Jesus speaks in parables or stories a lot. When I read the Synoptic Gospels I see most of his teaching comes in story form, as parables. Parables are meant to involve the hearers and challenge them to change their perspective, their hearts and their behavior. They are used in the Old and New Testaments as religious literature and symbolic, poetic and non literal. Being symbolic it implies drawing images “outside the lines”.
I have a friend Mike that talks in parables and I have to stop and think about what he just said and what he meant. I then get that gotcha moment when I understand.
Jesus teaches about the Kingdom of God in this way. Just in the question alone, “Do The laws of the Old Testament apply to Christianity” I have looked up many verses. Hebrews 3:1-6, Mat 7,21 Mat 5,17, Mat 15:2-9 and they still do not answer the question to my satisfaction?
Why “whatever”? Why would you think that those two verses would possibly apply to lesbians?
There are 2 verses in the Bible that prohibit man-on-man sex, and the second is basically parroting the first. The first is in Leviticus 18. Let’s read the beginning of Lev 18:
So, basically, what follows in this chapter is a list of things that the Canaanites and/or Egyptians did that the Jews are not to do. If we assume (and I do not know if there is any evidence of this, but it’s not implausible) that the Canaanites and/or Egyptians involved sex in their religious rituals, then it’s safe to say that man-on-man sex was necessarily involved in their religious rituals. (This might be a shocker to you, but back in those days, women weren’t given the same level of respect that they get today. It’s safe to assume that the Canaanites and/or Egyptians were no more keen on allowing women to participate in religious activities than the Jews or early Christians were.) Ergo, any religious ritual necessarily involved only men. And if sex was part of the ritual… well, you figure it out.
Therefore, it’s not implausible that the prohibition against man-on-man sex, put in a list of things not to do that the Canaanites do that should not be done by Jews, might actually have more to do with idolatry than morality.
The fact that, outside the parroting of this verse 2 chapters later, nothing concrete against homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, tends to lead creedence that you and the Baptists have completely blown this issue out of proportion.
There is nearly nothing in the Bible that is without doubt. Someone, in this thread or the one that preceded it, posted the number of denominations of Christianity that exist. If everything in the Bible were above interpretation, then there would only be 1.
1.) the same could be said about women. OT men bought their wives and sold their daughters.
2.) Slavery in the bible was different than slavery in the US. Back then, if you didn’t have money, you could sell yourself into slavery for a time, then work your time off. It wasn’t based on your ethnicity.
Do you not see how illogical your point here is? People believe what they believe to be true, not what they want to be true. I want to have a 9" penis, 4% body fat, and $1,000,000. But I don’t believe it, because I know it’s not true. People who honestly believe that their god doesn’t want them to eat catfish simply don’t eat catfish. They don’t say “that looks delicious. I need to find a different religion.”
Certainly, subconsciously, some people pick a religion that is most amicable to their situation (which is why few homosexuals convert to Baptist and why Islam is more appealing to a borderline-pedophiles than it is to American women), but, for the most part, people believe what they believe, and that’s what their parents believed. Minor moral quibbles about god not being nice enough to the handicapped aren’t going to cause many people to risk hell just to be P.C.
For the same reason I would assume the word “mankind” applies to women. I think the use of “man” is a convention in this passage. I think the people who made up these prohibitions (and I do guess the prohibitions were invented by human men) simply did not think it appropriate or necessary to include women with any specificity.
I may be wrong…but that is why I think the verses might “possibly” apply to women also.
So basically you are saying that this passage has to be interpreted only as the god instructing people NOT TO DO what Canaanites and Egyptians did that they were not to do…and contains no other prohibitions except that type. Then I have to assume the only homosexual activity done in Egypt was the kind that happened in religious ceremony. And then I have to assume the god only meant that the homosexual activity was an abomination in its eyes if it were done as part of ceremony!
!!!
Wow…and that is because it logically makes sense to do that…rather than only because that is one way it can make the passage look like it says something other than what it actually says?
It is not implausible that the prohibition was there for any of dozens of reasons…but since it is there, and since it does not say that engaging in homosexual activity shouldn’t be done as part of ritual…but rather than the activity itself is an abomination in the eyes of the god…it is not implausible that it actually means what it seems to mean…and I just think (guess) we really ought to consider that to be the more likely explanation. It is not certain by any means, I’ll grant that.
