The Apostle Paul and gay sex
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
OP here. I'VE addressed the argument. C.S. Lewis and Paul Tillich aren't Scripture. I've cited voluminous Scripture that claims Paul was speaking for Christ. Why won't you address that? I know you have in a general way, just denying the conclusion. Why not pull out the citations and show how they don't mean what Paul wrote? |
Anonymous
Nobody has ever addressed any of these points. You keep repeating that the quotes sum up to "speaking for God" but these points are why we (and many theologians, apparently) don't believe he thought he was speaking for God on more than the gospels themselves. So could you please try to address these, so we can stop going back and forth? |
Anonymous
These points have been addressed, by myself and others, numerous times, on two threads. They are mostly arguments about semantics and definitions that honestly, I really don't care about. So we've gone back and forth. I don't really have any illusions about changing your position, so there's really no point discussing it further unless there is something new to be said, some new point to be made, someone else's view to be discussed. I think the plain Biblical language trumps these issues. You don't. It's ok. |
Anonymous
From 9:34 and multiple places earlier in the thread, these are why I, and apparently others here and multiple theologians, don't find your page of scripture passages say what you claim Paul is saying: quote=Anonymous] We have opposed it, several times in this thread. All of the following points have began made on this thread: - apostle =\= prophet speaking for God - spreading the gospels =\= developing advice for new parishes on things that were not in the gospels - we have - "Grace and peace from God" are said in every church across the country every Sunday. They never mean the speaker is a mouthpiece for God. The ball is in your court. I have, as requested, cited theologians, and now you're saying that doesn't matter after all because theologians don't stack up against scripture. So we're back to scripture. To move the conversation forward, instead of continuing to simply insist that your interpretation of scripture is correct, could you please address some of the objections above? |
Anonymous
Do you see, we think you're engaging in semantics about words like "apostle" and "spreading the gospel" and "peace from God." And you're right, that's OK. (although I do have a problem when literalist interpretations extend to Psyl's sayings on homosexuality. I'm not even LGBT, FWIW.) |
Anonymous
But I HAVE addressed them, repeatedly. I'll do it again now. 1. The Apostles were a select few people commissioned by Christ to spread his message through the earth. The qualifications are discussed in Acts 1 and included having known Christ. This is not a loose term Biblically. The Apostles also were given authority to perform miracles to authenticate their Christ-given ministry, which can be found in numerous places but start at Matthew 10:1-4 and Acts 3. You can also easily do an on-line search to see a fuller presentation of this than I have time to present here. 2. You are correct that spreading the Gospel (which I try to do myself) does not equal developing new "advice" for parishes. But for one, please go back and re-read the verses in my OP. Paul does not claim to be giving advice but "commands from the LORD." The fact that he says this should be obvious, and it makes your argument more difficult. Two, Paul never claimed that he was ONLY sharing the Gospel in a discipleship sense the same way any modern evangelical would do. Again, he claimed to be speaking for Christ. He did BOTH. 3. I'm not sure what you meant to say by writing, "We have." 4. This was only one, almost tangential point, that I made. The fuller text is much more explicit, but I think it is interesting that Paul began every letter, "Peace and grace FROM the God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." I read that as the same as if I went to see a set my siblings out of town and said, "Hi FROM Mom and Dad." I'm speaking for them when I say that. Again, though, I'm not hanging the weight of my argument on that; I just think it's interesting and one more bit of evidence of what Paul was claiming to be. I'm not sure what you think an "apostle" is, but in the Bible, it is a specific office given to a very few people at the beginning of the church to authenticate the message of Christ and bring it to the world. Try reading also John 16:6-19, where Christ prays for them before the crucifixion. Many of Paul's letters spend time defending his apostolic authority from those who denied it (much as is being done here) because people then were attacking his apostleship, because it was understood then to be a very solemn and important position and because Paul was telling them things they didn't want to hear. The books of 1 and 2 Corinthians are especially important to understanding this position. It was important to Paul that the churches understood that he was an apostle, because they knew that meant he was speaking for Christ. I don't mean to be insulting, but your position does not hold up under Biblical analysis. Again, if you don't believe the Bible, I get that. But the Bible supports what I am writing here. |
Anonymous
I mean... ok? If you say so? Those are mostly OP's points and I am not OP, so I would let her defend them. What I am saying is that a theologian or historian's points would provide some context that maybe we have not discussed, and I am willing to think about those points. But just arguing over what "apostle" means over and over again is not that. Saying "CS Lewis agrees with me!" is not that. So this is not really a very interesting discussion anymore. |
Anonymous
The ball is in your court. I have, as requested, cited theologians, and now you're saying that doesn't matter after all because theologians don't stack up against scripture. So we're back to scripture. To move the conversation forward, instead of continuing to simply insist that your interpretation of scripture is correct, could you please address some of the objections above? What I'm saying is that you're making generalizations of the text rather than dealing with the specific text itself. When Paul writes things such as, "Now we command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," or, "And at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior," and many others, how are you maintaining that he was just making up "advice." You are not dealing with the text itself. You are merely asserting something you want it to mean. |
Anonymous
And this is the crux of the argument denying Paul's authority. You don't like the teaching on homosexuality, so you're looking for a reason you don't have to follow it. |
Anonymous
| Anybody can claim that they speak to Christ. It's a self-proclaimed prophet. |
Anonymous
Which is exactly why Christ gave the Apostles the ability to perform miracles. In any case, that's not the point. The point is that Paul claimed to do that. Some people on here want to deny he claimed that because they respect him without wanting to understand that what he wrote is Christian doctrine. |
Anonymous
| Paul opens his letters with the Greek "charis" (grace) and the Hebrew "shalom" (peace). The standard secular greeting at the time was the Greek "chairein" (greetings). There's no reason to think Paul's openings were anything more than good wishes to his readers. |
Anonymous
Great. Now deconstruct the rest of his letters and show why what he said isn't what he said. |
Anonymous
|
We discussed some of this on the other thread.
Romans I refers to "the lust in their hearts." As others have said, this could refer to almost anything, including lust for worldly goods or sex outside of marriage. Putting a homosexuality connotation on the English translation into "lust" seems dangerous. In Corinthians I, Paul talks generally about our bodies and specifically about prostitutes and general "immorality." Again, you can claim Romans and Corinthians are referring to homosexuality, based on your own assumption that "Jesus must have said that homosexuality is bad." For many of us, though, without an explicit mention from Jesus in the gospels, this too seems like a reach. The only mention of "sodomites" is in Timothy. As somebody else posted at 21:27 on page 1 of this thread, most modern scholars do not consider Timothy to have been written by Paul. |
Anonymous
Yikes...nice! You're the man, I presume. |