The Apostle Paul and gay sex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Why do you refuse to address the point that most scholars today say that Paul didn't write Timothy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Why do you refuse to address the point that most schokars today think that Paul (whatever you think his attributes are) didn't write Timothy????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Great. Now deconstruct the rest of his letters and show why what he said isn't what he said.

Seriously, that's your answer? It's a good response to OP. (You're clearly the mean evangelical and not OP.) Why are you responding with snark instead of addressing this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Why do you refuse to address the point that most schokars today think that Paul (whatever you think his attributes are) didn't write Timothy????

Probably because that was stated as an assertion with no comment or validation for the assertion. There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. Those of us who believe in the Bible believe what it says. If you think it has no credibility, then none of these points are necessary. This entire thread was begun to refute those who say Paul didn't claim to be speaking for Christ, which, again, the text clearly states.

Further, as I noted when that initial PP was written, that still leaves a ton of books in the New Testament (some of which also mention sexual immorality and homosexuality) about which there is no dispute for Paul writing them. No one yet on this thread has given any sort of detailed refutation of what I wrote in the OP. It's been merely assertion or denial without examining the text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Great. Now deconstruct the rest of his letters and show why what he said isn't what he said.

Seriously, that's your answer? It's a good response to OP. (You're clearly the mean evangelical and not OP.) Why are you responding with snark instead of addressing this point?

Actually, I'm the OP. I'm sorry if I got snarky there for a minute, but this is not a good response to the OP. In the OP itself, I prefaced everything with this as a side note saying that it's interesting to me, but not meant to be anywhere near the thrust of what I cited to show that Paul claimed to be speaking for God. To call this into question and not address the rest of the numerous citations doesn't really add up to much. If someone could deconstruct the plain language of the rest of the Scripture verses I cited, and then add this in as a final nail, that would be one thing. But instead, the PP picked up only this point as though that proved anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Paul explicitly tells us: “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error,” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Exactly. He also says this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Chris and by the Spirit of our God."

And in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, he writes, "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And there's that pesky "with which I have been entrusted" part exactly after delineating what THE LAW is, this being the law of God, not Paul's own advice.

It's easy to make the text say anything you want (or not say anything you don't want) if you don't actually pay any attention to what the text says.

Why do you refuse to address the point that most schokars today think that Paul (whatever you think his attributes are) didn't write Timothy????

Further, the PP in which I quoted 1 Timothy 1:8-11 was a response to another PP that quoted 1 Timothy itself, saying it only mentions "Sodomites" once. So regardless of who wrote Timothy, that PP did not accurately detail an actual reference to homosexuality in the letter. It's good if we're going to quote Scripture to quote it accurately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Great. Now deconstruct the rest of his letters and show why what he said isn't what he said.

Seriously, that's your answer? It's a good response to OP. (You're clearly the mean evangelical and not OP.) Why are you responding with snark instead of addressing this point?

I may be mean but I am NOT an evangelical! First you all think Paul is some dude we picked up off the street corner, now this! If you are going to insult someone at least be accurate!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Only a few biblical scholars call themselves atheist or agnostic, but many are. It's hard to study the bible as a scholar and "believe" in it, though they may identify as "Christian." There are biblical "apologists" who defend the Bible, but they are generally not academics.

Great. Can you name some biblical scholars who fit this criteria? Otherwise, it sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

+1. Signed, the poster who's been arguing for pages that Paul never intended to be taken literally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

I think Crossan calls himself agnostic these days. But yeah, that would be about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: T

.....There are probably more Biblical scholars who support Timothy being written by Paul (and the letter opens with it saying it's been written by Paul), than modern scholars who don't. Some of the modern Biblical scholars out there are atheists or hostile to the Christian faith. The attacks on Pauline authorship are often merely attacks on the faith. .

Yeah, no. Other than Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier I'm unaware of anyone else who would call themselves a "Biblical scholar" and be atheist / agnostic. In my experience, the field is overwhelming dominated by believers of a variety of Christian denominations AND, at least from what I remember, the Timothy forgery isn't disputed by most. Can you cite some scholars who believe none of Timothy was a forgery? It seems like the dominant position is that at least some of those Timothy letters were forged and this is coming from an audience that overwhelming believes in the divinity of Christ.

Isn't Ehrman the one pushing Timothy as an actual forgery?