homosexuality and the bible
Addressing head-on the hottest public issue shaped by the Bible, two-thirds of 21 million voters supported constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, in 11 states ranging from freewheeling Oregon to straight-laced Utah. Eight of these measures also barred legalized civil unions.
Six states previously took similar stands and conservatives are now plotting campaigns in nine additional states.
In nationwide exit polling, 25 percent of voters backed gay marriage (but 77 percent of Kerry voters), 35 percent accepted civil unions and 37 percent (70 percent of Bush voters) opposed all legal recognition.
The traditional biblical belief was skewered just before Election Day by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who said “it’s presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side.”
Backing Kristof, the Web page of New York University’s Center for Religion and Media said the “anti-gay position” held by most religious leaders is a “misinterpretation. Or more simply wrong,” because they are “cherry picking select passages from scripture.” (Presumably that includes Muslims who cite the Quran’s condemnations.)
Then Pittsburgh Theological Seminary’s Robert Gagnon, author of the conservative magnum opus “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” used his Web page to answer Kristof. Sample items from their colloquy:
—How can believers uphold the homosexual law (Leviticus 18:22) but ignore other Old Testament commands?
Kristof: “Homosexuality never made the Top 10” among biblical commandments, so it’s as trivial as “wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt” (Leviticus 19:19).
Gagnon: Kristof’s “extraordinary lack of” sensitivity in Bible interpretation ignores that ritual fabric rules carried minor penalties, whereas Leviticus treats homosexual acts, adultery, incest and bestiality together as “first-tier sexual offenses.”
—Was Leviticus limited?
Kristof: Some scholars say this law condemned only one practice, not all gay eroticism.
Gagnon: By that logic, the Bible allows “erotic kissing and fondling of one’s mother.”
—What did Jesus believe?
Kristof: “Jesus never said a word about gays” and anyway, conservatives are inconsistent because they ignore Jesus’ teaching of “self-castration” (Matthew 19:12).
Gagnon: The first point is “historically preposterous.” Silence doesn’t equal approval. Jesus didn’t address universally held Jewish beliefs unless he opposed them, and he advocated Old Testament morality and heterosexual monogamy. Matthew 19:12 isn’t literal but refers to voluntary celibacy, as everyone knows.
—And Paul?
Kristof: “Do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver?” If so, women must wear veils and long hair (1 Corinthians 11:5-6).
Gagnon: Whatever those Corinthian worship rules meant, they weren’t serious moral matters like incest or homosexual acts, which risk “possible exclusion from the kingdom of God,” according to the Bible.
—What about lesbians?
Kristof: “The Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex” (he said the same in a previous column). Maybe Romans 1:26-27 opposed only relations during menstruation or female aggression.
Gagnon: Please. Read that text again, without preconceptions.
—What was Sodom’s sin (Genesis 19:4-8)?
Kristof: The Bible criticizes Sodom’s lack of hospitality, not homosexuality, and teaches that “the holy thing to do is offer up your virgin daughters” if a mob attacks.
Gagnon: Later Bible passages (Ezekiel 16:49-50, Jude 7, 2 Peter 2:6-10) and ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters indicate Sodom’s misdeeds included homosexual acts. The Bible implicitly criticizes Lot for offering his daughters.
—Did the Old Testament approve gay sex elsewhere?
Kristof: It seems that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship (1 Samuel 18).
Gagnon: “No reputable biblical scholar” agrees, not even liberals. Kristof simply misunderstands non-erotic male friendships in ancient cultures.
Note: Kristof’s article strangely ignored the important writings from Bible scholars who take his side, much less conservatives like Gagnon.
opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God.
I knew it was added but I really didn't understand why until this past year.Quote:
It appears to be something he just knew But I don't see any sorta evidence to back up this. I knew a lady who just knew Elvis was speaking to her from beyond. Then again she had no proof either.
It appears to be something he just knew But I don't see any sorta evidence to back up this. I knew a lady who just knew Elvis was speaking to her from beyond. Then again she had no proof either.
WhiteDove,
I've gone into this in some detail in the "Doctrinal" forum in the past - I can't recall how many times. Hence my desire not to "bore" people. But to recap only briefly why I think the material in this section -from Romans 1:19 -2:1 - was missing,-or altered -
is based not on a message from Elvis from beyond the grave, but on reconstructions of the text of Marcion, which text was published approx. between 130-150 AD.(his was in fact the earliest known New Testament canon).
A Greek reconstruction of Marcion's "Romans" may be reviewed in Appendix III of the German edition of "Marcion" by Adolf von Harnack, and Theodor Zahn, vol II of "Geschichte des n.t. Kanons", or more recently, Ulrich Schmid, "Marcion und sein Apostolos".
Or, you can review an English translation of one of the sources used by these scholars, "Against Marcion" by Tertullian, in vol III of classic "Ante-Nicene Fathers" (which is posted online at a couple places) - or Evan's Latin-English translation at www.Tertullian.org
In is in chapter 13 of book 5 where Tertullian discusses (or criticizes) Marcion's text of Romans here.
The section of 1:19-2:1 was obviously missing, or existed in a far different form than what has come down to us in our overbloated canonical version. For one, Tertullian not once uses any material in this section - even from his own version, which he did not hesitate to cite against Marcion - as a weapon against him, a fact that was also not lost to the 19th century scholar Hilgenfeld in his journal article on Marcion's Pauline canon.
While Marcion has been accused by his opponents of excising material from his text - these accusations are not supported by the facts, nor by the prevailing tendency of the opposite - namely, the proven fact on the side of orthodoxy to have expanded and enlarged their texts. A perfect speciman of this fact: the epistles of St. Ignatius, of which there exists shorter versions, and longer versions.
The shorter versions are older, while the longer are more recent. The entire New Testament underwent this process.
btw, if anyone here is interested in an immensely easy-to-read, approachable work on this topic, please check out "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred" by Charles B. Waite. It's a bit dated, but still highly invaluable and very enjoyable especially to those who may be still recovering from Wierwille's toxic "mankind was made for the scriptures- not the scriptures for mankind" mindset.
Dan thanks for the info actually as you were posting I had already poped in my disk of Ante-Nicene Fathers as I had a feeling you may be headed in that direction.
I'm headed off to work but I will continue to dig through the info,its been some time since I have looked at it. At first look today he does appear to be a lone wolf in that theory. Most of the others including Luther in his commentary on Romans tend to include the text but translate it more in relation to Idolators than homosexuals which makes more sence to me.
opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God.
How do you know it was added? If it wasn't in an earlier text, which is now lost, how can you validate your statement?
I believe someone requested this. I swiped it from a web site, but I've gotten it by e-mail many times too...
quote:Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Eating meat on Friday was only sin In the Catholic church. It had no biblical basis it was a Catholic tradition not shared by other denominations. Homosexuality on the other hand is not exclusive to a single denominations doctrine and has a biblical basis. A totaly different thing. it's not apples to apples so to speak. Christianity as a whole does not endorse meat eating or non meat eating on Friday because there is no biblical instruction one way or another. However most Christian churches do recognize scripture as being non supportive of homosexuality. Thats the reason for the difference.
