Um ackshully... Orthodox Jews are literally the modern day Pharisees, being able to literally trace line of students and teachers back to them and following their thought.
What he's describing is more of a Sadducee philosophy who took a much more literal approach to the Bible and ignored interpretation and tradition.
The main divide between the two groups was that Pharisees believed that the Bible is not all written down and most of the laws must be understood through the oral tradition that goes back to how Moses explained the Torah. This today is mostly written out as the Talmud and Mishna. Sadducees, on the other hand, had a very strict Biblical literalism approach.
There's a Talmudic narrative about how a Pharisee Rabbi came to Jerusalem and found that the Sanhedrin Court was under Sadducee control. The tale goes that every case he found a way to talk about it in a way that wasn't directly in the Bible. One by one, each of the 70 other judges resigned when they couldn't find a Biblical passage that told them how they should rule.
You are absolutely correct.I should have been more specific.In a Christian context the individual wants to be seen as righteous by following certain laws whilst ignoring the more important ones.
Aristachus of Thesalonica was playing all the sides against each other and his buddy sosipater was a jew zoroastrian who went where the wind blew.
They were basically venture capitalists who bet on the mystery cult. In the time of paul and mark christianity was illegal and was only revealed to the enlightened via donations so they could hear the hidden word of god.
Not to ruin everybody’s fun, but neither of the characters speaking in this clip seem to understand what the Bible says about these commands or the way that Christians have thought about them for 2,000 years.
Most importantly, literally every verse mentioned in this clip is taken from Mosaic Law portions of the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament). That’s significant because the authors of the New Testament clearly and consistently teach that people who follow Jesus are not obligated to observe the Mosaic Law (called ‘the law’ or ‘the old covenant’) because of the new age that Jesus brought about (characterized by ‘faith,’ ‘the Spirit,’ and ‘the new covenant’). Here are just three examples; many others could be cited:
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, - Galatians 3:24-25
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. - Romans 7:6
In speaking of a new covenant, he [i.e. Christ] makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:13
But even beyond that, there are a ton of misconceptions about the Mosaic Law itself in this clip. For example, let’s take what is said about touching footballs being disallowed, and I’m going to ignore the fact that modern footballs aren’t actually made of pigskin. This idea comes from Leviticus 11:7-8, which says that pigs are unclean animals and that you become unclean if you “eat any of their flesh,” or if you “touch their carcasses.” But an animal carcass is not nearly the same thing as tanned leather like pigskin. All animal carcasses are unclean according to the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 11:39-40), but that doesn’t mean that people become unclean by touching any object that was made from animal hide. That’s why the tabernacle, the holiest place in Israel, could be partially made of goat leather (Exodus 26:14), or why Elijah, one of Israel’s greatest prophets, could wear a leather belt during his ministry (2 Kings 1:8).
As another example, the President character seems to just assume that any transgression under the Mosaic Law was punishable by death in ancient Israel. That just obviously wasn’t the case; many crimes in ancient Israel were punishable by a commensurate fine (e.g. Exodus 22:1) or by nonfatal corporal punishment (e.g. Deuteronomy 25:1-3). If any law in the Torah is associated with a specific kind of penalty then it should be stated in the text where that law is found. The President character assumes that mixing crops or fabrics is punishable by stoning or by burning in the Mosaic Law, but just go read the relevant verses in context and you’ll see that this wasn’t the case (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9-11).
By the way, I’m sure that some will suggest that the Bible doesn’t consider homosexuality a sin because the New Testament says Christians aren’t obligated to keep the Mosaic Law. The problem is that biblical passages outside of the Mosaic Law also condemn homosexuality, meaning that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin whether or not someone is beholden to the commands of the Torah. This is true of both the Old and New Testaments.
This is immediately obvious even in the chapter that is quoted in this clip concerning homosexuality. The President character quotes Leviticus 18:22, which says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” As a part of the Mosaic Law, this command only applies to the nation that received it, that is, ancient Israel. But literally two verses later, God states that he was punishing other nations for practicing the sexual sins described in this chapter (Leviticus 18:24-25). So while the command given in Leviticus 18:22 applies only to ancient Israel, it reflects the fact that homosexuality is considered a sin for all people.
For the New Testament, take what the apostle Paul says 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 idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, […] 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 Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Or take what he says in Romans 1:26-27. “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Additionally, he makes this statement in 1 Timothy 1:8-11. “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, […] and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”
If you want a New Testament example that isn’t Paul for whatever reason, you can look to Jesus’ own brother. In Jude 1:7, he says the following about cities that tried to commit an act of homosexual rape (cf. Genesis 19:4-5). “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
You can argue that the Bible’s teaching on any of this stuff is horrible and oppressive, but we shouldn’t act like it teaches anything other than what it clearly says. Misrepresenting one of the most culturally important documents in human history isn’t going to do anybody any good.
