This is from a thread on Facebook. Please read through to the end. At the beginning of the thread, you may get the impression that I'm not able to refute this person; however, please understand that I have dealt with him a number of times before, and he always refuses to concede a thing even when he is clearly wrong. The end of this post is where I clear up the confusion. It may be difficult to follow in parts because he jumps around with his topic and with certain terms such as "section." I use the term "section" in two different ways in the thread also. In one place I'm referring to his use of a whole group of verses while in another, I'm referring to a section of a particular verse. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
[name deleted] 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
[name deleted] It says nothing about homosexuals. it says arsenokoatai, which is a word that John made up and certainly doesnt mean homosexual in ancient greek.
Tom Usher -
It's obvious what Paul thought about homosexuality:
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Arsenokoites means what Paul wanted it to mean. It meant and still means within Paul's context males bedding males.
[name deleted] your evidence that Paul meant it to mean that is where?
he made the word up. in fact, they had about 5 other words that means homosexual, so why did Paul decide to make one up?
Arsen just means male, Koites means licentious activity. it could well have meant just a man who sleeps around...
Ahhhh Romans, once again, read it in the original greek, its all in the interpretation.
Tom Usher -
The evidence is self-evident. That's the point of Romans.
Why did the Bible in places avoid offensive language, such as with the use of the term "to know" when it meant (within context) "to have sex with." That's rhetorical, since I don't expect you to know the answer. You're only looking for excuses for homosexuality. You're not looking to understand the contexts of scripture. You aren't a Christian. You aren't interested in being one.
I have read that Romans in the Greek. In addition, there is nothing that isn't able to be subjected to interpretation. There is also nothing inherently meaningful for your cause that anyone coins any words. Coining words has happened all down through history. That's where they, words, come from in the mundane.
If you want to continue attempting to render Paul as being not opposed to homosexuality, that's your choice to make yourself look the fool.
If you wanted to promote something else, you'd be looking to excuse that via all sorts of convoluted rationalizations.
Paul was opposed to homosexuality. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant, duped by twisters, or an idiot - perhaps all three.
You aren't willing to know the truth when it's right in front of your face.
Lastly, you don't know that Paul made it up. Philo used the word before Paul. [written in haste, as it give the false impression that I'm insisting Philo used the combination exactly as Paul used it when I'm actually referring to the sense-meaning of the words as Moses used them — albeit it in ancient Hebrew (and likely Egyptian) rather than the Septuagint, koine Greek]
Lev 18:22 ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î¼ÎµÏ„á½° á¼„ÏÏƒÎµÎ½Î¿Ï‚ Î¿á½ ÎºÎ¿Î¹Î¼Î·Î¸á½µÏƒá¿ƒ ÎºÎ¿á½·Ï„Î·Î½ Î³Ï…Î½Î±Î¹Îºá½¹Ï‚Î‡ Î²Î´á½³Î»Ï…Î³Î¼Î± Î³á½±Ï á¼ÏƒÏ„Î¹Î½.
kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos. bdelugma gar estin.
Do you see aresenos and koiten (coitus) there?
"And you shall not have sexual intercourse with a male as with a female. For it is unclean." That's from Moses. Did he coin the words?
Why don't you go find something worthwhile to do?
[name deleted] Yes, arsenos means male, koiten means licentious... so together they just means males having alot of sex...
[name deleted] It doesnt mean males having sex with other males.
Homosexual, in ancient greece wasnt an offensive term at all, so there would be no reason to leave it out.
Tom Usher -
Why do you insist upon writing about things about which you have zero expertise? The verses are in Greek. It's the Old Testament. It's from the Books of Moses. The verses are complete and speak directly about homosexuality. I included the translation for you.
No noted biblical scholars doubt it. Not even the so-called noted homosexuals who claim to be biblical scholars doubt it.
You don't know anything about what you're writing about here. You're just repeatedly making yourself look stupid.
[name deleted] How exactly do you know i dont have any expertise? there are other words in the sentence in Leviticus which makes it mean its against homosexuality, but the seperate words Arsenos and koiten put together, dont mean homosexual. if anything, they mean a male who has alot of sex with different people (not specifically men)
Tom Usher -
How do I know you don't have any expertise? It's painfully obvious.