I disagree with you on that one, white dove...there is a question on whethter it is scripture that makes the church nonsupportive. Hence the site I pointed to at the beginning of this thread.
How do you know it was added? If it wasn't in an earlier text, which is now lost, how can you validate your statement?
I would refer you to those works - which include 3 reconstructions of this text drawn from quotations by the early Church writers - already cited in my previous post.
I would also suggest that anyone review any number of critical introductions to the NT text.
For example, the more recent "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart D. Ehrman.
What will be seen, is that a many serious NT scholars for well over the past 100 years have reached the conclusion that Paul did not author the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, which twi was so fond of holding over our heads. I mention this fact if only to illustrate how widespread the practice of writing (and editing) under the pseudonym of one dead apostle or another had become. The pastoral epistles - as one will learn if one is brave enough to review any critical introduction - betray their actual period and occassion of writing.
The section of 1:19-2:1 was obviously missing, or existed in a far different form than what has come down to us in our overbloated canonical version. For one, Tertullian not once uses any material in this section - even from his own version, which he did not hesitate to cite against Marcion - as a weapon against him, a fact that was also not lost to the 19th century scholar Hilgenfeld in his journal article on Marcion's Pauline canon.
Following is a quote from an English version of one of Tertullian's works:
“Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, ‘Does not even Nature teach you? ‘ -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error.”
Tertullian was obviously quite familiar with the subject section of Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
*****
John Piper has a few rather competent expository comments (particularly his observation that the teaching of Romans is that homosexuality was a judgment of God) on the subject passage at the following URLs:
Eating meat on Friday was only sin In the Catholic church. It had no biblical basis it was a Catholic tradition not shared by other denominations. Homosexuality on the other hand is not exclusive to a single denominations doctrine and has a biblical basis. A totaly different thing. it's not apples to apples so to speak. Christianity as a whole does not endorse meat eating or non meat eating on Friday because there is no biblical instruction one way or another. However most Christian churches do recognize scripture as being non supportive of homosexuality. Thats the reason for the difference.
I disagree with you on that one, white dove...there is a question on whethter it is scripture that makes the church nonsupportive. Hence the site I pointed to at the beginning of this thread.
------------------------------------------------
Vickles
Eating meat on Friday is tradition for Catholics Not Biblical. Trust me on this Vic, (I grew up almost as Catholic as Excathedra) All 3 of my Aunts were Sisters of Charity one being assistant to the Mother Superior and I spent 12 years in Catholic school.
It began with another tradition Good Friday the day they thought Jesus died. Back in the day, if you wanted to eat meat, you had to buy a young animal, care for it, feed it, fatten it up, and then butcher it. Then prepare to feast because without any form of refrigeration, you couldn't count on keeping meat around for any length of time. In other words, meat was an indulgence. But if you wanted to eat fish, you just went fishing. Fish was a humble meal.
The practice of abstaining from meat every Friday was established by the Church in order to help people practice self control and learn not to indulge themselves too often. Catholics, you understand, worship God with their whole bodies, as well as their hearts and minds, so abstinance from certain foods is one form of worship that is acceptable to them. It disappeared sometime after Vatican II. Sadly like some other groups we know they never admitted there was no scriptural basis for this practice. The reason given for the change when pressed was missionaries in other countries found it hard to comply because they had to eat what was available for food so everybody got to change to be fair... It is still suggested that you abstain from meat on Good Friday.
So in your example it was not scripture that had anything to do with not eating meat it was tradition. Most Catholics today will admit that it is and was a church tradition unfounded by any scripture. That is not a rare thing by the way the order for truth pretty much is 1. What the Pope says. 2. Catholic Tradition. 3. The Bible. Thats why it not being biblical was not a big thing. It is a fine example of tradition being non supportive but not scripture.
Now as to your site. In an effort to validate their point of view both sides often grasp at straws like this. Here is another, Jesus was gay becuse he hung out with 12 men... first he did not only hang out with 12 men there are records of women being with them. And by the way I don't think that means they were only there to serve the men. while I am sure that they did cook and such I also think they did much more but that is another discussion. That no more proves he was gay than if I saw a carload of men driving to work and assumed they were also gay.
These things really do no good to either side as to the issue they only distract and cloud it. I looked at the info Dan provided but still most translaters agree the text was there.
Dr. Wierwille as you remember based his take on Eli Eli on one source Lamsa. There is always going to be someone who will be the differing voice.
Myself, I don't think the text is wrong I thing the point is just missed.
I think it was Linda who mentioned the fact that Jesus never addressed the subject. Here is a BIG clue! Keep your nose out of other peoples business........ Like in the record of the woman caught in adultry Jesus never denyed that she had sinned but he also never heaped comdenation on her either. I always found it interesting in the Way that there were no levels of sin yet Homosexuals somehow were the lowest of the low How can that be if there are no levels? You know the old saying Opinions are like *ss h*les everybody has one. That being true I'd say sometimes like *ss H*les they are useful and sometimes like *ss H*les they are just ugly. There are lots of things in the Bible that are refered to as sin. I just don't feel the need to point them out to people all the time I suppose my life keeps me busy enough.
opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God.
In a later post, he cited Marcion as a source for this. One thing he didn't mention was that Marcion was a heretic. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian denounced him. His heresy, in a nutshell, included that he taught that Christ was God, but that Christ was not the Messiah (it's a lot more complicated than that). Texts that he altered to support his views included Luke, Romans, and Ephesians.
To quote the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (v. VII p 173), "In the Gospel of St. Luke Marcion made an arbitrary change in the text in order to provide for an immediate appearance of God in the world..."
There's more, but this is not the "doctrinal" forum. Anyway, the point is that the teaching of the church has been consistent on this subject has been pretty consistent all throughout. This is not a change that was imposed in the 4th Century, as some have tried to indicate.
quote:Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.
(btw, pederasty is defined as "one that practices anal intercourse especially with a boy")
quote:...And imitating Jupiter and the other gods in sodomy and shameless intercourse with woman, might we not bring as our apology the writings of Epicurus and the poets? But because we persuade men to avoid such instruction, and all who practise them and imitate such examples, as now in this discourse we have striven to persuade you, we are assailed in every kind of way. But we are not concerned, since we know that God is a just observer of all. But would that even now some one would mount a lofty rostrum, and shout with a loud voice, "Be ashamed, be ashamed, ye who charge the guiltless with those deeds which yourselves openly commit, and ascribe things which apply to yourselves and to your gods to those who have not even the slightest sympathy with them. Be ye converted; become wise."
quote:Read to Jupiter, ye Greeks, the law against parricides, and the penalty of adultery, and the ignominy of paederasty
From Clement of Alexandria, in his The Paedagogus, (Book 3, Chap 8)
quote:...Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering...
And there are more examples all throughout the period of the early church.
The point is that this has been the consistent teaching of the Christian Church.
