ARSENOKOITES
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.
March 13
Tom Usher -
It's obvious what Paul thought about homosexuality:Romans 1:26-27
(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 καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.
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
- Technorati Tags: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, adulterers, ancient Greece, anti-homosexuality, arsen, aresenos, Arsenokoites, Bible, biblical scholars, Books of Moses, change the subject, Christian, Cohanim, coitus, comprehension, confusion, connotations, context, David, debate, drunkards, duped, Facebook, Gentiles, greedy, Greek, Holy Spirit, homosexual, homosexual offenders, homosexuality, homosexuality is a choice, hypocrisy, idiot, idolaters, ignorant, illogical, iniquity, Jesus, Jewish scholars, John, kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos. bdelugma gar estin., καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν, kingdom of God, koiten, Kosher, Law of Moses, Levites, Leviticus, Leviticus 18:22, male prostitutes, Moses, New Testament, Old Testament, Paul, Philo, priest caste, priests, proselytizing, Rashi, reframe, refute, religion, ritual laws, Romans 1:26-27, scripture, self-contradictory, sexual intercourse, sexually immoral, show bread, sin, slanderers, swindlers, theology, thickheaded, thieves, to know, 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








Tom Usher
Standing Comment, all posts and pages:
To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:
Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.
Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.
Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.
Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.
The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.
TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH
Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.
Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.
If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?
If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?
If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?
The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.
What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?
The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.
Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.
Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.
What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.
The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.
I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.
I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.
Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?
We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.
Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.
As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.
Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.
Now, if you submit a comment:
What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.
Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.