Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,883
1,952
113
my opinion of you is from what you have already posted on this thread and your own words. I am not belittling you or judging you, I am only responding to your words of support for the homosexual lifestyle and trying to justify it. Surely you are not wanting me to post what you have said again to provide to you why I am saying this? If you do please let me know :).
Do whatever you like.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,999
4,311
113
Well, this is essentially saying that there is no such thing as an imperfect Christian. The "Father" of Christ, however, was an adulterer and murderer, namely, king David.

It's types like you who try and make false claims as to what one has said over what you think they have said. I never said that or suggested no such thing as an imperfect Christian but I can tell you there is no such thing as an imperfect "homosexual Christian".



Being Perfected in Christ isn't a matter of actual sin, but rather, it is a matter of Spiritual Circumcision. And, if Spiritual Circumcision has taken place (the Circumcision of Christ), then sin becomes a matter of whether or not it is habitual.

You would be correct, except for the matter of spiritual circumcision. IF you are spiritually circumcised then you have cut off that part of the flesh that causes one to fall short like homosexuality. Therefore one cannot indemnify with what they have cut off from themselves Unless you have not cut it off from the context of the heart which is the real Circumcision As Roman chapter 6 states YOu who are dead to sin how can you live in it any longer?

If this is True, then the life of a Christian is not marked by habitual, continual sin.

The Christian life is marked by faith and obedience to the word of God as walking in the Spirit you do not fulfill the lust of the flesh. Gal 5.

Below, note the word, "Practice." Sin is not a "practice" of a person, but can happen. And David? He certainly did not make a "practice" of adultery and placing others in harm's way (as he did with Urijah).

1 John 3:8-9 NLT - "But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God."

FYI you were the first to respond to my post, not the other way around then you want to play the victim. YOu tried to suggest I said something I did not and I called you on it. Types like you.
 
Aug 3, 2019
3,744
507
113
FYI you were the first to respond to my post, not the other way around then you want to play the victim. YOu tried to suggest I said something I did not and I called you on it. Types like you.
CS1, you need to chill out and sit down to some of my Cajun Turkey Gumbo - all that fine tastin' Louisiana cuisine but with a leaner, meaner Tom Turkey twist lol
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,883
1,952
113
FYI you were the first to respond to my post, not the other way around then you want to play the victim. YOu tried to suggest I said something I did not and I called you on it. Types like you.
I'm not a victim of you. Do you have any more belittling, Shimei-like things to say? Keep it up, for there might be some kind of reward for tolerating your insults with my Grace and Understanding.
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,883
1,952
113
CS1, you need to chill out and sit down to some of my Cajun Turkey Gumbo - all that fine tastin' Louisiana cuisine but with a leaner, meaner Tom Turkey twist lol
I have cancer. There isn't anything that CS1 might say that would, or could, bother me.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,999
4,311
113
CS1, you need to chill out and sit down to some of my Cajun Turkey Gumbo - all that fine tastin' Louisiana cuisine but with a leaner, meaner Tom Turkey twist lol
that sounds good :p
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,999
4,311
113
I have cancer. There isn't anything that CS1 might say that would, or could, bother me.
again I am not belittling you, I will pray for you that God would heal you of your cancer and give the doctors wisdom in treating it.

I disagree with your position on this topic but I wish you no ill will. God has healed me of cancer and we have many in our church currently in the battle for their life. I would never make light of your illness. I will humble myself to you and ask now your forgiveness.

And leave you be.
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,883
1,952
113
again I am not belittling you, I will pray for you that God would heal you of your cancer and give the doctors wisdom in treating it.

I disagree with your position on this topic but I wish you no ill will. God has healed me of cancer and we have many in our church currently in the battle for their life. I would never make light of your illness. I will humble myself to you and ask now your forgiveness.

And leave you be.
You have my full forgiveness . . . not that you had to ask for it. In fact, I didn't even think of it. You are free to be exactly who you want to present yourself to be. For us all, our issues are with our Powerful, Almighty God.

Matthew 25:40 NLT - "And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!"