Having said that, I will repeat again something that I've said before. What your opinion is on whether any of this is relevent in how you live your life is your business, not mine. I really don't care. However, when I see Scriptures being discounted because they don't agree with your beliefs, I have visions of Wierwille with his "literal translations according to usage" or deleting verses of the Bible because they don't line up with what he believed and taught. But, because I know that I am going to be excoriated here, let me repeat this one more time: how you choose to live your life is your business. It is your business and your business alone.
My other post was getting too long but I wanted to include this about opinions that someone wrote and I found to be helpful. maybe it will be for you also.
No matter who you are or what you do,the harsh reality of life is that some people will love you,some people will hate you,and some will never care one way or another.
The sooner we learn this,the easier it will be to let go of other people's negative opinions. No one is immune from the attacks of others-that's just life. the more you try to do something and commit yourself to anything,the stronger the opinions will be for you and against you.
Some attacks are harsh to break you down.Some attacks are mean-hearted to get you to feel bad. Some attacks are sympathetically critical designed to sneak up on you and stab you in the back. Some attacks are disguised as in your best interest so you let down your guard. Some attacks are intellectually intricate in order to misdirect you.
Most of these attacks are just people's opinions,their perspective,their veiw-even if it is based on scripture.
The first thing we must do is realize who we are as God's sons and daughters and what God has done for us in Christ. Then we must know where we are going and why we are doing the things we are doing. After this,let people have their opinions.
I am not saying that I am perfect or that I can't make a mistake. So when people say things, I will listen but then I need to sort out the statements and see if they really do apply to me or if they are just opinions.
People criticized Christ's actions and his decisions. They attacked his words,his personal life and his followers. They tried to bait him and trick him. His own friends and family attacked him and finally,even as he was dying,they attacked him.
But he knew who he was and where he was going and he moved on- Thank God he did!
In a later post, he cited Marcion as a source for this. One thing he didn't mention was that Marcion was a heretic. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian denounced him.
Wasn't Jesus Himself more or less tried and crucified as a "heretic" in the eyes of the religious mainstream of the time?
And I cannot help but voice those words which I always bear in mind when reading the arbitrary views of the church fathers -
"Blessed are you,
when men hate you and abuse you
and ostracize you
and reject as evil your name
for the sake of the son of man -
...for the same did their fathers
to the prophets."
and further down in Luke 6, a special "woe" to those whose names become celebrated and exalted by men to no end (i.e., Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Luther, -? - etc.)
Such is the way of history - and yes, the world - the names of certain men become praised - while others are relegated to the "accursed" trash heap.
I find it the greatest twist of history that the man oft credited for publishing the earliest known New Testament canon - has himself been condemned as "son of Satan"!
Perhaps Christians really have been worshiping the wrong god all along - they ought to hail Satan for having cooked up the idea of the Christian canon.
Forgive me if I do not always march in line behind history's "verdicts" - the words of Jesus ought to give us all something to consider here.
On the other hand, I appreciate the numerous other examples you cited concerning sodomizers in the ancient world - which again, seemingly adds all the more to the point I proposed in my initial post on this thread - of how the controveries of history become reflected in the literature of the time, even if depicted a century earlier than when such controversies actually occurred. And to quote you again -
quote:
"And there are more examples all throughout the period of the early church."
My point exactly.
quote:
What your opinion is on whether any of this is relevent in how you live your life is your business, not mine. I really don't care.
Aside from the possibility that I may be a lesbian in a man's body, as my wife would attest -
:D-->
I was not moved to express my opinions here out of any particular lifestyle concerns of my own, but rather, from observation of the fruits resulting from the interaction between texts and history.
quote:However, when I see Scriptures being discounted because they don't agree with your beliefs, I have visions of Wierwille with his "literal translations according to usage" or deleting verses of the Bible because they don't line up with what he believed and taught.
Mark, not only Marcion - and no less than Marcion - but all the Christian movements in those early centuries were quite arbitrary in their handling of their material. And even today, churches today continue to disagree over points of interpretation.
And lest you think that the splinter of a critical approach to the Bible jutting in my eye is Wierwillian in nature, the "beam" evidently sticking in your head - namely"THE-WORD-OF-GOD-IS-THE-WILL-OF-GOD" - is that any less Wierwillian?
But relax Mark - we're perhaps both destined to fall into the same ditch.
My other post was getting too long but I wanted to include this about opinions that someone wrote and I found to be helpful. maybe it will be for you also.
No matter who you are or what you do,the harsh reality of life is that some people will love you,some people will hate you,and some will never care one way or another.
The sooner we learn this,the easier it will be to let go of other people's negative opinions. No one is immune from the attacks of others-that's just life. the more you try to do something and commit yourself to anything,the stronger the opinions will be for you and against you.
Some attacks are harsh to break you down.Some attacks are mean-hearted to get you to feel bad. Some attacks are sympathetically critical designed to sneak up on you and stab you in the back. Some attacks are disguised as in your best interest so you let down your guard. Some attacks are intellectually intricate in order to misdirect you.
Most of these attacks are just people's opinions,their perspective,their veiw-even if it is based on scripture.
The first thing we must do is realize who we are as God's sons and daughters and what God has done for us in Christ. Then we must know where we are going and why we are doing the things we are doing. After this,let people have their opinions.
I am not saying that I am perfect or that I can't make a mistake. So when people say things, I will listen but then I need to sort out the statements and see if they really do apply to me or if the are just opinions.
People criticized Christ's actions and his decisions. They attacked his words,his personal life and his followers. They tried to bait him and trick him. His own friends and family attacked him and finally,even as he was dying,they attacked him.
But he knew who he was and where he was going and he moved on- Thank God he did!
Dan, you raise some interesting points. However, the bottom line is that what Marcion taught and promulgated was not in line with what is commonly known as Christianity. I don't want to bore everybody else with the details, but I am sure you can identify many other heterodox positions. And perhaps his theory on the creation being the production of a "demiurge" is correct and the rest of Christianity was full of it.
My point is that the source you cite for your initial statement was not promulgating what we know as Christianity. And frankly, I doubt that Paul would have been in agreement with Marcion's positions.
You stated, "...all the Christian movements in those early centuries were quite arbitrary in their handling of their material. And even today, churches today continue to disagree over points of interpretation."
Although the structure of the Church was not as well defined as it is today, I would tend to disagree with you. We can see definite communication between a good amount of communication among the various episcopal authorities. Look, if you will, at the writings of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin (Martyr), Iulius Africanus, Origen, and so on. You will see, not only communication among the episcopates, but a continuity of thought as their understanding evolved. This is not to say, as you alluded to, that there were not schismatic sects that would spout up from time to time; however, they all were denounced for their heresies in time and withered on the vine.
As to your last slam, "the "beam" evidently sticking in your head," you surely can't be serious in that. If you were, then why in the world would I have any concern with the writings of the Church Fathers? After all, they aren't scriptural and, besides, they are nothing but a bunch of dirty, nasty Catholics anyway. BTW, my criticism you cited was not aimed at you in particular (you'll note I referred to you in the third person throughout my previous post), but as a general tendency with modernism. Frankly, I have the utmost respect for somebody who takes the time to actually study the early Church. Its a far more realistic approach than a "sola scriptura" approach.
