I wish I had more time so we develop this comprehensively. (which would require a new thread)
But for now, please tell me what texts in Ezekiel. thanks.
I don’t know when Christians first began interpreting the sin of Sodom as homosexuality, but that’s pretty much never been the prevailing view in Jewish study.
I think one thing about that story that people seem to miss or be unaware of is that God had already made the decision to destroy Sodom before the angels even showed up. The incident with the angels had nothing to do with God’s decision.
Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
If Adam and Eve were immortal, then they’d have no biological clock/aging process/etc. If, on that day, they lost that, their End of Days clock would start ticking. At a certain point in your life, you start to die.
Furthermore, you can argue that Adam and Eve DID gain knowledge from the tree (or rather, free will with some human curiosity): women can have meds when they give birth, man can buy tractors to help farm, etc., etc., and for all we know, some day in the future we could find ways to live forever.
Ignoring the fact that this is off-topic and I’m supposed to be ranting …
It’s pretty clear to me that Adam & Eve were not immortal. What would be the point of including the Tree of Life otherwise? It would be like Jor-El packing a bullet-proof vest in baby Kal’s rocketship.
They were never immortal. They never ate from the tree of life.
^^ The above was to show another side to Judith’s point.
But really, to say that God lies or does not lie is, I think, attributing some kind human characteristic to him that I can’t fathom. We have a distinction between ‘white lies’ and ‘the other kind of lies’.
It’s like saying God murders, or He inflicts pain, or other things that bring Him down to human judgment. Most certainly I have told Judah he should not wander from me in the parking lot lest he get hit by a car and die.
Tricky thing, this God business is! 
This is the Tree of Knowledge.
The Tree of Life is another concept - usually describing the Torah or a second tree in the Garden.
Or is it? 
But really, the tree they ate from was the knowledge of all that is good and evil (lit: everything).
We’re talking about a character in a book. The character of “God” in the Bible lies and kills and is “jealous,” and is all kinds of other things. The Bible was written by humans. Its characters are bound by the text.
It is. There were two different trees.
And God lied to them and told them not to eat it because they would die that very day if they did. God was worried that they would become “like us” (like the gods…the “us” here is an artifact of the Mesopotamian mythology from which this story was descended), and that if they ate from the tree of life, they would be the same as gods. So he drove them out of Eden, denied them the tree of life, etc.
God’s motives were purely selfish. The serpent’s were good. It’s similar to the story of Prometheus giving fire to humans against the will of Zeus.
I don’t even know where to begin.
-
These texts do not purport to address, clarify or refute the earlier texts in Genesis, and don’t directly, indirectly, implicitly or explicitly reference them.
-
Unlike the Genesis texts, Sodom is a bit player in these texts. In these texts Sodom is simply an example, and it is Jerusalem that is the object for rebuke in these texts.
-
It is silly at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, to say that the crime of in-hospitality must implicitly mean (because it certainly doesn’t say it explicitly does it?) that the clear and unambiguous language about homosexuality in the Genesis texts really mean they weren’t good hosts. It’s borderline comical.
-
Even then, by omitting verse 50 you’ve changed the context----as far as using these texts as an example that the Genesis texts were not about homosexuality is concerned. I mean, Ezekiel wasn’t done with his laundry list of Sodom’s crimes was he? Why did you stop and give us just verse 49? Ezekiel also lists (in verse 50) ‘haughtiness’ and ‘detestable acts.’ See it below:
I agree with SecondJudith.
**
Context matters.**
I don’t know how you can say it doesn’t address the text. What else is it addressing when it refers to “Sodom?” That name had no meaning outside of the text of genesis.
Irrelevant. It clearly states the sins of Sodom, and they were not sexual.
There is nothing in the text of the Sodom story that says anything about homosexuality. Even if the angel story is interpreted as an allusion to an attempted homosexual rape (an interpretation which is far from certain), it still would not be a reference to homosexuality per se, but to rape. Firthermore, the ange story doesn’t happen until after God has already decided to destroy Sodom, so it’s irellevant to his decision.
Verse 49 provides the context for verse 50. The “detestable acts” are how they treat the poor and the needy. And what does “haughtiness” have to do with homosexuality? Where do you get that homosexuality has anything to do with the Sodom story at all?
It doesn’t address the Genesis texts at all.
It doesn’t address them indirectly.
It doesn’t address them directly.
It doesn’t address them implicitly.
It doesn’t address them explicitly.
The fact that Ezekiel saw fit to refer to Sodom briefly in a passage about Jerusalem does not mean he is:
- Referring directly or indirectly to the Genesis texts.
- That he clarifying, adding to, refuting, subtracting from, correcting, or otherwise tampering with the Genesis texts.
- That he is directly commenting on homosexuality at all; with or without the Genesis texts.
- To the extent he might be indirectly, he is referring to the condemnation of homosexuality.
The sins listed in verse 49 are clearly not sexual. That doesn’t mean----and he certainly doesn’t even imply it------that Ezekiel is saying that the sins in verse 49 represent the totality of Sodom’s sins. That’s plain silly.