If you were to ask anyone of forgiveness, ask that the Lord would forgive you. That is, if you feel that you were in error.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,999
4,311
113
You have my full forgiveness . . . not that you had to ask for it. In fact, I didn't even think of it. You are free to be exactly who you want to present yourself to be. For us all, our issues are with our Powerful, Almighty God.

Matthew 25:40 NLT - "And the King will say, 'I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!"

If you were to ask anyone of forgiveness, ask that the Lord would forgive you. That is, if you feel that you were in error.
I did ask for it. and I leave it at that God bless.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
The idea that 30% of the population identifies as LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ is Fake News commie media propaganda bulldookey. The actual number is probably closer to 1 percent, which is 1 percent too many.

In the Garden of Eden where marriage was instituted between His "male and female" creation, God never ran a sewer line, and neither should the church be attempting to install one when we are on the cusp of the return of Jesus.
I believe that was from a Christian survey, but it was millennials, I think, not anyone.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
CS1, I don't merely give opinion, I back it up with authorities and objective observation; something I've not seen others do on this thread. No one has attempted to explain why he thinks the modern fundamentalist versions are accurately translated.

NET Bible: Translator's note on 'malakos': "This term is sometimes rendered “effeminate,” although in contemporary English usage such a translation could be taken to refer to demeanor rather than behavior."
It is possible that Paul meant malakos to refer to men lacking of basic moral virtue, as some other authors might have used the term. But Paul was Jewish, and so was first-century author Philo, who used the term to refer to 'gay' type effeminate guys who simulated the more female type role. I read a lie from an LGBT activist that tried to make Philo out to be LGBT movement friendly. The opposite is true. Here are a number of quotes from Philo in translation on this site compiled, https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/...omosexual-behavior-in-paul-s-letters-part-two

So if Paul did not break down the male 'gay sex acts' into two types of actors and just used arsenokoitai for those involved in male-male sex acts, why would that make it okay? That would not make it any less sinful. Paul's recommendation in the next chapter is that to prevent fornication let every woman have her own husband and ever man have his own wife. It's either that or celibacy. Male-male sex partners or female-female sex partners is not okay.

I looked up occurrences of 'malakos' where they show up in Greek literature, as many references as I could find, many years ago. In some contexts, the idea that it referred to men who lacked male virtue could fit. In others, it fits more with the same-sex sex stuff.

Something else to keep in mind is that scholarship is ongoing. If more modern translations-- which tend to be translated by committees--- see malakos as related to homosexual activity, there may be scholarly reasons for that. Back in the 1990's, all the extant Greek literature was put onto a CD, so now scholars can find all usages of a term easily, not like in previous centuries.

The BDAG lexicon is often quoted, but the word "homosexual" is nowhere to be found in the definitions of malakos or arsenokoites, but in its paragraph on arsenokoites it indicates that "homosexuals" is inappropriate: "(on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] see WPetersen"
You do not offer much to comment on here. If 'homosexual' refers to orientation rather than actions, there is a problem with using that term in translation.

Many commentaries and lexicons state that malakos is figurative for a "catamite". They offer no evidence of that.
No commentary anywhere in the world? Have you checked them all?

The Holy Spirit would hardly inspire Paul to write malakos for "catamite" when the other 3 times it is used in the NT, it means "soft clothing".
That's a spurious argument.

Also, when there is an exact word in Greek for catamite as seen in the LSJ Greek English lexicon, Paul had the exact word to use:

https://lsj.gr/wiki/κίναιδος
Clearly another spurious argument. Arguing that Paul didn't mean X because he could have used another word that would do away with ambiguity-- I occasionally see that line of argument. It's poor reasoning.

Philo called 'catchers' or the equivalent without specification of whatever act performed 'malakos'.

In the same lexicon, the word malakos, no sort of same-gender sex is given as a definition, among the many definitions given.

https://lsj.gr/wiki/μαλακός
The scholar who put it together may have focused a bit more on the classical period. It does mention 'effeminate.' But if the word refers to moral weakness in this context, arsenokoites is there. Given that Paul wrote to Timothy about activities forbidden by the law and 'arsenos koiten' clearly, you also have a weak case. And the two dudes on the pottery with the oral situation going on there with arsenokoites on the pot is another piece of evidence.