My apologies to you if I was harsh in my last slam.
I must confess, I realize I've been putting the cart before the horse in this thread, and have addressed a couple points from what may be commonly regarded an "intellectual" standpoint.
But my reasons for my suspicions toward the material in Romans 1:19ff goes far deeper than that.
Does the voice underlying that section sound like the Savior who uttered the highest, most profound expressions of Christian love ever to pierce the darkest hearts of mankind?
The same Christ who uttered, "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God...blessed are the hungry, for they shall be filled...Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh...? - the same Christ who came to earth and extended His unconditional divine love and grace to those - the scum of the world, the lowest of the lowest, the stinking dungheap of humanity - in short, those who least deserved it?
Who encouraged these same lowlifes to give their love and lend to others without expecting anything in return?
The same Christ who uttered "Be compassionate as your father is compassionate toward you, judge not lest ye be judged, condemn not lest ye be condemned...forgive and you will be forgiven"? - to imitate God's character here, of what our approach toward fellow losers like ourselves should be? the "Physician" who came not for the righteous, but for "sinners"?
But when I encounter that particular section in Romans - I'm sorry, but something's terribly off there.
And what's more, when one considers the violence committed against others who used
that particular section as their justification and motivation for abusing, harming and even murdering others they deemed different from themselves - then is it unreasonable to question the authenticity of that section on the basis of it's rotten "fruits"? ("By their fruits ye shall know them" ?)
Of all the critical avenues toward weighing this body of literature sewn between the covers entitled "Holy Bible", what ultimate, better aid than the living Spirit of Christ dwelling within one?
Will we listen to Him, or drown out the Spirit of love with the white noise of supposed "correct doctrines" and "correct teachings" and "correct practices" and so forth?
I realize full well that many come up with kooky doctrines and ideas in their endeavor to follow Christ - but let's suppose for one minute - what if we focus our energies more precisely toward pursuing the "love of Christ"? That the love of Christ becomes that against which everything else is weighed?
Can you imagine how different Christian history the past 2,000 years would have turned out?
The Pauline epistles consistently warn against all sorts of immorality. The specific injunction against sodomy is mentioned not only in Romans 1, but in 1 Cor 6 and Gal 5, as well. Immorality in any form is dealt with in these same sections, as well as well in other sections. There is a similar injunction against incest in 1 Cor 5, as well. Think of all those poor people who have been persecuted for incest over the centuries as a result of that section of scripture, as well. Perhaps that one was speciously added as well?
If you review the context of Romans 1:19ff, you will note that the overall context is that of the worship and acknowledgement of God as the creator of the universe and the fact that this should be self-evident to anybody (frankly, a defense of the natural law, imo):
quote:19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
I hesitated entering this thread because I don't want to push my beliefs on somebody else. Everybody here knows the Biblical proscription on homosexual conduct. Whether he decides to regard that proscription or not is, frankly, a decision between he and his god. I have shown a small portion of the Church Fathers' writings that address a specific issue that was raised: an assertion that a portion of Romans 1 was added centuries later. My purpose was to show that the teachings of the Church have consistently proscribed that behavior from the beginning and, therefore, the likelihood that this section of Romans was added is unlikely. Getting into some kind of debate on the justification of the behavior is a waste of time. I'm not going to convince anybody who does not want to be convinced.
I'm going to go back to a statement I made on another thread a few days ago: "You know, whether you agree or disagree with a person's decisions, his status as a human being entitles him to a certain amount of basic human dignity. I have yet to meet anybody who has truly changed his life as the result of belittling."
That's the bottom line. Whether I agree with a person's lifestyle or the decisions they've made in their lives, they still deserve a basic amount of human dignity. I think that if I continue on with this line, my positions may be interpreted as something they are not. I, frankly, would prefer not to go there.
I also hesitate to jump back in here and I don't have much to add to what mark already posted except this line bothers me
Quote
And what's more, when one considers the violence committed against others who used
that particular section as their justification and motivation for abusing, harming and even murdering others they deemed different from themselves - then is it unreasonable to question the authenticity of that section on the basis of it's rotten "fruits"? ("By their fruits ye shall know them" ?)
Peoples actions are what they are. We can't erase parts of scripture because people do things. Scripture does not justify Harm,ill treatment, or killing people. My concern like Mark was that we can't pick n choose what parts of scripture we like left in or out. If we do that then at some point all the verses will be left out by someone.
If we let the love of christ decide scripture then who decides what is love and not . Some would say that to remind people of their sin is to be loving as you are helping them to change. It is like "the spirit told me" everyone has a different revelation because the spirit told them something different than the next guy.
I enjoyed immensely your fine comments respecting the dignity and worth of every human being. I heartily agree.
Thank you.
I also hesitate to add more to what has been a very heated discussion. It is neither my intent nor desire to strike from the Bible every passage pertaining to sodomy. But in my view and for many reasons, this particular section in Romans is problematic. I would like to rewind a bit on those passages you cited from to point out only a couple observations:
quote:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first and to the Greek.
17 For the righteousness of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men who captivate the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Heathen mankind knew the "truth of God" - and in addition - were "captivating" it or suppressing it? (v.18)
But wait a minute -
I thought Jesus Christ was "the truth", the way and the light. Going back to the original subject in verse 16 - "the Gospel" - the power of salvation to everyone who believes it.
Did nature proclaim Jesus Christ? But then if that's the case -why would be the purpose of Jesus coming at all, if nature and creation already accomplished the same task for him? From verse 20 on, things take quite a bizarre leap in logic, from whence this section started out - the Gospel! - in which "the righteousness of God" is "revealed therein" - to which a "wrath of God from heaven" is "revealed" against those who suppress "the truth of God" in unrighteousness.
So from v.20 on - the unrelated "creation" should have taught us "the Gospel" and of the "righteousness" revealed therein?
Though Jesus taught in parables utilizing illustrations of nature, should those godless heathen had been able to draw those same lessons on their own prior to the coming of Christ?
But then again, - why bother have Jesus come at all, according to what follows from verse 20 on? The logic collapses upon itself. Those darn heathen - they're doomed if they do ("you should have paid attention to nature"), and they're doomed if they don't ("you went too far - you paid too much heed to nature - now you're worshiping it!")
So who really were those people captivating or suppressing the TRUTH - (THE GOSPEL) -in their dishonesty?
I think I know who it was, but I'm not going to say here. I'm leaving that for my book :)-->
But certainly not the nameless, faceless, godless sodomizing heathen to which the narrative sloppily leads.
The new additions are slick and smooth - but thankfully not without their obvious flaws.
So ends my thoughts on this topic.
***
Whitedove,
If we can't depend on the love of Christ -
then what?
Surely you haven't erased from the table of your heart, "Love never fails"?
But judging from your fine, heartfelt posts here, I know you haven't.
What people do with paper is one thing.
But what one determines for their own self to write or erase in their hearts is a far more weightier matter.
Surely you haven't erased from the table of your heart, "Love never fails"?
No. I just think it needs to be balanced with scripture. And even then sometimes it still gets screwed up.
