 |
Recently, some of us have figured out that some posters edit their posts time and time again, even after much of the discussion has ended. For that reason, one of the other experts told me to pass the word that we should always "quote" the person to whom we are responding, so that person's text will be what we are responding to and will show in our answer box. If he or she adds to or deletes from it after we have responded, the difference will be apparent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It is the reality that they recorded for us. We can either read what they tell us, or we can chose to bend what they said to what we'd rather than they said, but the latter will not help us understand the truth. That is why I choose to look at what they said, in the context of what is written, and taking into account the meanings in the original language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Some people may not like what they said, but it is reality.
Good advice!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I believe that when you are responding to what someone says, it is ALWAYS a good idea to quote the person. Too often I have seen people claim that I said something that I never said, and if they had just quoted, it would go a long way to avoiding mis-understandings.
"they"??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbalina
Wise beyond your years. It is good that even though you have been told what to believe, you are figuring out what you believe for yourself. And even if you do think homosexuality is wrong, you are tolerant and kind and open. Good for you. You dad could look to you as a good example.
Well, but my point is that that is precisely what you haven't done. You assume that where you see the words "homosexual" or "sodomite", etc. in your *translation* that the original language can be unproblematically assumed to be speaking of homosexuals or sodomites. And this simply isn't so. The linguistic and historical context in which the text is produced are essential to its meaning, since these determine the meanings of the words contained in it. Scholars have been complaining for years that most translations of the NT import faulty assumptions on the part of the translators about these terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
There is a massive body of scholarly literature on the nature of homosexuality in ancient Greece and the very deep differences between it and the phenomenon as we think of it now. I urge you to explore it. So far, you have been anachronistic, foisting modern notions regarding homosexuality onto the NT, and that has bred distortion in your understanding of the text. You often talk about your commitment to understanding the context of the NT and the meanings of the terms in their original language, so I should think you'd be happy to learn of this and be eager to remedy it.
Understand that I am not arguing that Paul thought homosexuality is okay. My point is that in order to have any meaningful interaction with the NT on this particular point requires greater linguistic, philological, and historical rigor than many have been willing to admit. And that is problematic, particularly if one believes it to be the word of God. For if it is the word of God, then one should be prepared to spare no amount of toil and study in order to understand it aright.
How silly we argue about words today, one merey looks at the early church and its traditions to know what the view point of the early church was. Most of the "looking" at the meanings of words comes not from need but from groups wanting to change their meanings to fit their persnal desires of what they want them to mean.
When you stop looking at the bible as a whole and start picking on single words you lose any real meaning.
How does one look at the Bible as a whole *without* looking at the meanings of the words it contains?
I'm certainly fine with looking at the traditions of the early Church in order to settle questions like this one. But, of course, there are lots of people who reject this approach, claiming that the Bible itself is utterly unambiguous. But that's just not true. And the Church Fathers themselves were sticklers for linguistic precision and philological rigor.
I posted validation for what I said, and all we hear from you is that your private opinion, IN YOUR OPINION, trumps the Koine Greek language experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I don't buy it.
No, Tom, I'm telling you what "Koine Greek experts" have been saying for decades. You're just deploying the same strategy here that you did with asking when you didn't like what the biology expert was telling you about what other biology experts have been saying for decades. As I've said many times, look it up in the Oxford lexicon if you don't want to take my word for it. Look up "arsen" and "koitai".
Well apparently these unnamed "Greek Experts" that you keep talking about disagree with those who are more highly recognized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Right. I posted the facts and I posted details, just like I did here.Quote:
You're just deploying the same strategy here that you did with asking when you didn't like what the biology expert was telling you about what other biology experts have been saying for decades.
I already posted what one of the top and best recognized Greek lexicons says, and your only response was to criticize me for editing the post.Quote:
As I've said many times, look it up in the Oxford lexicon if you don't want to take my word for it. Look up "arsen" and "koitai".
Your religion doesn't matter, nor who you are attracted too. You are what you are, and have the freedom to do as you please within your own boundaries.