Just as the fundamentalist translations changed from "miscarriage" in Ex. 21:22 NASB77 to "give birth prematurely" in the NASB95; to support their anti-abortion social views, these same fundamentalist
Why would I be surprised that an individual who wants people to think that two men having sex is moral want to make arguments to justify murdering babies in the womb? The abortion passage there in the Old Testament was translated that way in the LXX translation before Christians or modern 'fundamentalists' came along. The Didache also forbids abortions.

translations change 1 Cor. 6:9 to read according to their own bias against males who want other males as companions, lovers and physical relationship. [/quore]

First of all....ewww gross. But read the Old Testament. God had the Israelites put men to death for such things.

This is not some "gay theology" or gay exposition, this was known back in the 19th century, as Heinrich Meyer writes:

"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hmc/1-corinthians-6.html
Again, two things. Philo is much closer to the type of person Paul was. Philo was a Greek speaking Jew. Paul was, but also was emersed in Judean culture as well.

Now when someone can present a rational defense of using some form of homosexuality in translating 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 you'll have some standing, above just biased opinions and bigotry.
You have not presented a rational defense otherwise. The term does not show up much. It looks like it is lifted off the LXX of Leviticus 20. There is the pot with the oral activities and two men. Is there anything else in ancient literature with the word. Marriage (man and woman) or celibacy are the two options for believers. Romans 1 clearly shows that such activities are vile, shameful, etc. Your twisting of the passage to try to make it about their personal natures is biased opinion.

Be intellectually honest. If you disagree with Paul, say so. Don't pretend to respect what he writes and try to twist it. It's kind of like the liberal interpretations that try to put some ancient lighter fluid into Elijah's hands at Mt. Carmel. If they don't believe it, why wouldn't they reject the story outright instead of trying to interject some kind of junk like that into the passage. Why do you do that with Romans 1?

You go to great lengths to justify yourself. Why not just repent?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,160
1,787
113
@Jon-E You wanted scholarly citations on the matter. This is an article that deals with the treatment of the topic in BDAG.
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,883
1,952
113
again I am not belittling you, I will pray for you that God would heal you of your cancer and give the doctors wisdom in treating it.

I disagree with your position on this topic but I wish you no ill will. God has healed me of cancer and we have many in our church currently in the battle for their life. I would never make light of your illness. I will humble myself to you and ask now your forgiveness.

And leave you be.
If you actually prayed that my cancer might be healed, I appreciate it. And thus I should let you know that I just received my new PSA count and it has dropped from 10.1 to a 1.4, which is "normal - low."

I [have] prayed that God would heal me of this disease, but what is more important is that I surrender to Him to be used as He pleases. My body does not belong to me, for it belongs to Him alone. I am not my own anymore; bought and purchased. So, if the Lord has healed me . . . I am not surprised at all. I have felt the Raw, Almighty Power of God, and thus I know that absolutely anything is possible for him.

Again, thank you. I thought that you should know since you have offered your prayer.

David
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
It is possible that Paul meant malakos to refer to men lacking of basic moral virtue, as some other authors might have used the term. But Paul was Jewish, and so was first-century author Philo, who used the term to refer to 'gay' type effeminate guys who simulated the more female type role. I read a lie from an LGBT activist that tried to make Philo out to be LGBT movement friendly. The opposite is true. Here are a number of quotes from Philo in translation on this site compiled, https://www.mountainviewchapel.com/...omosexual-behavior-in-paul-s-letters-part-two

So if Paul did not break down the male 'gay sex acts' into two types of actors and just used arsenokoitai for those involved in male-male sex acts, why would that make it okay? That would not make it any less sinful. Paul's recommendation in the next chapter is that to prevent fornication let every woman have her own husband and ever man have his own wife. It's either that or celibacy. Male-male sex partners or female-female sex partners is not okay.

I looked up occurrences of 'malakos' where they show up in Greek literature, as many references as I could find, many years ago. In some contexts, the idea that it referred to men who lacked male virtue could fit. In others, it fits more with the same-sex sex stuff.

Something else to keep in mind is that scholarship is ongoing. If more modern translations-- which tend to be translated by committees--- see malakos as related to homosexual activity, there may be scholarly reasons for that. Back in the 1990's, all the extant Greek literature was put onto a CD, so now scholars can find all usages of a term easily, not like in previous centuries.