I've seen too much go on in the name of love. Man's ideas on what is loving.
Open humiliation, ruined marriages,dumping people who had years of service to God's family, and persecution of gay people and the list goes on. WERE ALL DONE UNDER THE GUISE OF LOVE.
No. I just think it needs to be balanced with scripture. And even then sometimes it still gets screwed up.
I've seen too much go on in the name of love. Man's ideas on what is loving.
Open humiliation, ruined marriages,dumping people who had years of service to God's family, and persecution of gay people and the list goes on. WERE ALL DONE UNDER THE GUISE OF LOVE.
(sigh) I hear ya, WhiteDove. The whole "love-of-God-in-the-renewed-in-manifestation" -ugh!barf! - even makes my skin crawl to this day. They had to make it into some weird, complicated, long-winded doctrinal formula.
Each one of us is so different. No one shoe fits all. Believe me, I've struggled with searching for and striking that balance as well,
and will probably continue to make adjustments throughout the remainder of my life.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
6
10
3
Popular Days
Jan 4
18
Jan 3
11
Jan 2
8
Jan 5
7
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 8 posts
vickles 6 posts
WhiteDove 10 posts
markomalley 3 posts
Popular Days
Jan 4 2005
18 posts
Jan 3 2005
11 posts
Jan 2 2005
8 posts
Jan 5 2005
7 posts
GarthP2000
I think Dan mentioned something about the anti-homosexual part in Romans 1 being missing in the earlier copies predating that change in Roman society.
Dan, you have any reference to this item?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
.
Personally, I find it interesting that where the verses are the clearest in condemning the act, some are the quickest to say, "Well, it doesn't mean that at all."
Even in their arguements, they hang themselves. "Well it all about lust" well lust is still a sin then isn't it. So as Christians we have to be pure so no lust at all is allowed.
So porn has to go and a monogamy has to rule. Ask your gay friends in a "committed relationship" how often they stray and think they are being faithful.
"Well it refers to prostitution!" Then no one should frequent prostitures (gay or straight)
The bible says Christians are to have no sexual immorality at all in their lives.
So no living together. No pre-marital sex, no adultery, no gay sex — despite how good it might feel and despite how nice somebody might be.
Here's a site to look at as well. He has written a scholarly work about all the verses relating to homosexuality and the bible
Gagnon response: http://www.robgagnon.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
here's an article I found
By RICHARD N. OSTLING
AP Religion Writer
Addressing head-on the hottest public issue shaped by the Bible, two-thirds of 21 million voters supported constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, in 11 states ranging from freewheeling Oregon to straight-laced Utah. Eight of these measures also barred legalized civil unions.
Six states previously took similar stands and conservatives are now plotting campaigns in nine additional states.
In nationwide exit polling, 25 percent of voters backed gay marriage (but 77 percent of Kerry voters), 35 percent accepted civil unions and 37 percent (70 percent of Bush voters) opposed all legal recognition.
The traditional biblical belief was skewered just before Election Day by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who said “it’s presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side.”
Backing Kristof, the Web page of New York University’s Center for Religion and Media said the “anti-gay position” held by most religious leaders is a “misinterpretation. Or more simply wrong,” because they are “cherry picking select passages from scripture.” (Presumably that includes Muslims who cite the Quran’s condemnations.)
Then Pittsburgh Theological Seminary’s Robert Gagnon, author of the conservative magnum opus “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” used his Web page to answer Kristof. Sample items from their colloquy:
—How can believers uphold the homosexual law (Leviticus 18:22) but ignore other Old Testament commands?
Kristof: “Homosexuality never made the Top 10” among biblical commandments, so it’s as trivial as “wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt” (Leviticus 19:19).
Gagnon: Kristof’s “extraordinary lack of” sensitivity in Bible interpretation ignores that ritual fabric rules carried minor penalties, whereas Leviticus treats homosexual acts, adultery, incest and bestiality together as “first-tier sexual offenses.”
—Was Leviticus limited?
Kristof: Some scholars say this law condemned only one practice, not all gay eroticism.
Gagnon: By that logic, the Bible allows “erotic kissing and fondling of one’s mother.”
—What did Jesus believe?
Kristof: “Jesus never said a word about gays” and anyway, conservatives are inconsistent because they ignore Jesus’ teaching of “self-castration” (Matthew 19:12).
Gagnon: The first point is “historically preposterous.” Silence doesn’t equal approval. Jesus didn’t address universally held Jewish beliefs unless he opposed them, and he advocated Old Testament morality and heterosexual monogamy. Matthew 19:12 isn’t literal but refers to voluntary celibacy, as everyone knows.
—And Paul?
Kristof: “Do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver?” If so, women must wear veils and long hair (1 Corinthians 11:5-6).
Gagnon: Whatever those Corinthian worship rules meant, they weren’t serious moral matters like incest or homosexual acts, which risk “possible exclusion from the kingdom of God,” according to the Bible.
—What about lesbians?
Kristof: “The Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex” (he said the same in a previous column). Maybe Romans 1:26-27 opposed only relations during menstruation or female aggression.
Gagnon: Please. Read that text again, without preconceptions.
—What was Sodom’s sin (Genesis 19:4-8)?
Kristof: The Bible criticizes Sodom’s lack of hospitality, not homosexuality, and teaches that “the holy thing to do is offer up your virgin daughters” if a mob attacks.
Gagnon: Later Bible passages (Ezekiel 16:49-50, Jude 7, 2 Peter 2:6-10) and ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters indicate Sodom’s misdeeds included homosexual acts. The Bible implicitly criticizes Lot for offering his daughters.
—Did the Old Testament approve gay sex elsewhere?
Kristof: It seems that David and Jonathan had a gay relationship (1 Samuel 18).
Gagnon: “No reputable biblical scholar” agrees, not even liberals. Kristof simply misunderstands non-erotic male friendships in ancient cultures.
Note: Kristof’s article strangely ignored the important writings from Bible scholars who take his side, much less conservatives like Gagnon.
———
On the Net:
Kristof link, Gagnon response: http://www.robgagnon.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You are correct Garth he did....
Quote:I've been boring people for years with my
opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God.
I knew it was added but I really didn't understand why until this past year.Quote:
It appears to be something he just knew But I don't see any sorta evidence to back up this. I knew a lady who just knew Elvis was speaking to her from beyond. Then again she had no proof either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
WhiteDove,
I've gone into this in some detail in the "Doctrinal" forum in the past - I can't recall how many times. Hence my desire not to "bore" people. But to recap only briefly why I think the material in this section -from Romans 1:19 -2:1 - was missing,-or altered -
is based not on a message from Elvis from beyond the grave, but on reconstructions of the text of Marcion, which text was published approx. between 130-150 AD.(his was in fact the earliest known New Testament canon).
A Greek reconstruction of Marcion's "Romans" may be reviewed in Appendix III of the German edition of "Marcion" by Adolf von Harnack, and Theodor Zahn, vol II of "Geschichte des n.t. Kanons", or more recently, Ulrich Schmid, "Marcion und sein Apostolos".