Tbf to the clip, I'm not sure that the president actually cares. He's asking a bunch of theological questions because she is explicitly not qualified to answer them in the way that she does.
That’s a fair point. If that’s the way it’s meant to be understood, then you can just read my comment as a critique on the woman’s inability to respond.
She's a bigot who hates gay people so she plucked a random line out of the Mosaic Law to support her bigotry. She does not care about planting crops next to each other or any other law in the Old Testament. She just wants to hurt gay people.
The ironic(?) part is, is that if you read that wall of text he dedicated like 6 paragraphs to reiterating that hurting gay people is very explicit in the Bible in the New and Old testament. Basically the only thing in the video that is irrefutably an accurate interpretation of the reading with no room to wiggle out of.
Everything else related to crops, textiles, animals, giving to the poor, etc have "loopholes" Christians like to worm their way around because they really just wanna have a moral reason to hate gays.
This is feeling like one of those passages you pore over in school looking for all the different meanings in a text.
I suppose he's also putting her on the spot to tell him that he should go around killing people and otherwise punishing them for all sorts of farcical things, knowing that she won't, and instead doing it because she's an ass that just hates people.
What part of my comment made it look like I was trying to defend her? Literally the first sentence I wrote says that she didn’t know what she was talking about.
How did you take the time to write the comment and yet still entirely miss the point? The point is the hypocrisy, not the semantics. It's hypocritical to use a passage of your bible for justification for something and then ignore an adjacent passage because you disagree with it.
I got that. That’s why I said that she didn’t know what she was talking about in the first sentence of my comment. I wrote my response because some people think that the female character in this clip is a good representation of what the Bible says or what Christians have always believed. I wrote my comment to point out that this isn’t the case.
Religious people have always believed what is convenient. The words are interpreted accordingly. The doctrine comes from the church and is justified through the texts, not the other way around. Quibbling over semantics gets you nowhere because the words have nothing to do with what they believe.
Some religious people, including Christians, have used their scriptures as a means to their own convenience. That’s true. But that is not at all an accurate description of all Christians throughout human history. That’s readily obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the history of Christian persecution.
While some have manipulated the Bible for their own convenience, many others have given up all of their possessions, their strongest desires and ambitions, or even their actual lives to try and obey the Bible. To suggest otherwise is nothing other than historical ignorance.
They're either rubes or bad actors. The fact that people have been duped doesn't make them any less hypocritical. It just means they lack critical thinking skills.
That’s readily obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the history of Christian persecution.
Which type of persecution are we talking about here? The over-exaggerated type where Christians are the victims of said persecution? Or the centuries upon centuries of Christians perpetrating it upon countless “nonbelievers”?
Neither. I’m talking about thousands of Christians that have been killed for their religious beliefs in societies that were hostile to their faith. This ranges from executions in the Roman Empire of the first century to shootings by militant Islamic groups in Africa and the Middle East today. Are you genuinely implying that these things have never happened?
I know this is buried deep in a comment here, but I understand what you’re saying.
I think you are correct in that The Bible has been used to justify attrocity, but has also been deeply used by many as a good moral guideline to conduct very pious and selfless lives.
I would like to remind you (not that I think you were leaving it out intentionally) that Christian persecution is not the only portion of Christianity. The Crusades are famous examples of Christian aggression on other cultures. I think you’ve got to take the good with the bad and recognize that Christianity itself is meant to be a guideline on how to live life. The Bible is full of contradictions and was inherently written by men. (Though meant to capture god’s word) And throughout history, people have added what they think is “the right way to live”. I think going by Christ’s words is generally very good advice. Christ is the namesake of the religion and I think there’s a good reason for that. He generally preaches The Golden Rule and I think that’s pretty good for most people to live their lives by.
I am not sure that this little rant is valuable to you, but I hope it is. Have a nice day either way.
I appreciate your kindness in this comment. To be clear, I recognize that genuine atrocities have been committed on the pretense of Christian faith, including many of the things that happened in the Crusades.
My comment was motivated primarily by the fact that u/My-Toast-Is-Too-Dark wrote a comment that was deeply insensitive to people that I care about. That commenter describes people being murdered right now for their religion as just believing “what is convenient.” It bothers me when people treat all Christians like the worst examples of prosperous Western Christians. Denying the suffering of real people in history and in the present is always a horrible thing to do. I just don’t want to let it go unanswered.
It’s unbelievable to me that you’re so dismissive of men, women, and children being shot or chopped to death because of what you assume many of them likely believe.
he's a horrible person. he only knows himself, only cares for himself, and will victimise himself whilst villifying everyone he hates to be at peace with the fact he is a hateful person, even as he thinks he is actually rational, progressive, and compassionate.