You do not offer much to comment on here. If 'homosexual' refers to orientation rather than actions, there is a problem with using that term in translation.



No commentary anywhere in the world? Have you checked them all?



That's a spurious argument.



Clearly another spurious argument. Arguing that Paul didn't mean X because he could have used another word that would do away with ambiguity-- I occasionally see that line of argument. It's poor reasoning.

Philo called 'catchers' or the equivalent without specification of whatever act performed 'malakos'.



The scholar who put it together may have focused a bit more on the classical period. It does mention 'effeminate.' But if the word refers to moral weakness in this context, arsenokoites is there. Given that Paul wrote to Timothy about activities forbidden by the law and 'arsenos koiten' clearly, you also have a weak case. And the two dudes on the pottery with the oral situation going on there with arsenokoites on the pot is another piece of evidence.



Why would I be surprised that an individual who wants people to think that two men having sex is moral want to make arguments to justify murdering babies in the womb? The abortion passage there in the Old Testament was translated that way in the LXX translation before Christians or modern 'fundamentalists' came along. The Didache also forbids abortions.
When I wish to know the meaning of a word in Scripture, I do as stated in the 1689 Baptist confession of Faith:
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which are not many, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly."

I look to Jesus when tempted by the devil in Matthew 4 where He replied 3 times: "it is written", "it is written" and "Again it is written". So, following Jesus' lead, I'll include the Septuagint as well as the Greek NT, in seeking the biblical use of malakos; I'll compare Scripture to Scripture, not Scripture to non-Scriptural writings when possible.

"In long-suffering is prosperity to kings, and a soft(malakos) tongue breaks the bones." (Prov 25:15, LXXE)

"The words of cunning knaves are soft(malakos); but they smite even to the inmost parts of the bowels." (Prov 26:22, LXXE)

"But what went ye out for to see? a man clothed in soft(malakos) raiment? Behold, they that wear soft(malakos) raiment are in kings' houses." (Matt 11:8, ERV)

"But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft(malakos) raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts." (Luke 7:25, ERV)

The better translations of malakos that fit the preceding are as follows:

Reverend Arthur Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear, with the literal rendering:

"Or know ye not that unrighteous men will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Be not led astray; not fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor voluptuous persons(malakos) nor sodomites," Literal from 1976 NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear

"Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake -- the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent(malakos), sodomites" the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate(malakos), nor abusers of themselves with mankind" (1Cor 6:9, KJV)

Definition from the 1828 Webster's Dictionary to explain the KJV "effeminate":
"1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor."

Reading the biblical use of malakos in the preceding verses, I'm forced to understand malakos as "effeminate", "voluptuous persons" or "the self-indulgent". The ESV footnote explaining malakos as
"the passive partner in consensual homosexual acts" just does not fit. I've already given the LSJ Greek for a "catamite" and it is not malakos.

I went to the web site you gave, and it argues against the religious LGBTQ interpretation of the verses; but I stick to the standard principles of interpretation in my Bible study. I will quote 3 lines that the web site gave for effeminacy/malakos. I'll assume the words "effeminate" in the quotes given by the web site are actually malakos in Philo's writings. Here are the lines:

"as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons"

"...having their eyes penciled beneath, and having their skins anointed with fragrant perfumes…and being well appointed in everything that tends to beauty or elegance, are not ashamed to devote their constant study and endeavors to the task of changing their manly character into an effeminate one..."

"being a guide and teacher of those greatest of all evils, unmanliness and effeminate lust"

I do NOT see a passive partner in male to male sex in those quotes, not at all. It is describing what came to be called a "metrosexual" today which the American Heritage English Dictionary defines as:

"A heterosexual man who is sensitive to stereotypic feminine interests and is very concerned with personal appearance, as in grooming and dressing stylishly."

Many years ago a gentleman from the Princeton Theological Seminary wrote out the ancient texts using malakos and placed them online. They all were just like the quotes given from Philo, and do NOT show malakos refers to a gay male of any type. Having worked in a large factory for years, I heard so often sarcastic, cutting remarks made about certain males who were sissified and had no courage. The remarks went something like, "If he was not such a (crude term for female genitalia) he'd have stood up to the lead man!" The person was not saying the guy was a gay. Another phrase I heard at times, "If XXX isn't gay, he sure missed his chance", or some such. The guy was not saying the person was gay, but that he was so sissified and effeminate, he acted like one.