Or, you can review an English translation of one of the sources used by these scholars, "Against Marcion" by Tertullian, in vol III of classic "Ante-Nicene Fathers" (which is posted online at a couple places) - or Evan's Latin-English translation at www.Tertullian.org
In is in chapter 13 of book 5 where Tertullian discusses (or criticizes) Marcion's text of Romans here.
The section of 1:19-2:1 was obviously missing, or existed in a far different form than what has come down to us in our overbloated canonical version. For one, Tertullian not once uses any material in this section - even from his own version, which he did not hesitate to cite against Marcion - as a weapon against him, a fact that was also not lost to the 19th century scholar Hilgenfeld in his journal article on Marcion's Pauline canon.
While Marcion has been accused by his opponents of excising material from his text - these accusations are not supported by the facts, nor by the prevailing tendency of the opposite - namely, the proven fact on the side of orthodoxy to have expanded and enlarged their texts. A perfect speciman of this fact: the epistles of St. Ignatius, of which there exists shorter versions, and longer versions.
The shorter versions are older, while the longer are more recent. The entire New Testament underwent this process.
btw, if anyone here is interested in an immensely easy-to-read, approachable work on this topic, please check out "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred" by Charles B. Waite. It's a bit dated, but still highly invaluable and very enjoyable especially to those who may be still recovering from Wierwille's toxic "mankind was made for the scriptures- not the scriptures for mankind" mindset.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Dan thanks for the info actually as you were posting I had already poped in my disk of Ante-Nicene Fathers as I had a feeling you may be headed in that direction.
I'm headed off to work but I will continue to dig through the info,its been some time since I have looked at it. At first look today he does appear to be a lone wolf in that theory. Most of the others including Luther in his commentary on Romans tend to include the text but translate it more in relation to Idolators than homosexuals which makes more sence to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
How do you know it was added? If it wasn't in an earlier text, which is now lost, how can you validate your statement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I believe someone requested this. I swiped it from a web site, but I've gotten it by e-mail many times too...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I disagree with you on that one, white dove...there is a question on whethter it is scripture that makes the church nonsupportive. Hence the site I pointed to at the beginning of this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I would refer you to those works - which include 3 reconstructions of this text drawn from quotations by the early Church writers - already cited in my previous post.
I would also suggest that anyone review any number of critical introductions to the NT text.
For example, the more recent "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart D. Ehrman.
What will be seen, is that a many serious NT scholars for well over the past 100 years have reached the conclusion that Paul did not author the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, which twi was so fond of holding over our heads. I mention this fact if only to illustrate how widespread the practice of writing (and editing) under the pseudonym of one dead apostle or another had become. The pastoral epistles - as one will learn if one is brave enough to review any critical introduction - betray their actual period and occassion of writing.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Following is a quote from an English version of one of Tertullian's works:
“Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, ‘Does not even Nature teach you? ‘ -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error.”
(Source: http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-10.htm#P1056_431766 – see Chapter VI)
*****
Tertullian was obviously quite familiar with the subject section of Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
*****
John Piper has a few rather competent expository comments (particularly his observation that the teaching of Romans is that homosexuality was a judgment of God) on the subject passage at the following URLs:
The Other Dark Exchange: Homosexuality (Part One)
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/98/101198.html
The Other Dark Exchange – Homosexuality (Part Two)
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/98/101898.html
The piece that apparently starts Piper's Dark Exchange series is:
The First Dark Exchange: Idolatry
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/98/100498.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I stand corrected. It must have been in Tertullian's text. Thank you Cynic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
QUOTE]Originally posted by vickles:
I disagree with you on that one, white dove...there is a question on whethter it is scripture that makes the church nonsupportive. Hence the site I pointed to at the beginning of this thread.
------------------------------------------------
Vickles
Eating meat on Friday is tradition for Catholics Not Biblical. Trust me on this Vic, (I grew up almost as Catholic as Excathedra) All 3 of my Aunts were Sisters of Charity one being assistant to the Mother Superior and I spent 12 years in Catholic school.
It began with another tradition Good Friday the day they thought Jesus died. Back in the day, if you wanted to eat meat, you had to buy a young animal, care for it, feed it, fatten it up, and then butcher it. Then prepare to feast because without any form of refrigeration, you couldn't count on keeping meat around for any length of time. In other words, meat was an indulgence. But if you wanted to eat fish, you just went fishing. Fish was a humble meal.
The practice of abstaining from meat every Friday was established by the Church in order to help people practice self control and learn not to indulge themselves too often. Catholics, you understand, worship God with their whole bodies, as well as their hearts and minds, so abstinance from certain foods is one form of worship that is acceptable to them. It disappeared sometime after Vatican II. Sadly like some other groups we know they never admitted there was no scriptural basis for this practice. The reason given for the change when pressed was missionaries in other countries found it hard to comply because they had to eat what was available for food so everybody got to change to be fair... It is still suggested that you abstain from meat on Good Friday.
So in your example it was not scripture that had anything to do with not eating meat it was tradition. Most Catholics today will admit that it is and was a church tradition unfounded by any scripture. That is not a rare thing by the way the order for truth pretty much is 1. What the Pope says. 2. Catholic Tradition. 3. The Bible. Thats why it not being biblical was not a big thing. It is a fine example of tradition being non supportive but not scripture.
Now as to your site. In an effort to validate their point of view both sides often grasp at straws like this. Here is another, Jesus was gay becuse he hung out with 12 men... first he did not only hang out with 12 men there are records of women being with them. And by the way I don't think that means they were only there to serve the men. while I am sure that they did cook and such I also think they did much more but that is another discussion. That no more proves he was gay than if I saw a carload of men driving to work and assumed they were also gay.
These things really do no good to either side as to the issue they only distract and cloud it. I looked at the info Dan provided but still most translaters agree the text was there.
Dr. Wierwille as you remember based his take on Eli Eli on one source Lamsa. There is always going to be someone who will be the differing voice.
Myself, I don't think the text is wrong I thing the point is just missed.
I think it was Linda who mentioned the fact that Jesus never addressed the subject. Here is a BIG clue! Keep your nose out of other peoples business........ Like in the record of the woman caught in adultry Jesus never denyed that she had sinned but he also never heaped comdenation on her either. I always found it interesting in the Way that there were no levels of sin yet Homosexuals somehow were the lowest of the low How can that be if there are no levels? You know the old saying Opinions are like *ss h*les everybody has one. That being true I'd say sometimes like *ss H*les they are useful and sometimes like *ss H*les they are just ugly. There are lots of things in the Bible that are refered to as sin. I just don't feel the need to point them out to people all the time I suppose my life keeps me busy enough.
Edited by WhitedoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The Invisible Dan stated in an earlier post,
In a later post, he cited Marcion as a source for this. One thing he didn't mention was that Marcion was a heretic. Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian denounced him. His heresy, in a nutshell, included that he taught that Christ was God, but that Christ was not the Messiah (it's a lot more complicated than that). Texts that he altered to support his views included Luke, Romans, and Ephesians.
To quote the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (v. VII p 173), "In the Gospel of St. Luke Marcion made an arbitrary change in the text in order to provide for an immediate appearance of God in the world..."