There is no difference between a heterosexual slut, and a homosexual one, so make sure your behavior reflects how you feel about YOURSELF, and don't worry about the problems everyone else throws at you. That's their problem, so don't make it yours.
If you define yourself, and are happy with it, who cares about what others say. They are no smarter or morally entitled to tell you what you should do, than you telling them what to do. Truth be told they are as flawed as you are.
Let your behavior reflect your own relationship with the GOD that you understand, not how others understand HIM!
Well, Tom, I don't intend to stay on this merry-go-round with you any longer than I already have, so I'll just post a couple of final remarks and then let you have the last word. I know that's very important to you.
You boast with some frequency about your extensive study and knowledge of the Bible and of the history of Christianity. Your lack of awareness of the decades old discussion about homosexuality and "arsenokoitai" belies that. You also claim to have a passionate interest in the Bible and the history of Christianity, to care about it, and to be avidly at work learning more. It's been my uniform experience that people who are as interested in a subject as you claim to be in the Bible and Christianity are excited to learn of some new area they can explore and are eager to study it. You have now been informed of a new area you might explore, and I've given you the title of the most highly regarded lexicon available in English (I'm guessing you've heard of Oxford). Given your avowed passion for the subject, I would have thought that you'd be genuinely excited for the opportunity to broaden and deepen your knowledge. But, sadly, you mostly seem interested in trying to score points against atheists, evolutionists, and Catholics.
This pattern plays itself out in your exchanges with a great many people. Altenweg, excon, De Maria, Arcura, JoeT777, asking, Athos, and Wondergirl, to name just a few. I'm not being ad hominem here, since I don't mention this up order to win an argument with you. It's just always a pity to see someone squander so many opportunities to learn.
Agreed. But just because you have that freedom does not make it right, and does not mean that you can behave as you wish without consequences, both physical consequences, as well as eternal consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
In fact I never had made such a boast (though you often make varied false accusations like this about me). You have though, claiming to be a "professor", claiming to be a "Greek expert", etc. (even when your opinion is completely opposite to what the best experts in the field say), but I never boast about it. I post what scripture says and validate what I claim by going to third party expert sources where necessary. This is an approach that I have, time and again, encouraged you to take. It is an tried and tested approach used by scholars throughout time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Unlike some folk, I don't just make idle boasts, tell them they are wrong without validation and then accuse them of all sorts of things when they don't agree.
I am well aware of a debate - I am also well aware of what the Biblical experts have to say, and posted one example of the board, and provide my source (a source used widely by top Greek experts and even translators). Your opinion does not change that reality - and to date that is ALL you have posted is opinion.Quote:
Your lack of awareness of the decades old discussion about homosexuality and "arsenokoitai" belies that.
I often share information back and forth on such issues with people who both agree and disagree. But you know what else that I have found to be uniformly true? That is that those who love truth are more than willing to examine the truth, and to discuss it respectfully. I also find that if they disagree, they do not demean others, they do not even get into who the other person is, but rather deal with validated information and share that information so that both parties can grow more into the truth even if at the end they still do not agree.Quote:
You also claim to have a passionate interest in the Bible and the history of Christianity, to care about it, and to be avidly at work learning more. It's been my uniform experience that people who are as interested in a subject as you claim to be in the Bible and Christianity are excited to learn of some new area they can explore and are eager to study it.
I never find those who are interested in growing in the truth simply tell others that they are wrong based upon a opinion, though they may share opinions and reasons for them. When information is posted on the board, even from the most highly respected experts in the field, you often just ignore them as you did the reference from BGAD (And I assume as a claimed "Greek expert" you know what BGAD means). It's just always a pity to see someone squander so many opportunities to learn.
I've come around to be almost convinced Paul himself was a homosexual, that that was his "thorn." It makes so much sense based on all he said about marriage and relationships andQuote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Himself.
Let your behavior reflect your own relationship with the GOD that you understand, not how others understand HIM![/QUOTE]
I like this sentence and believe it whole heartedly .