Heinrich Meyer in the 19th century understood such quotes in a similar manner when he wrote in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament on the trying to make malakos mean a catamite: "no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites (molles) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι."

Those who wish to make malakos mean a catamite; must stick to the definitions:

Merriam-Webster "catamite: a boy kept by a pederast"
Online Oxford: "catamite: A boy kept for homosexual practices."

"kept" as defined in the Oxford:
"3.4 Support (someone, especially a woman) financially in return for sexual favors."

If, and I mean IF malakos means a catamite, the New American Bible, Second Edition, translates it correctly:

"boy prostitute". But, I am convinced by study that the word in Paul is not meant as any type of gay person.
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
I believe that was from a Christian survey, but it was millennials, I think, not anyone.
Correct, I took that from the Christian Post if I remember correctly. It did not include all ages of persons just a certain younger age group.
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
@Jon-E You wanted scholarly citations on the matter. This is an article that deals with the treatment of the topic in BDAG.
For those who don't have access to the BADG, I'll quote the full paragraphs of malakos and arsenokoites:

μαλακός, ή, όν (s. two prec. entries; ‘soft’: Hom. et al.; ins, pap, LXX, Philo; Jos., Ant. 8, 72 βύσσος μ.; Mel., P. 80, 594 στρωμνῆς μ.)
pert. to being yielding to touch, soft, of things: clothes (Hom. et al.; Artem. 1, 78 p. 73, 10 ἱματίων πολυτελῶν κ. μαλακῶν; PSI 364, 5 ἱμάτιον μαλ.) μ. ἱμάτια soft garments, such as fastidious people wear Lk 7:25. (τὰ) μ. soft clothes (Sb 6779, 57; s. λευκός 2, end) Mt 11:8ab.
pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship, opp. ἀρσενοκοίτης (Dionys. Hal. 7, 2, 4; Dio Chrys. 49 [66], 25; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 15, 10; Vett. Val. 113, 22; Diog. L. 7, 173; PHib 54, 11 [c. 245 B.C.] may have this mng.: a musician called Zenobius ὁ μαλακός [prob. with a sideline, according to Dssm., LO 131, 4—LAE 164, 4]. S. also a Macedon. ins in LDuchesne and CBayet, Mémoire sur une Mission au Mont Athos 1876 no. 66 p. 46; Plautus, Miles 668 cinaedus [Gk. κίναιδος] malacus; cp. the atttack on the morality of submissive homoeroticism Aeschin. 1, 188; DCohen, Greece and Rome 23, ’76, 181f) 1 Cor 6:9 (‘male prostitutes’ NRSV is too narrow a rendering; ‘sexual pervert’ REB is too broad)=Pol 5:3.—S. lit. s.v. ἀρσενοκοίτης. B. 1065. DELG. M-M.

ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ (ἄρσην ‘male’ + κοίτη ‘bed’; Bardesanes 719 fgm. 3b 10, 25 p. 653 Jac. [in Eus., PE 6, 10, 25]; Anth. Pal. 9, 686, 5 and Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/4 p. 196, 6 and 8 have the sp. ἀρρενοκοίτης; Theoph. Ant. 1, 2 [p. 60, 27]; in a vice list—ἀρσενοκοιτεῖν SibOr 2, 73; AcJ 36 [Aa II/1, 169]; cp. the association of ἄρσην and κοίτη Lev 20:13, s. Soph. Lex.: ἀ.= ὁ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοιμώμενος κοίτην γυναικείαν=‘one who has intercourse w. a man as w. a woman’; cp. the formation of μητροκοίτης [μήτηρ + κοίτη] ‘one who has intercourse w. his mother’ Hipponax 15, 2 Diehl3 [=Degani 20, 2]) a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9 (on the impropriety of RSV’s ‘homosexuals’ [altered to ‘sodomites’ NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, ’86, 187–91; cp. DWright, ibid. 41, ’87, 396–98; REB’s rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term ‘sexual pervert’ is lexically unacceptable), of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός (difft. DMartin, in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, ed. RBrawley, ’96, 117–36); 1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27. Romans forbade pederasty w. free boys in the Lex Scantinia, pre-Cicero (JBremmer, Arethusa 13, ’80, 288 and notes); Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution (on its rarity, but w. some evidence concerning women used for sacred prostitution at Corinth s. LWoodbury, TAPA 108, ’78, 290f, esp. note 18 [lit.]), or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service (s. Wright, VigChr 38, ’84, 125–53). For condemnation of the practice in the Euphrates region s. the ref. to Bardesanes above.—RBurton, The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, 1934, vol. 6, 3748–82, lit. reff. and anthropological data relating to a variety of Mediterranean cultures; DBailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, ’55; KDover, Greek Homosexuality ’78; RScroggs, The NT and Homosexuality ’83; JBoswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality ’80; JBremmer, Greek Pederasty, in JBremmer, ed. From Sappho to de Sade2 ’91, 1–14; ECantarella, Bisexuality in the Ancient World ’92.—Pauly-W. 8, 1333f; 1459–68. DELG s.v. ἄρσην. M-M.
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
Earlier I'd made a comment about abortion, and someone thought I was a baby killer. I consider a child a baby from the moment of birth, but I believe a human being exists at viability. I think offspring are a gift of God and are precious from conception on; but when it comes to forbidding another to have an abortion before 20 weeks, the earliest of viability, I believe that tromps on the religious liberty of another. The following is my reasoning.

The church has always been divided on the question of the origin of the soul; either Creationist or Traducianist. Man is composed of body and soul. Traducianists believe the soul comes from the parents just as the body does; the Creationist believes God creates the soul within the fetus later, making it a human being, a person. One particular verse makes this clear to the mind of a Creationist, and I am a "Creationist":

1977 NASB - "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."

So, a miscarriage is not the death of a human being, calling for the death penalty; it is not a human being or person, so it calls for a fine. Oops, the anti-abortionists could not tolerate that idea, which was the historical understanding of most. So, it was changed in the 1995 NASB version:

1995 NASB - "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."

Jesus and the Apostles often quoted from the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. IT reads -

"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (Exod 21:22-23, LXXE)

A comment by the Puritan John Trapp on this passage:

"There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God."

Adam Clarke, respected British Methodist:

"But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder-the person was put to death; Ex 21:23

James Wilson, a Founding Father gave the common view at the founding of the USA:

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/#26

Medical science does not teach us when life begins, God's word does. Certainly it is not tied to a 6-week heart beat in Scripture. Science is not where you settle theological questions. I believe the States that put the 20-week limit on abortion are more biblical and do not infringe upon the religious liberty of others.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,999
4,311
113
Earlier I'd made a comment about abortion, and someone thought I was a baby killer. I consider a child a baby from the moment of birth, but I believe a human being exists at viability. I think offspring are a gift of God and are precious from conception on; but when it comes to forbidding another to have an abortion before 20 weeks, the earliest of viability, I believe that tromps on the religious liberty of another. The following is my reasoning.

The church has always been divided on the question of the origin of the soul; either Creationist or Traducianist. Man is composed of body and soul. Traducianists believe the soul comes from the parents just as the body does; the Creationist believes God creates the soul within the fetus later, making it a human being, a person. One particular verse makes this clear to the mind of a Creationist, and I am a "Creationist":

1977 NASB - "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."

So, a miscarriage is not the death of a human being, calling for the death penalty; it is not a human being or person, so it calls for a fine. Oops, the anti-abortionists could not tolerate that idea, which was the historical understanding of most. So, it was changed in the 1995 NASB version:

1995 NASB - "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide."

Jesus and the Apostles often quoted from the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint. IT reads -

"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life" (Exod 21:22-23, LXXE)

A comment by the Puritan John Trapp on this passage:

"There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God."