Sources: New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol VII, pp 172-174. http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php3?a=schaff&b=encyc07&p=172
Catholic Encyclopedia, Marcionites, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
There's more, but this is not the "doctrinal" forum. Anyway, the point is that the teaching of the church has been consistent on this subject has been pretty consistent all throughout. This is not a change that was imposed in the 4th Century, as some have tried to indicate.
A few examples to add to the one Cynic posted:
From the (Dated 80-90 AD):
(btw, pederasty is defined as "one that practices anal intercourse especially with a boy")
From Justin Martyr's (Ch 12): (around 150 AD)
From his Discourse to the Greeks:
From Clement of Alexandria, in his The Paedagogus, (Book 3, Chap 8)
And there are more examples all throughout the period of the early church.
The point is that this has been the consistent teaching of the Christian Church.
Having said that, I will repeat again something that I've said before. What your opinion is on whether any of this is relevent in how you live your life is your business, not mine. I really don't care. However, when I see Scriptures being discounted because they don't agree with your beliefs, I have visions of Wierwille with his "literal translations according to usage" or deleting verses of the Bible because they don't line up with what he believed and taught. But, because I know that I am going to be excoriated here, let me repeat this one more time: how you choose to live your life is your business. It is your business and your business alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well said Mark
My other post was getting too long but I wanted to include this about opinions that someone wrote and I found to be helpful. maybe it will be for you also.
No matter who you are or what you do,the harsh reality of life is that some people will love you,some people will hate you,and some will never care one way or another.
The sooner we learn this,the easier it will be to let go of other people's negative opinions. No one is immune from the attacks of others-that's just life. the more you try to do something and commit yourself to anything,the stronger the opinions will be for you and against you.
Some attacks are harsh to break you down.Some attacks are mean-hearted to get you to feel bad. Some attacks are sympathetically critical designed to sneak up on you and stab you in the back. Some attacks are disguised as in your best interest so you let down your guard. Some attacks are intellectually intricate in order to misdirect you.
Most of these attacks are just people's opinions,their perspective,their veiw-even if it is based on scripture.
The first thing we must do is realize who we are as God's sons and daughters and what God has done for us in Christ. Then we must know where we are going and why we are doing the things we are doing. After this,let people have their opinions.
I am not saying that I am perfect or that I can't make a mistake. So when people say things, I will listen but then I need to sort out the statements and see if they really do apply to me or if they are just opinions.
People criticized Christ's actions and his decisions. They attacked his words,his personal life and his followers. They tried to bait him and trick him. His own friends and family attacked him and finally,even as he was dying,they attacked him.
But he knew who he was and where he was going and he moved on- Thank God he did!
Edited by WhitedoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Wasn't Jesus Himself more or less tried and crucified as a "heretic" in the eyes of the religious mainstream of the time?
And I cannot help but voice those words which I always bear in mind when reading the arbitrary views of the church fathers -
"Blessed are you,
when men hate you and abuse you
and ostracize you
and reject as evil your name
for the sake of the son of man -
...for the same did their fathers
to the prophets."
and further down in Luke 6, a special "woe" to those whose names become celebrated and exalted by men to no end (i.e., Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Luther, -? - etc.)
Such is the way of history - and yes, the world - the names of certain men become praised - while others are relegated to the "accursed" trash heap.
I find it the greatest twist of history that the man oft credited for publishing the earliest known New Testament canon - has himself been condemned as "son of Satan"!
Perhaps Christians really have been worshiping the wrong god all along - they ought to hail Satan for having cooked up the idea of the Christian canon.
Forgive me if I do not always march in line behind history's "verdicts" - the words of Jesus ought to give us all something to consider here.
On the other hand, I appreciate the numerous other examples you cited concerning sodomizers in the ancient world - which again, seemingly adds all the more to the point I proposed in my initial post on this thread - of how the controveries of history become reflected in the literature of the time, even if depicted a century earlier than when such controversies actually occurred. And to quote you again -
My point exactly.
Aside from the possibility that I may be a lesbian in a man's body, as my wife would attest -
I was not moved to express my opinions here out of any particular lifestyle concerns of my own, but rather, from observation of the fruits resulting from the interaction between texts and history.
Mark, not only Marcion - and no less than Marcion - but all the Christian movements in those early centuries were quite arbitrary in their handling of their material. And even today, churches today continue to disagree over points of interpretation.
And lest you think that the splinter of a critical approach to the Bible jutting in my eye is Wierwillian in nature, the "beam" evidently sticking in your head - namely"THE-WORD-OF-GOD-IS-THE-WILL-OF-GOD" - is that any less Wierwillian?
But relax Mark - we're perhaps both destined to fall into the same ditch.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
I couldn't agree with you more, white dove!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Dan, you raise some interesting points. However, the bottom line is that what Marcion taught and promulgated was not in line with what is commonly known as Christianity. I don't want to bore everybody else with the details, but I am sure you can identify many other heterodox positions. And perhaps his theory on the creation being the production of a "demiurge" is correct and the rest of Christianity was full of it.
My point is that the source you cite for your initial statement was not promulgating what we know as Christianity. And frankly, I doubt that Paul would have been in agreement with Marcion's positions.
You stated, "...all the Christian movements in those early centuries were quite arbitrary in their handling of their material. And even today, churches today continue to disagree over points of interpretation."
Although the structure of the Church was not as well defined as it is today, I would tend to disagree with you. We can see definite communication between a good amount of communication among the various episcopal authorities. Look, if you will, at the writings of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin (Martyr), Iulius Africanus, Origen, and so on. You will see, not only communication among the episcopates, but a continuity of thought as their understanding evolved. This is not to say, as you alluded to, that there were not schismatic sects that would spout up from time to time; however, they all were denounced for their heresies in time and withered on the vine.
As to your last slam, "the "beam" evidently sticking in your head," you surely can't be serious in that. If you were, then why in the world would I have any concern with the writings of the Church Fathers? After all, they aren't scriptural and, besides, they are nothing but a bunch of dirty, nasty Catholics anyway. BTW, my criticism you cited was not aimed at you in particular (you'll note I referred to you in the third person throughout my previous post), but as a general tendency with modernism. Frankly, I have the utmost respect for somebody who takes the time to actually study the early Church. Its a far more realistic approach than a "sola scriptura" approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark -
My apologies to you if I was harsh in my last slam.
I must confess, I realize I've been putting the cart before the horse in this thread, and have addressed a couple points from what may be commonly regarded an "intellectual" standpoint.
But my reasons for my suspicions toward the material in Romans 1:19ff goes far deeper than that.
Does the voice underlying that section sound like the Savior who uttered the highest, most profound expressions of Christian love ever to pierce the darkest hearts of mankind?
The same Christ who uttered, "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God...blessed are the hungry, for they shall be filled...Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh...? - the same Christ who came to earth and extended His unconditional divine love and grace to those - the scum of the world, the lowest of the lowest, the stinking dungheap of humanity - in short, those who least deserved it?