Don’t put me in with the Baptists on this horseshit, Rucksinator…and don’t for one second think that I consider homosexuality to be immoral or an abomination. Although I am straight…I have been an advocate for homosexual rights from way back before it became the “in thing” to do. I have written op ed pieces on the issue back when people who did were looked on by some men as “questionable!” And I didn’t much give a shit. I am not turned on by men, but any man turned on by other men…or any women turned on by other women…are simply humans sexually turned on by same sex partners. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality that I can see…and I think the ancient Hebrews who saw something wrong with it and put that sentiment into the mouth of the god they invented did a horrendous injustice to people who just happen to be sexually wired differently from people who are turned on by opposite sex partners.
Take a look at the context in which this issue is being discussed which has to do with “do these laws apply to Christians”…and does it make sense for people who suppose there is a kind, loving, just GOD…to assume this particular god is that GOD.
You are not wasting my time with your scholarship, CJJ…although I cannot say the same about the unctuous tone of this last post of yours.
You are saying things about the Greek that are Greek to me. I freely acknowledge that.
The person who wrote this passage had an impression of what Jesus was trying to communicate…and if he, or Jesus could not do a better job of communicating “I am here to change the Law”…then things are even worse with that book than I suppose. (By the way, my supposition is that the book is virtually useless in answering the two fundamental questions of importance here: Is there a GOD?…and…What is the nature of the GOD?)
The interpretation of the words that past scholars are giving is that the person writing thinks Jesus was saying “I am NOT here to change the Law.” This seem especially compelling to me in light of the fact that publicly proclaiming “I AM here to change the Law” could have cost him his life.
Now you are here saying essentially saying that the scholarship of all the interpreters is not accurate…and that your interpretation is to be preferred.
I am skeptical…and I freely acknowledge that I do not have the scholarship to make a meaningful guess about whether or not you are so much more intelligent and open-minded than the others that I should accept your words.
The people I am talking about guess there is a GOD…and they guess the GOD to be loving, kind, and just.
Then they guess the god of the Bible is that god.
But there is nothing about the god of the Bible that is loving, kind, and just. The god is vengeful, murderous, comically tyrannical, and petty.
I have no problem with them guessing (or “believing” if you prefer) that there is a GOD…and no problem with them guessing that the GOD has attributes like being loving, being kind, and being just.
But I have lots and lots of trouble with their asserting that the vengeful, murderous, comically tyrannical, petty god of the Bible IS THAT GOD.
Nothing illogical about that. Why do you think it is?
Having had a paltry few history of religion classes, nonetheless, it’s fairly common when even scratching the surface of true Biblical scholarship to note that the archaic Greek that the oldest extant gospel texts are in is difficult to translate correctly to English, and the nuances of what any given Greek term means in context are going to have a profound effect on the overall meanings.
Also understand that the non-scholarly translations of the Bible (King James being one) were translated with an ear for poetic language and ambiguities being resolved in favor of whatever way religious authorities at the time were leaning. It’s not until the modern era that translations by areligious and impartial scholars from original sources have even been attempted, and very few of those are popularly available even now.
Something to think about–many publicly available bible translations were commissioned by spiritual persons in positions of authority over religious sects, and you must acknowledge the possibility that those people were cynical semi-theists at best who were willing to twist the translations to varying degrees to increase their power in the here-and-now. Certainly the King James Version, the Douay Bible, and the NIV are potentially in that category.
I concede all this…but the fact is that the quotation in question has one of two possible meanings. Either Jesus was saying “I am here to change the Law” or “I am not here to change the Law.” The question of when the change would come if the former is correct, is a secondary question.
All the translations I’ve ever seen (and I have twenty Bibles to work from) have Jesus asserting he was not here to change the Law. He is going out of his way to make that point.
Now CJJ is coming into an Internet discuss and asserting that HIS interpretation is different…and he seems to be astonished that I am not willing to accept this without question.
Not sure why he feels as he does about my reaction…but if it is any indication of his ability to reason, there is even less reason for me to accept his take now than before.
No, this is not correct; in Leviticus the drafters (whoever they were) were careful to mention male and female seperately, in listing what is prohibited.
Read in context:
The presumed “you” is male, but the drafters are very careful to add “…neither shall any woman …” when they want to ensure the prohibition applies equally to women.
In point of fact, to this day among Orthodox Jews lesbianism is not considered an “abomination” (it has the same status as any other extra-marital sex).