The context is the context. In that verse, the words mean what they mean by virtue of the context.
Homosexuality was a stoning offense. The early Christians met over the rules for letting gentiles into the religion. They argued over the details. Nowhere did they relax the standard against homosexuality.
You've simply been parroting bad theology by homosexuals.
I'm not going to waste any further time on you on this subject. You're being thickheaded and self-contradictory.
You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. You are not substantiating your supposed points.
[name deleted] Once again with insults, how very un-christian of you...
seperate words mean seperate things. when you put two words together, it can only mean exactly as the two seperate words mean. end of.
Also, that section in Leviticus, was only ever meant for the priest caste, not for everyday jews of that time. most of levitocis is the same.
[name deleted] leviticus*
Tom Usher -
In case you are not aware, this group has a rule concerning backing up claims. Noah instituted that rule. He's not interested in endless, nonintellectual arguments in this group.
Your reasoning is clearly broken here, and you are refusing to acknowledge it.
[name deleted] Its not broken, you cant just read a word that a dead man from 2000 years ago made up by putting two seperate words together and assume he meant something because those two words were used in context to homosexuality in another section.
Tom Usher -
"...that section in Leviticus, was only ever meant for the priest caste...." The book says nothing of the kind. You are echoing a claim that can't be substantiated. You are echoing something someone made up just to cast doubt where there is none for honest people.
Furthermore, Christianity has nothing to do with avoiding what you might take as insulting.
You are still saying that Paul made up the word when it was used before he used it in his letter. I already told you that, but here you are continuing with the same falsehood.
Go away, [name deleted]. You have added nothing intelligent here. All you want is to support sin no matter what. You'll twist anything and everything just to support iniquity.
[name deleted] It was never used before, the seperate two words were used, not as a whole though.
Actually, there are a tonne of ancient jewish scholars like rashi and various others who say that it was only for priests, not the every day jews, because only levites and cohanim were allowed to be priests.
[name deleted] "arsenos ou koimethese koiten"
the word Arsenokoiten wasnt used, the two seperate words were.
[name deleted] All that section means is Man & Woman Licentious sex.
Tom Usher -
Look, for the last time and for the benefit of others who may read your numerous errors here, the verse says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." You don't understand the word. The whole Bible is the word. When Paul took "male" and the sexual-intercourse cognate of "bed" from the Greek Leviticus, he did not make up something new to the word of God. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I'm the one who put the Greek verse above. I'm the one who mentioned "Coining words," but I went on to explain how there's more to it than just making up the idea or concept. The concept wasn't new. You have added nothing here about it. The meaning didn't change. The context didn't change. Homosexuality was condemned by Moses, and Paul did not alter that one bit.
Furthermore, the Levites, per se, were not priest, contrary to your assertion above. Lastly, it doesn't matter what some rabbi said when the text doesn't say a thing about the prohibition against homosexuality applying only to priests.
Regardless, you admitted that the verse prohibited homosexuality but then turned around and said the section applied only to "Man & Woman Licentious sex" when it doesn't say that at all.
[name deleted] 1- i never said it only applies to the entire verse, i said that those 4 words (arsenos ou koimethese koiten) literally just means man and woman licentious sex.
2- so you also follow the rest of Leviticus and keep completely Kosher do you? because theres nothing in the new testament that says not to. in fact (i cant remember the exact verse) Jesus says that not one word of scripture can ever be broken. but i assume you dont keep kosher to the letter of the law like it says you have to. the same applies to shaving, killing anyone of a different religion and wearing a covering your head (traditionally with a skullcap)
3- Not all levites were priests no, but the only people who could be priests were Levites or Cohanim.
4- So if Rashi and various other scholars cant explain what the scripture means, why could paul, and the rest of the people who wrote the new testament do it? they were just humans, same as anyone else.
Tom Usher -
I am not answering for your benefit because it is obvious that you aren't the least bit interested in the truth but only interested in proselytizing for what is clearly confusion. I am only answering for the benefit of others who may stumble upon your twisting here and become confused themselves.
"1- i never said it only applies to the entire verse, i said that those 4 words (arsenos ou koimethese koiten) literally just means man and woman licentious sex."