Who encouraged these same lowlifes to give their love and lend to others without expecting anything in return?
The same Christ who uttered "Be compassionate as your father is compassionate toward you, judge not lest ye be judged, condemn not lest ye be condemned...forgive and you will be forgiven"? - to imitate God's character here, of what our approach toward fellow losers like ourselves should be? the "Physician" who came not for the righteous, but for "sinners"?
But when I encounter that particular section in Romans - I'm sorry, but something's terribly off there.
And what's more, when one considers the violence committed against others who used
that particular section as their justification and motivation for abusing, harming and even murdering others they deemed different from themselves - then is it unreasonable to question the authenticity of that section on the basis of it's rotten "fruits"? ("By their fruits ye shall know them" ?)
Of all the critical avenues toward weighing this body of literature sewn between the covers entitled "Holy Bible", what ultimate, better aid than the living Spirit of Christ dwelling within one?
Will we listen to Him, or drown out the Spirit of love with the white noise of supposed "correct doctrines" and "correct teachings" and "correct practices" and so forth?
I realize full well that many come up with kooky doctrines and ideas in their endeavor to follow Christ - but let's suppose for one minute - what if we focus our energies more precisely toward pursuing the "love of Christ"? That the love of Christ becomes that against which everything else is weighed?
Can you imagine how different Christian history the past 2,000 years would have turned out?
What a novel that would make.
with warmest regards,
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Dan,
The Pauline epistles consistently warn against all sorts of immorality. The specific injunction against sodomy is mentioned not only in Romans 1, but in 1 Cor 6 and Gal 5, as well. Immorality in any form is dealt with in these same sections, as well as well in other sections. There is a similar injunction against incest in 1 Cor 5, as well. Think of all those poor people who have been persecuted for incest over the centuries as a result of that section of scripture, as well. Perhaps that one was speciously added as well?
If you review the context of Romans 1:19ff, you will note that the overall context is that of the worship and acknowledgement of God as the creator of the universe and the fact that this should be self-evident to anybody (frankly, a defense of the natural law, imo):
I hesitated entering this thread because I don't want to push my beliefs on somebody else. Everybody here knows the Biblical proscription on homosexual conduct. Whether he decides to regard that proscription or not is, frankly, a decision between he and his god. I have shown a small portion of the Church Fathers' writings that address a specific issue that was raised: an assertion that a portion of Romans 1 was added centuries later. My purpose was to show that the teachings of the Church have consistently proscribed that behavior from the beginning and, therefore, the likelihood that this section of Romans was added is unlikely. Getting into some kind of debate on the justification of the behavior is a waste of time. I'm not going to convince anybody who does not want to be convinced.
I'm going to go back to a statement I made on another thread a few days ago: "You know, whether you agree or disagree with a person's decisions, his status as a human being entitles him to a certain amount of basic human dignity. I have yet to meet anybody who has truly changed his life as the result of belittling."
That's the bottom line. Whether I agree with a person's lifestyle or the decisions they've made in their lives, they still deserve a basic amount of human dignity. I think that if I continue on with this line, my positions may be interpreted as something they are not. I, frankly, would prefer not to go there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I also hesitate to jump back in here and I don't have much to add to what mark already posted except this line bothers me
Quote
And what's more, when one considers the violence committed against others who used
that particular section as their justification and motivation for abusing, harming and even murdering others they deemed different from themselves - then is it unreasonable to question the authenticity of that section on the basis of it's rotten "fruits"? ("By their fruits ye shall know them" ?)
Peoples actions are what they are. We can't erase parts of scripture because people do things. Scripture does not justify Harm,ill treatment, or killing people. My concern like Mark was that we can't pick n choose what parts of scripture we like left in or out. If we do that then at some point all the verses will be left out by someone.
If we let the love of christ decide scripture then who decides what is love and not . Some would say that to remind people of their sin is to be loving as you are helping them to change. It is like "the spirit told me" everyone has a different revelation because the spirit told them something different than the next guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark-
I enjoyed immensely your fine comments respecting the dignity and worth of every human being. I heartily agree.
Thank you.
I also hesitate to add more to what has been a very heated discussion. It is neither my intent nor desire to strike from the Bible every passage pertaining to sodomy. But in my view and for many reasons, this particular section in Romans is problematic. I would like to rewind a bit on those passages you cited from to point out only a couple observations:
Heathen mankind knew the "truth of God" - and in addition - were "captivating" it or suppressing it? (v.18)
But wait a minute -
I thought Jesus Christ was "the truth", the way and the light. Going back to the original subject in verse 16 - "the Gospel" - the power of salvation to everyone who believes it.
Did nature proclaim Jesus Christ? But then if that's the case -why would be the purpose of Jesus coming at all, if nature and creation already accomplished the same task for him? From verse 20 on, things take quite a bizarre leap in logic, from whence this section started out - the Gospel! - in which "the righteousness of God" is "revealed therein" - to which a "wrath of God from heaven" is "revealed" against those who suppress "the truth of God" in unrighteousness.
So from v.20 on - the unrelated "creation" should have taught us "the Gospel" and of the "righteousness" revealed therein?
Though Jesus taught in parables utilizing illustrations of nature, should those godless heathen had been able to draw those same lessons on their own prior to the coming of Christ?
But then again, - why bother have Jesus come at all, according to what follows from verse 20 on? The logic collapses upon itself. Those darn heathen - they're doomed if they do ("you should have paid attention to nature"), and they're doomed if they don't ("you went too far - you paid too much heed to nature - now you're worshiping it!")
So who really were those people captivating or suppressing the TRUTH - (THE GOSPEL) -in their dishonesty?
I think I know who it was, but I'm not going to say here. I'm leaving that for my book
:)-->
But certainly not the nameless, faceless, godless sodomizing heathen to which the narrative sloppily leads.
The new additions are slick and smooth - but thankfully not without their obvious flaws.
So ends my thoughts on this topic.
***
Whitedove,
If we can't depend on the love of Christ -
then what?
Surely you haven't erased from the table of your heart, "Love never fails"?
But judging from your fine, heartfelt posts here, I know you haven't.
What people do with paper is one thing.
But what one determines for their own self to write or erase in their hearts is a far more weightier matter.
with warmest regards,
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Surely you haven't erased from the table of your heart, "Love never fails"?
No. I just think it needs to be balanced with scripture. And even then sometimes it still gets screwed up.
I've seen too much go on in the name of love. Man's ideas on what is loving.
Open humiliation, ruined marriages,dumping people who had years of service to God's family, and persecution of gay people and the list goes on. WERE ALL DONE UNDER THE GUISE OF LOVE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
(sigh) I hear ya, WhiteDove. The whole "love-of-God-in-the-renewed-in-manifestation" -ugh!barf! - even makes my skin crawl to this day. They had to make it into some weird, complicated, long-winded doctrinal formula.
Each one of us is so different. No one shoe fits all. Believe me, I've struggled with searching for and striking that balance as well,
and will probably continue to make adjustments throughout the remainder of my life.
It's not the same for everyone.
We're such a diverse lot, but I'm glad for that.
warmest wishes,
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.