But that is what the passage actually says. Read the beginning and end bits:
What I think happened is that male-on-male homosexuality got a bad “rep” by being associated with the practices of the Hebrew’s ethnic enemies, hence the prohibition - which basically says, ‘don’t do the following things that the filthy foreigners do’. Unfortunately, once added to ‘the books’ it tended to stick and get re-enforced by the fact that the ethnic enemies of the Hebrews (notably, Greeks) tended to be associated with its practice.
However, the Bible is nothing if not inconsistent, and speaks rather approvingly of homosexuality in other contexts - see for example the relationship between Jonathan and David, the Bible’s greatest hero.
It isn’t the ancient writers’ fault that this particular bit has stuck when so much else has fallen by the wayside. In Leviticus, trimming your beard is also prohibited, probably for much the same reason - yet legions of medieval and modern men saw no problem walking around clean-shaven.
I am not wrong. I was asked why I thought the passage COULD POSSIBLY apply to females.
I gave a reason why I thought it COULD POSSIBLY apply to females.
I also specifically mentioned that I could be wrong (about it applying to females).
But most assuredly am NOT wrong about why I could possibly think it could apply to females.
Surely you see that difference.
Interesting point…and certainly one I will consider. But that was not the thrust of the question asked of me…and I answered that question.
Interesting that many present day males who find male homosexuality to be an abomination…also enjoy jerking off while watching two women get it on together.
Maybe the god of the Bible is of that mind. I really do not know.
Okay, I’ve read them all…and I say you are wrong. Where (point it out specifically) does it say that the injunction applies only to homosexual activity as part of ceremony…as part of ritual? (That was part of the statement I made where you are saying I was wrong!)
I think you are basically correct here. I think the bit was added almost like a “don’t be like those guys, they fuck each other in the ass” kind of thing. Unfortunately, it has been used to persecute people who simply are turned on by same sex partners.
Bottom line: If a man is sexually aroused by other men and acts on it…that is their thing…not mine, not yours…and definitely some GOD that people want to be loving, kind, and just. A small “g” god might make it a concern…but who the hell cares about small “g” gods? Which segues neatly into: Why would anyone want this god to be their GOD? (Except for ethnic Jews who do it out of tradition rather than any real sense that this actually is a GOD.)
If you have an actual quote…use it and I’ll consider it. We are in agreement that the Bible is inconsistent.
Heh, don’t worry so much about it. I’m wrong all the time.
I suspect that what made the ancient authors of Leviticus unhappy was the notion of “effeminacy”, particularly when associated with foreign religious practices and pederasty (see for a later example the Roman emperor Elgabalus - a Syrian heriditary priest).
The sort of manly love as between warriors, like David and Jonathan, not so much.
What women did with each other did not set off the same reaction.
This isn’t all taht surprising in a very patriarchal culture.
It isn’t outright stated but it is rather strongly implied. The reasons the practices of the Egyptians & Caananites were singled out are ethnic and, strongly, religious.
Again, there is nothing in the OT that actually comes out and says that the two got it on. What it says is that they had a very close, loving relationship - so much so that Jonathan turns against his own father when he tries to have David killed (making his father rage at Jonathan’s “perversity” ) and that, after Jonathan’s death, David laments that their love was “better than the love of women”.
All this has lead generations of folks to assume that their relationship was like that of other such famous warrior-lovers of history, like Achilles and Patroklius. (sp?). Moreover, these are clearly the “good guys”. So, by extention, this sort of homosexuality isn’t 'bad", unlike (say) that of pederastic syrian priests.
Bible references:
Jonathan loves David “as himself” and became “one in spirit” with him; takes off his clothes and gives them to David:
Jonathan saves David’s life, and David kisses him and they weep together:
David’s lament, that Jonathan’s love was “more wonderful than that of women”:
Now, it can (and has!) been disputed that this does not necessarily add up to a sexual relationship. The notion that the Bible’s greatest hero was in a homosexual relationship, and apparently one approved of in the Bible, is profoundly disturbing to some, for obvious reasons.
Handing over robes and weapons was a common mark of favour (though I think highly unusual to hand over the robes you happen to be wearing!), the kiss is a common greeting used between close friends in some cultures and is not necessarily sexual, and “love” obviously does not necessarily have a sexual component.
Nonetheless, the relationship as depicted is easier to interpret as one of sexual love. Loving a buddy "as oneself’ and as “one spirit” implies more passion than a mere friendship; handing over the clothes you are wearing is an unusually intimate mark of friendship; kissing and weeping together implies an intimacy unusual between male friends; and as for "your love for me was more wonderful than that of women " … that speaks for itself, no?