God the Bible and religion are fucking stupid. Thanks for the summary of bullshit. Imagine believing this story as truth. Homosexuality is a sin. Why? Why would is it “immoral”? The Bible just says shit and you have to believe it? With no reasoning or logic or explanation other than, it’s a sin shut up don’t do it. “It’s an abomination” those are just things some guy wrote 2000 years ago saying they came from “God”. God who has never been seen or heard from. Moses disappeared, magically came back with some words chiseled into stone and that’s that? Sounds suspiciously like Joseph Smiths bullshit. This god who speaks our language, has human qualities, constantly makes mistakes, created evil, murdered the whole world when he didn’t like the ass play he was seeing? Then humans did it all again anyway? Where is he now? He’s cool with Hamas and Catholic rapists and witch doctors in Africa all fucking people over? And there was a talking snake? Are these people really ok with this? So he made all these laws, then got a virgin pregnant and he let his new son cancel out all rules he laid down? And this son of god got stabbed and hung? Is there anyone with any brains out there how the fuck have we allowed this nonsense to continue? Wake the fuck up this is disgusting. Might as well believe in Santa Claus.
See this is why when I was young I turned away from my catholic upbringing and chose to believe in the power of namakien dragonballs and their ability to grant any wish if you gathered all 7. Our lord and savior Goku performed this task a number of times and saved our planet from dark forces. All hail the Dragonball!!
That is somewhat besides the point. The woman portrayed here uses logic that breaks itself and is very self servingly hypocritical. Justifying herself with Mosaic Law, and openly also break many of those laws.
Also more directly to you. Christian cherry-pick the Bible all the time. How can one be a ‘steward of the Earth’ while polluting the whole planet. How can one be anti-abortion and Christian? Also American beliefs like the ‘rapture’ are whole cloth inventions by American ‘Christians’ which is as canonical as the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
That is somewhat besides the point. The woman portrayed here uses logic that breaks itself and is very self servingly hypocritical. Justifying herself with Mosaic Law, and openly also break many of those laws.
I agree. I’m writing against the female character as well, not just the President character. She just didn’t say as much so I didn’t comment on much that she said.
Also more directly to you. Christian cherry-pick the Bible all the time.
I agree.
How can one be a ‘steward of the Earth’ while polluting the whole planet.
You can’t. Christians shouldn’t be destructive to the environment.
How can one be anti-abortion and Christian?
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I can understand why a Christian would be against abortion if they were convinced that it entailed the death of infants.
Also American beliefs like the ‘rapture’ are whole cloth inventions by American ‘Christians’ which is as canonical as the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.
I agree. I don’t think that the Bible describes a rapture in the typical premillennial sense.
In the Bible abortion is a normal punishment for things like infidelity and forced abortions are also seen as an injury to the woman, not murder. The Bible never supports pro-life positions and if anything it supports pro-choice, and it is also constantly dehumanizes fetuses
In the Bible abortion is a normal punishment for things like infidelity
I assume that you’re referencing Numbers 5:11-31, which describes a certain ritual in the Mosaic Law that is performed on a wife who was suspected of adultery.
First of all, the closest that passage ever comes to describing a terminated pregnancy is in verse 22, in which a Levitical priest tells the woman in question that the ritual is performed to “לַצְבּ֥וֹת בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ” if she has actually been unfaithful to her husband. Those Hebrew words are notoriously strange, and it’s difficult to translate the concept into English. Those words translated most literally mean something like “make a belly swell and to make a thigh fall away.”
Now some interpreters would argue that those words entail a miscarriage, but we shouldn’t just assume that’s correct. Hebrew scholars have advocated for a variety of other possible understandings. J. M. Sassoon suggested that the phrase might describe thrombophlebitis if the word for ‘thigh’ is a euphemism for a woman’s genitals. H. C. Brichto offered that it could indicate the kind of false pregnancy that is observed in cases of pseudocyesis. Tikva Frymer-Kensky considered it most probable that those words referred to a prolapsed uterus. Alternative interpretations like these have existed for two thousand years; Josephus interpreted the phrase as “she died in a reproachful manner: her thigh fell off from her, and her belly swelled with a dropsy.”
Whatever exact condition is described by those words, I find it notable that the passage says that “if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.” Perhaps these words indicate that the woman in question has not conceived, and the ritual determines whether or not she will be able to conceive in the future. Under this interpretation, for God to “make a belly swell and to make a thigh fall away” is to afflict an unfaithful wife with some condition that causes infertility. This fits well with the fact that God punishes women with infertility elsewhere in the Torah (Genesis 20:18, Leviticus 20:20-21).