Adam Clarke, respected British Methodist:

"But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder-the person was put to death; Ex 21:23

James Wilson, a Founding Father gave the common view at the founding of the USA:

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/#26

Medical science does not teach us when life begins, God's word does. Certainly it is not tied to a 6-week heart beat in Scripture. Science is not where you settle theological questions. I believe the States that put the 20-week limit on abortion are more biblical and do not infringe upon the religious liberty of others.
the word of God says God knew us while we were forming in our Mother's womb. The Baby in the womb of Elizebeth jumped at the seeing of Mary who was pregnant with the Lord. Life clear being before you considered it to begin at the moment of birth.
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
the word of God says God knew us while we were forming in our Mother's womb. The Baby in the womb of Elizebeth jumped at the seeing of Mary who was pregnant with the Lord. Life clear being before you considered it to begin at the moment of birth.
Yes, God knows everything and everybody from beginning to ending, so this has nothing to do with abortion:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Isa 46:9-10, ERV)

The babe in the womb of Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant, the fetus was viable:

"The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason the holy child to be born will be called Son of God. Moreover your kinswoman Elizabeth has herself conceived a son in her old age; and she who is reputed barren is now in her sixth month, for God’s promises can never fail.’" (Luke 1:35-37, REB)
 
Nov 5, 2021
144
13
18
Actually, the above commentary is proof for why I don't read it. Virtually ALL of commentary is filled with description only. Sure, there are plenty of cleverly worded sentences and paragraphs (above) that offer the description on "things," but what is the explanation for such a "heart" as mentioned above? Example below:

"I must not have a heart to believe."

This is absolutely True! But why? How is the Heart made to be a heart that believes?

1) My friend, the Purpose of Christ is to change our heart.
2) The Work of Christ is the explanation behind His Purpose. In other words, where does the Bible explain HOW this is done? And yes, there is a crystal clear explanation of this Work . . . it is the most important text of the entire Bible. And like the commentator whom you have quoted above, neither does he or modern-day "pastors" teach this most important Holy Work of Christ.
3) The completion of Christ's Work produces a most Holy Effect in our lives.

So, the Gospel is best described in the following way:

1) The Purpose of Christ
2) The Work of Christ
3) The Effect of Christ

Again, the above three points are only descriptions (or, Chapter titles of a potential book).

When a person can explain all three points above, then they are able to explain the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And of this day, no one has ever taught me the Gospel, and I've belonged to the Body of Christ for as long as I can remember, and that is a total sum of 49 years (according to my first memories of attending "church").

My best . . .
I had quoted from "Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices" a book by Thomas Brooks, it's not from a commentary.

I'll repeat, that book is available to read online and I highly recommend it: https://www.preachtheword.com/bookstore/remedies.pdf

You wrote: "And of this day, no one has ever taught me the Gospel, and I've belonged to the Body of Christ for as long as I can remember, and that is a total sum of 49 years (according to my first memories of attending "church")."

That is a startling statement to make and since you suggest writing a book of what you think the gospel is, I guess you are going to set everyone straight? If you write that book, you think it will be read and valued 400 years down the road as the book by Thomas Brooks and other Puritans are?

Charles H. Spurgeon so loved the many quotes from Thomas Brooks, he put them into a book and titled it: "Smooth Stones Taken from Ancient Brooks" That book of quotes is online also:
https://gracegems.org/Brooks/smooth_stones_Brooks.htm

Here are some examples:

Pride is Satan's disease! It is so base a disease, that God would rather see His dearest children buffeted by Satan, than that in pride they should be like Satan (2 Corinthians 12:7). Pride is . . .
a gilded misery,
a secret poison,
a hidden plague,
the engineer of deceit,
the mother of hypocrisy,
the parent of misery,
the moth of holiness,
the blinder of hearts,
the turner of medicines into maladies.

-----------------------

Satan promises the best — but pays with the worst.

He promises honor — and pays with disgrace.

He promises pleasure — and pays with pain.

He promises profit — and pays with loss.

He promises life — and pays with death.

But God pays as he promises — all his payments are made in pure gold.

-----------------

Sin is bad in the eye,
worse in the tongue,
worse still in the heart,
but worst of all in the life!

----------------

God scatters giftless gifts — the honors, riches, and favors, of this world — up and down among the worst of men. But as for his gold — his Spirit, his grace, his Son, his favor — these are jewels that he only casts into the bosoms of saints, and that because he dearly loves them.

---------------