Not that David at least was “gay” in the modern sense - he clearly and famously had passionate sexual affairs with women - such as Bathsheeba.
I have to disagree. The quotation can have any number of meanings, because there are different ways to define what is meant by “the Law” in that statement. As I noted upthread, nearly all Christians have always given it a definition different from yours.
No, I think this can be blamed on Paul, because he specifically reiterated a denunciation of homosexual activity in Romans 1:24-27. That lets people who don’t like gays claim that Paul was specifically putting this one into the category of moral law, which sticks, and not ritual law, which doesn’t. I don’t think the passage has to be read that way, particularly when one considers that Paul didn’t really approve of heterosexual sex either, but that’s the one that the gay-intolerant crowd tends to rely on.
Also, I haven’t really been following the male vs. male-and-female discussion, but FWIW the Romans passage specifically mentions women and men separately.
You are right, in Christian culture Paul is to blame.
The treatment of homosexuality in Christianity is a whole other topic; I’m comming from the Jewish cultural tradition. So, for example, Orthodox Jews activly differentiate between male homosexuality (as in Leviticus) and female (not denounced).
More liberal Jews claim that only specific, archaic homosexual practices were supposed to be denounced (syrian pederastic priests and the like), and that the Bible actually approves of male on male homosexuality in a loving and equal relationship (see above comments on David and Jonathan). Naturally, in the Jewish context, what Paul has to say doesn’t matter.
I think the problem with this discussion is that those who are religious aren’t Biblical literalists. If there were some conservative Biblical literalists in this thread, perhaps it would be a different conversation, but when you are dealing with those who believe that the writers of the Bible were shaded by their own biases while they were being divinely inspired, you may not get the responses you seek, Frank apisa.
Are you telling me that “nearly all Christians” interpret that passage to say: I am here to change the Law???
I have never, in over three decades of debating this stuff, ever had a Christian cite that passage in defense of “we are no longer subject to the Law” EVER!
Paul is ALWAYS cited…and either I or someone else arguing my side, brings up this passage in opposition.
Is your experience different? Are you saying when in discussion of whether or not the Law applies to Christians you or others cite this passage to substantiate that Christians are NOT?
C’mon!
This really does not compute!
Paul and his sexual hang-ups certainly contributed.
But the god of the Bible was the one who first put it out there (according to the Bible) and bears responsibility. It can reasonably be argued that Paul was saying: It is clear as day that (the god) considers this kind of conduct to be reprehensible!
That, essentially, is the problem–and in fact the problem with a lot of biblical interpretation. You are relying on a translator–who is also relying on a particular recension of the GNT–to make a delicate point about the meaning of the text. And even in English, the text is not unambiguous. This is something like judging Beethoven by listening to Walter Murphy’s A Fith of Beethoven.
This is a glib oversimplification. Like many passages in the Bible, things can and have been interpreted in contradictory ways, and there is no definitive evidence to mark one position right or wrong, just “plausible/implausible” or “likely/unlikely”. And if you recall–according to the gospels–the things Jesus said DID cost him his life, and according to John at least Jesus antricipated this, so I’m not sure why he would hold back on this particular point for fear of his life.
In short, it doesn’t seem reasonable to think Jesus was being coy in this one case just to avoid trouble with the authorities. It’s far more likely that he either (1) didn’t want to change the law at all–a position which is difficult to reconcile with many other passages in the NT–or (2) thought it should/could change, but in a subtler way than simply disregarding or destroying it in full. IMO the English can be interpreted to imply (2), and the Greek even moreso.
I never, ever said this, “essentially” or literally. First, “the scholarship of all the interpreters” is mixed, but the preponderance–taking into account the full scope of the NT and not cherry-picking particular verses–is on the side that Jesus intended some change in the status of the law. Second, I never said or implied one interpretation or the other is preferred, simply that a certain interpretation–which you still take to be incorrect based on a narrow reading of the English translation–is defensible, and in fact become more plausible with a look at the original Greek.
Boy, this is pretty thin-skinned. I would think someone so interested in understanding any text–much less religious ones–would want to understand any potential meanings lost in translation. Would anyone consider themselves an authority on, say, Shakespeare if they only read him in French, or Cervantes if they didn’t know a word of Spanish? I know if I were to ask about apparent contradictions in, say, the Quran, I’d concede that the linguistics of Arabic–a language I know nothing about–could explain a difficult passage I’ve only read in English. If i can check those interpretations between other Arabic scholars, even better.