Actually, I would suggest that it is completely out of context of all of the above. If you have any specific references which suggest this, then please post them and we can discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
First, if you say homosexuality was the thorn in the flesh (which many or most scholars actually believe was his eyesight based upon Gal 6:11). Further, if you say that it was homosexuality, you would be suggesting that homosexuality was an infirmity:
2 Cor 12:7-10
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
NKJV
Also, if that were the case, why would Paul suggest that when we come to Christ, He changes to take away homosexuality:
1 Cor 6:9-11
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV
Lastly, it would be out of character for God to give Paul a sinful desire to keep him humble. It would make more sense that he would be given exactly what he said - an infirmity (whether that be bad eyesight or something else).
If only we could send you back into that time in history, dear Tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, neither you nor I can, so we need to go by what Paul told us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And certainly not our own interpretation of his words!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Paul --
1. felt tremendous guilt and shame
2. loathed himself
3. spouted self-judging rhetoric
4. had negative feeling toward his own body
5. felt controlled by something he had no power to change
6. experienced a war between what he desired with his mind and what he desired with his body
7. was driven to a legalistic religion of control
8. feared when his legalism was threatened
9. had an "interesting" attitude toward women
10. Refused to seek marriage as an outlet for his passion
11. Wrote, "And to help me keep from being too elated by the abundance of revelation, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I sought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness' " (2 Cor. 12:7-9)
12. Also wrote, "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4:13)
13. Felt beyond redemption as per his Jewish upbringing and thus, even more, appreciated what Christ had accomplished
Yeah, yeah, the thorn was his eyesight.
Wondergirl,
Your assessment of the Apostle Paul is pretty unfair. He told us in Romans 7 about the battle that raged within him. There is just NO WAY you can be a victorious Christian without the battle. If you continue in Romans and get to Romans 8 you find he found the solution for his guilt, sin, struggle, flesh!! He didn't wallow in any of it. I believe it was HE who said he (we) are more than a conqueror AND whatever his state he LEARNED to be content or that he forgot those things which were behind and pressed forward. This isn't a man that had some big sin issue.
As far as the THORN.. no one has a clue what it was but when he found out that the LORD wouldn't remove it... he was MORE than cool because he LEARNED in his weakness, he could be STRONG through the Lord Jesus.
And as for the other hogwash about him fearing his Legalism was threatened... that is just downright laughable... this man understood GRACE far better than you or I ever will.
This Apostle suffered greatly to be a witness for my savior and the Lord allowed him something that no other human being has been able to do.. he was caught up in the third heaven and saw UNSPEAKABLE things. AND he wrote most of the new testament ( inspired FULLY by the Holy Spirit)
I don't know what exactly your point about Paul is... but he was a pretty special guy. A sinner saved by grace who LEARNED be a overcomer you didn't do him Justice!!
In the next life, not in this one. This world and its residents are caught in the condition called sin as per Genesis 3. Relief will come only with Jesus' Second Coming. Then even the lion will lie down with the lamb.Quote:
Also, if that were the case, why would Paul suggest that when we come to Christ, He changes to take away homosexuality
Just as God caused you to be bathed in testosterone (and all that implies) in the womb? Or have you never experienced lust in your heart?Quote:
Lastly, it would be out of character for God to give Paul a sinful desire to keep him humble.
P.S. Homosexuality = sinful desire? I musta gone out with gay guys when I was dating.
Everything I listed is from his writings, from his epistles. Please read them.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
It's really scary, isn't it, to think Paul was a homosexual.
No, Paul said that some in Corinth HAD been homosexuals - past tense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Are you saying that God gives us the desire for sin?Quote:
Just as God caused you to be bathed in testosterone (and all that implies) in the womb? Or have you never experienced lust in your heart?
No one said that homosexuality was the ONLY sinful desire, but you said that God gave Paul homosexuality, which is a sinful desire.Quote:
P.S. Homosexuality = sinful desire? I musta gone out with gay guys when I was dating.