With this logic, you cannot possibly be a rapist if I’ve previously accused you of being a miserable house guest. Surely anyone reading that charge would realize that
A) It’s silly to assume that any grievance I may have towards you is always a complete and full accounting of all my grievances I have with you. and;
B) It’s silly to assume that you are incapable of having multiple character flaws, from God’s POV.
But…that’s hardly the whole story. Verse 50 lists “detestable acts” that only a healthy dose of confirmation bias would get you to loop back around and attribute them to verse 49. Why does Ezekiel feel the need to gild the lilly?
If the Jews did in fact have a specific condemnation of homosexuality from God, the the reference to “detestable acts” in verse 50 is likely a reference to the writings in Genesis; writings they would have been well acquainted with.
That’s another discussion all together, isn’t it?
This much I know: The cites you’ve provided don’t answer the question I posed to SecondJudith: [which was]
When is the earliest valid cite for the notion that the Genesis accounts are really being about hospitality, rather than homosexuality?
These texts don’t address the Genesis texts----and to the extent they might, they buttress the condemnation of homosexuality.
Once again, this is another discussion altogether. But you are proof texting when you try to shoe horn Ezekiel 16 into a discussion about the Genesis texts on homosexuality.
This is just factually wrong. Sodom has no meaning outside the story referred to in Genesis. It’s like saying Tennyson’s “Ulysses” doesn’t address the Iliad or the Odyssey at all. It’s a direct reference to the Sodom story. Because of how it says “Sodom” and all.
Goodness, I don’t think I would call reading verses in the order they were written ‘confirmation bias’!
I’m not sure how familiar you are with prophetic literature, but it uses repetition and parallel structure for emphasis. For example, “Let righteousness well up like water, and justice like an unfailing stream.” “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.” “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?” Restatement is used for emphasis, not for contrast.
The only bit of the Bible to condemn homosexual actions is in Leviticus, not Genesis. There is no “clear and unambiguous language” about homosexuality in Genesis.
Hehe.
“Buttress.”
Any reference to Sodom is, ipso facto, a reference to Genesis because that’s where the Sodom story comes from. If someone is making a reference to Gandalf the White, they’re making a reference to The Lord of the Rings. A reference to a feature of story is a reference to the story,
I didn’t say he was doing any of that. He’s just alluding to a plain reading of the story.
Of course not. The notion that the Sodom story had anything to do with homosexuality hadn’t been invented yet,
This is not in the text whatsoever.
Since he’s enumerating the reasons that Sodom was destroyed, and since nothing in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible says homosexuality had anything to do with why it was destroyed, we don’t have any reason to presume it.
With this logic, you cannot possibly be a rapist if I’ve previously accused you of being a miserable house guest. Surely anyone reading that charge would realize that
That’s fine, but if you want to assert that homosexuality was one of God’s grievances with Sodom, you need to back it up with something other than the fact that Ezekiel doesn’t mention it.
Because the Bible is repetitious and guilds the lily. We also have no reason to insert “homosexuality” into the blank of “despicable acts,” anymore than we have any reason to insert dog fighting or burglary.
Of course it’s a reference to Genesis, but Genesis says nothing about homosexuality.
Come on, man. It’s a direct reference to Genesis. Sodom had no existence outside of Genesis. There was no way to refer to Sodom without referring to Genesis.
Ezekiel also does nothing at all to buttress condemnations of homosexuality. It makes no mention of homosexuality at all and neither does the text it’s commenting on.
Ezekiel is patently a refence to the Genesis story (I don’t see how this is even debatable), and Genesis makes no comment on homosexuality.
Let me make sure I understand you correctly.
Because Ezekiel referred to “Sodom” in a passage rebuking Jerusalem ---------- and it would appear that the word 'Sodom" is the ONLY connection between the 2 texts---------that a reasonable person reading the 2 texts would come to the rational conclusion that Ezekiel was referring/clarifying the texts in Genesis?
You’re seriously saying that?
I sure would.
If you start from the premise that the bible has no clear language about homosexuality in the bible than verse 50 you have to ascribe it to something.
I’m pretty familiar. That doesn’t change the plain and simple fact that these texts say nothing about homosexuality. They certain don’t refer to Genesis.
There was this guy from Tarsus that had a few things to say about it I think.
Sorry, I meant the Jewish bible, which is what I’ve been referring to.
How would it have been possible to know about the Sodom story without knowing about Genesis?
I’m not sure why this is hard! A reference to a story is a reference to a story. Sodom has no meaning outside the Genesis story. I’m not sure how much clearer I can be about that, really!
Anyway, the word “Sodom” isn’t the only (emphasis) connection between the two texts - the Genesis story refers to inhospitality and greed, the Ezekiel text refers to inhospitality and greed. There is a thematic connection as well.
Exactly!
DtC
Maybe you misunderstand me. There can be no quarrel that Ezekiel is referring to the same Sodom.
That is not the issue.
The issue is that he mentions Sodom in passing and from that morsel you’re imputing not only meaning to him and his intent, but forcing him to force words into a previous text.
Words he never uses implicitly or explicitly.
Ezekiel is--------at best-----ambiguous about homosexuality in these texts. And…if the Jews did have a condemnation of homosexuality that the implication is he is condemning homosexuality.
You can’t provide a circular self validating argument.