And when it comes to the Koine of the Bible, even if you don’t know a whit of Greek there are plenty of comparative resources for the non-specialist. Try googling “Greek New Testament”, or “Introduction to Koine Greek”, or at the very least find an interlinear Diaglott or similar.
Do you think that–in order to test your theory that “the use of ‘man’ is a convention in this passage”–that a look at the original Hebrew or the LXX could support or eliminate the possibility to a reasonable degree?
The last thing in the world I am is thin-skinned. To be honest, this suggestion from you sounds to my ear like a suggestion from Rush Limbaugh that I am over-weight. (I was less than 160 in high school, and I’m less than 160 now!)
I appreciate your giving an explanation of your position. I did not appreciate the follow-up comment. If that bothers you…so be it.
Oh nonsense.
And??? The fact is the writers wrote what they wrote.
If this actually is what you say it is, why isn’t it trotted out as a rebuttal when people like me confront people who claim the Law no longer applies to Christians?
Why don’t these people say: See, here is Jesus saying he came to change the Law?
HINT: Because they would be laughed at!
Look, I am willing to acknowledge that Jesus certainly seemed to make changes. But the changes ARE the kind that destroy or disregard the old Law. “Turning one’s cheek” and “loving one’s enemies” are not subtleties of change, CJJ…they are monsters…180 degrees out of synch with the attitude of the god of the Bible.
As for a more compelling interpretation of what was happening…I’d say at the moment this particular discussion was occurring, Jesus was not ready to be nailed to a cross or be stoned to death for blasphamy…and he said what had to be said at that moment. That is what I would guess…and unless you prove that is an unsustainable position, I’m sticking with it.
I do not want that “cherry-picking” nonsense thrown at me. We were discussing a specific passage…and in order to discuss the specific passage…you gotta talk about the specific passage. That is what I was doing…and your “cherry-picking” nonsense is out of order.
I am not going to look at the “original Greek” because I do not know Greek…and I rather suspect that the “original Greek” may be as tainted as the English translations are. The “original Greek” pretty much puts to paper what was said by people unable to write in any language. Essentially, the “original Greek” was written by people who were translating what they were told…and could also be making mistakes.
You know that.
Indeed! I am wondering why you are not doing that.
Whatever! Sounds like you ran out of ideas and arguments here!
Because I am having a discussion on the Internet…and we are discussing a particular passage from the Bible…not playing the game of “my dick is bigger than your dick!” All said with all the respect in the world for you.
I dunno who you hang out with, but it’s a pretty common position in exegesis on this passage. By that I mean it’s argued for and against…look up or Google “Theonomy” if you doubt it. One example from the link–in which the author is discussing a particular interpreter’s reading of Matt. 5:17–"There may be, as Dr. Fowler says (p. 64), various difficulties in interpreting this verse as it is considered from different angles, and indeed the understanding one has of “fulfill” is among them (Theonomy deals with six main alternatives, expressed by a wide range of interpreters!). "
I’m not sure how, in all your study of the Bible and religious texts, you missed these other possible alternatives, but I also get the feeling we’re talking past each other here. Again, I’m not at all interested in chainging your mind, nor do I claim that one position is right and the other wrong. But I recognize there are plausible arguments rooted in accepted scholarship for the opposite interpretation of this passage; I’ll take that over “in my opinion” and “I rather suspect” any day.
This is what I mean by “thin-skinned”–you clearly thought the term cherry-picking comment was an insult aimed at you (it was intended to clarify the process most competent exegetes take in interpreting Biblical passages). And an aversion to cherry-picking does NOT mean a reluctance to discuss a specific passage, it means a reluctance to discuss that passage without context or comparison with other sections.
Incidentally, although I grew up Catholic, I’m no longer a believer in Christianity; I am interested in ancient languages and cultures, and the LXX and GNT are a big part of Greek study. That study, in fact, led me to de-mystify much of the Bible and see it for what it is.
I really don’t understand this argument. By this standard, would translating thru two languages introduce twice as many possible mistakes, and so lay less claim to accuracy than the original? I’m not saying you need to read the entire Bible in Greek, but when you’re talking about the meaning of specific words in a particular passage, why wouldn’t you want to get as close to the source as possible?
Yeah, that dick comment just oozes respect (snigger).