I have read them and I am still waiting to see anything which might suggest that he was homosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Please reread my list. Note especially how he knew others would despise him and scorn him (for his terrible and threatening eyesight problem? *cough*).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Um, Tom, that's a verb tense thing, not healing from homosexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No, you are implying thatQuote:
Are you saying that God gives us the desire for sin?
I didn't say God gave it to him.Quote:
No one said that homosexuality was the ONLY sinful desire, but you said that God gave Paul homosexuality, which is a sinful desire.
Wondergirl,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I'm not SCARED nor do I think it is scary to consider he was a homosexual. It is simply not true. It makes more sense to think there may have been something physically wrong with the guy... like some kind of eye infection... ever seen green nasty goo coming out of someone's EYES... a GROWN man. They didn't have antibiotics back then AND it is only a theory.. ( incidentally, we KNOW he had something wrong with his eyes he said so).I mean if he WERE homosexual as you think he could hide it pretty well, especially back then, heck people in Hollywood do it all the time. I am NOT saying that is what the thorn in the flesh is.but I would suggest that to say a THRON would indicate some type of pain.. thorns don't really feel good. Not a SIN problem... he was more than a conqueror.
Everything you listed he most certainly did say... but you only tell HALF of the story. Like I said you can't have victory without the battle and he wrote over and over how he LEARNED to live and DIE to the flesh. Now if he died to his flesh ( he did get out of Romans 7 he said so in ROMANS 8), how could he be battling a sin issue? Give me a break. He worte against homosexual behavior!! ANDi'd be just as indignant if you had said that he was sleeping with woman. The Lord Jesus used him like none other... for a REASON. What an insult to the Lord and a man who understood the REAL meaning of living a Christian life and dying to his own flesh.
Everything I have said about the apostle paul is in his epistles... I read what you wrote and quoted. You told HALF of the story... please read it ALL!!
One last note.. he wrote he was given the thorn in the flesh from being to elevated because of all the knowledge he was given and mysteries revealed and being caught up in the third heaven.. it was then the Lord allowed the "thorn". So I guess old Paul wasn't born the homosexual.. just came on him. :rolleyes::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
He called his thorn a bodliy ailment... wow I wonder how many homosexuals out there think they have a bodily ailment?
I know, I know, classyT. It truly is hard to wrap your mind around it at first, isn't it!Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Wondergirl,
LOL I'm intelligent woman, but you got to give me something I can work with here... your theory sucks rocks... to be blunt. Sorry.
I gave you a list from Paul's writings. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, good. Now, open the windows in your mind. I know, I know -- they've been painted shut over the years. Mine had been too. Maybe get a pry tool and worry the seams a bit. Did I hear a cracking noise? Hmmmm, we might be getting there. Or maybe not.
I see people even today who make demeaning remarks when people write differently (i.e. the large letters that Paul speaks about). Indeed, I see demeaning comments and scorn even on this board from some folk who cannot handle simple disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
BTW, you do know that Pharisees had to be married, don't you?
Acts 23:4-6
5 Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.' " 6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!"
NKJV
Really? Let's see how you managed to get aorund this by a "verb tense thing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
1 Cor 6:9-11
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV
The only verb tense thing here is that fact that they were homosexuals and are not now because of the washing in the blood shed on the cross.
But you did. You compared being a homosexual to God giving me the desires of a man. By your unvalidated and unBiblical theory, that would mean that God gave sinful desire top Paul.Quote:
No, you are implying that
I didn't say God gave it to him.
Or are you now backtracking on that point and now conceding that was incorrect?
I realize how rough it must be for you to be disagreed with, but that's life, Tom. You don't own this subject and this board. Or the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You gave a list - none of which either says or even gives the slightest implication that he was homosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The windows of your mind have been painted shut too??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Nice try, but we all know who those are who turn nasty when anyone dares disagree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Now, how about that supposed evidence of Paul being a homosexual? Have you come up with anything concrete, or is that list which have absolutely nothing in it in that regard all that you can scrape together?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 AM. |