[Wondergirl]

Well, you posted and I responded. In the time it took me to post my response you had gone back and doubled the length of your post. That's a pretty substantial edit. In order to avoid confusion, why not just post again. When you go back to earlier posts and significantly alter them it can be quite confusing for others.

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.

[Tj3]

It is YOUR reality, no one else's.

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.

Some people may not like what they said, but it is reality.

[Tj3]

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. If he or she adds to or deletes from it after we have responded, the difference will be apparent.

Good advice!

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.

[Wondergirl]

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

"they"??

[cozyk]

we dont keep anybody out of church its Gods house anybody and everybody is accepted there...
i was at a store yesterday with my parents and sis...i noticed them first but a lesbian couple walked in the door holding hands and my dad started making fun of them...he was just like 'they want to be noticed so im noticing'...they didnt hold hands after that but still i dont like to hurt peoples feelings so i didnt join along but i wanted to...i mean i have a gay friend but i dont make fun of her or anything but i still think its wrong

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.

[Akoue]

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.

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.

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

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.

I don't buy it.

[Akoue]

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".

[Tj3]

No, Tom, I'm telling you what "Koine Greek experts" have been saying for decades.

Well apparently these unnamed "Greek Experts" that you keep talking about disagree with those who are more highly recognized.

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.

Right. I posted the facts and I posted details, just like I did here.

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".

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.

[talaniman]

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!

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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. Thats their problem, so don't make it yours.

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.

[Tj3]

You boast with some frequency about your extensive study and knowledge of the Bible and of the history of Christianity.

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.

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.

Your lack of awareness of the decades old discussion about homosexuality and "arsenokoitai" belies that.

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.

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 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.

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.

[Wondergirl]

Understand that I am not arguing that Paul thought homosexuality is okay.

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 and
Himself.

[cozyk]

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 .

[Tj3]

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 and
himself.

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.

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).

[Wondergirl]

Actually, I would suggest that it is completely out of context of all of the above. 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).

If only we could send you back into that time in history, dear Tom.

[Tj3]

If only we could send you back into that time in history, dear Tom.

Well, neither you nor I can, so we need to go by what Paul told us.