The verse is the context and gives the words their connotations (where and when used). Your argument rises or falls on this fact. Since the context is anti-homosexuality (which you've admitted), your whole line of ostensible reasoning is shot down. In fact, it never gets started in the mind of anyone who knows the verse and its source. The words within context literally mean homosexuality and not "man and woman licentious sex" absent the point of homosexuality. You are misled and misleading but are refusing to admit it. You are lying to yourself and to the whole world and even before God. You know I'm right about the verse, but you are desperately clinging to your distortion.
"2- so you also follow the rest of Leviticus and keep completely Kosher do you? because theres nothing in the new testament that says not to. in fact (i cant remember the exact verse) Jesus says that not one word of scripture can ever be broken. but i assume you dont keep kosher to the letter of the law like it says you have to. the same applies to shaving, killing anyone of a different religion and wearing a covering your head (traditionally with a skullcap)"
You are unable to read in context. The point of this whole thread concerns what Paul meant and not something where you reframe the debate of the thread into some other topic. You took exception to the beginning of this thread. I have responded to your specific false-charge. Now you want to twist the thread into something entirely different.
The answers to your new charges are nevertheless also completely a matter of context and comprehension of such which you lack in the extreme. Your reference to Jesus is out of context. David ate the show bread. Do you understand? No, you don't.
You are completely wrong about the New Testament and what it says about following verbatim (in the sense you've used it) the Law of Moses. Jesus stopped them from following it in the way they had been literally raised to believe. You, however, are being too thickheaded to except it. Your only interest is in trying to convince others that homosexuality is fine. You grasp at any straw to do it. You'll even make up straws to do it. Why don't you try honesty for a change?
Paul was anti-homosexuality. He did not make it up. He took the word(s) from Moses who was anti-homosexuality, period, not just for priests or their assistants.
I am not required by the word to follow the ritual laws of Moses in the manner you've suggested. Jesus came and enhanced understanding. He removed hypocrisy. That's why Paul didn't stone homosexuals to death even while he retained the truth that 1) homosexuality is a behavioral choice 2) it is always harmful and 3) Jesus did not condone it in the least. No amount of twisting from you is going to alter those facts.
"3- Not all levites were priests no, but the only people who could be priests were Levites or Cohanim."
Now you say it.
"4- So if Rashi and various other scholars cant explain what the scripture means, why could paul, and the rest of the people who wrote the new testament do it? they were just humans, same as anyone else."
You are still attempting to reframe. The thread is about whether or not Paul meant anti-homosexuality, which he did and which you know he did but aren't capable of admitting it because you are out to deceive others for the sake of the confusion that is homosexuality. You started this with the false claim: "It says nothing about homosexuals. it says arsenokoatai, which is a word that John made up and certainly doesnt mean homosexual in ancient greek." It wasn't John regardless; and it certainly does mean homosexuality, which I've made quite clear to all rational souls.
The religion is about the movement of the Holy Spirit of truth, but you ask me why? If you believe what you've just said, then why did you refer to the merely human Rashi? You did it with the utmost confidence that he is right that the whole section, as you put it, referred only to the priests (and later you admitted their assistants). That is a demonstration of completely disjointed thinking on your part, which is your pattern throughout this group.
You don't come here wanting to learn. You come here only to spew what is clearly and plainly illogical.
You have lost this debate. You had lost before you started. Only dishonest souls will conclude otherwise. You can't extricate yourself from your glaring errors that show through here by more of the same twisted so-called reasoning you've demonstrated here.
Now, if you post more garbage to this thread or more of the same elsewhere in this group, I will take the position that you ought not to be allowed to continue here since there is a clear rule against the same. The rule is evenhanded. It applies to all.
It's not easy to converse with people whose thinking is so muddled. He can't follow a logical train of thought. He's just blowing off the logic and jumping to another so-called point in the hope that he'll stumble onto something.
See also: Gen 19:5; Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Deu 23:17; Jdg 19:22; Isa 1:9; Isa 3:9; Jer 3:3; Jer 6:15; Eze 16:49; Eze 16:51; Mat 11:23-24; Rom 1:23-24; Rom 1:26-27; 1Co 6:9; 1Ti 1:10; 2Ti 3:13; Jud 1:7
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)