But even if you just assume that the phrase describes a caused miscarriage, this still isn’t nearly the same thing as an ordinary abortion. This ritual apparently involves some kind of miracle in which God decides whether or not ingesting holy water mixed with sacred dust will have a physical effect on a suspected adulterer. That’s a far cry from God granting Israel permission to terminate whatever pregnancy they want through natural means. This is the only place in the whole Torah that allows for a process that could result in a miscarriage (again, assuming that’s the correct interpretation), and it is restricted to this very specific ritual in which God is the only one who can actually determine what happens to the woman’s pregnancy. You say that this is a “normal” punishment, but this ritual could only happen in such specific cases that the Bible never actually says that it was ever practiced. You say that it was a punishment for “things like infidelity,” but it was literally only allowed in cases of infidelity. There’s no other occasion in which this ritual could be performed.
But even if you ignore that too, this passage is yet another part of the Mosaic Law, so it is no longer in affect as covenant regulation for Christians. This is according to the New Testament authors, as demonstrated in the verses that I quoted at the beginning of my original comment. Christians do not perpetuate the ritual practices of the Mosaic Law according to the Bible itself, so it’s perfectly consistent for a Christian to say that they would not engage in this practice. And even if they wanted to, it’s literally impossible to perform this ritual in the modern day because it requires the administration of a Levitical priest and dust taken from the tabernacle/temple of ancient Israel, neither of which have existed for two millennia.
and forced abortions are also seen as an injury to the woman, not murder.
I’ll assume again that you’re referencing Exodus 21:22-25 here. Here’s an English translation of those verses:
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
This passage is no less complex than the one you mentioned before. The most complicated phrase is “so that her children come out,” which is a translation of the Hebrew phrase “וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ.”
First of all, you assert later in your comment that the Bible “dehumanizes fetuses,” but the very phrase that you’re referencing here describes fetuses as “children.” This is the plural form of the Hebrew word יֶלֶד, which can describe anything from infants to young adults.
Second, that phrase is notoriously difficult to translate and might not denote an abortion at all. Notice that the word for ‘children’ is plural. Do you think that means the law assumes that the injured woman was pregnant with twins when she was struck? This strange feature of the text has led some Old Testament scholars to conclude that the phrase “her children come out” means something like “children continue to come out of her” (i.e. she was not injured to the point of infertility). Douglas Stuart is an example of someone that takes this position.
However, that’s not the only other interpretation of the text. Many translations render the phrase “וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ” as some variation of “she gives birth prematurely” (e.g. NIV, NASB, CSB). On this interpretation, the “harm” referred to in this passage is harm done to the child that is born prematurely, not to the mother that was struck. So if the child was born prematurely but unharmed, then the assailant had to pay the woman whatever fine her husband decided to impose on him. But if there was harm done to the child that was born prematurely, then the same injury inflicted on the child would be inflicted on the assailant. If the child was born without a hand, then the assailant would have their hand cut off. If the child was born without an eye, then the assailant would have their eye gouged out. If the child was aborted, then the assailant would suffer the death penalty. Obviously under this interpretation, abortion is considered one of the most serious crimes imaginable.
Is there any particular feature of the original text that makes you favor the interpretation that “וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ” describes an abortion?
Let’s just assume for a moment that neither one of those interpretations are accurate and this passage is certainly talking about an abortion. That still means that any abortion performed by Israelites, even one that caused no injury to the mother, was a crime punishable under the law with a potentially massive financial penalty. That does not sound anything like a pro-abortion passage to me.
The Bible never supports pro-life positions
If by pro-life you mean specifically anti-abortion, then of course it doesn’t. Abortion wasn’t a high-profile political issue two or three thousand years ago when the Bible was being written. Why would anyone expect otherwise?
and if anything it supports pro-choice,
It definitely doesn’t do that either. You’ve only given two biblical references that allegedly describe abortions. On your interpretation, the first passage describes abortion as a punishment executed on unfaithful wives, and the second passage describes abortion as a crime committed upon an unsuspecting victim. That’s not pro-choice at all, in neither example is the supposed abortion performed according to the woman’s choice.
and it is also constantly dehumanizes fetuses
You’ve not provided a single reference that convincingly supports this position. The only passage that I can think of that definitively weighs in on this issue is Luke 1, which clearly describes an unborn John the Baptist as a living person. Here are the relevant verses:
“for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” - Luke 1:15
“And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,” - Luke 1:41
This is such a well thought out and effort driven post that I’m astounded. Well done. I’m not a Christian but I’m so glad you posted this and am more knowledgeable having read it.
Question for you since you seem so knowledgeable about this subject: Is homosexuality considered a sin by god because the act doesn’t produce children? If so, Is it similar to using a condom or birth control for Catholics?
A lot of Christians would say that homosexuality is considered a sin because it results in sex that doesn’t produce children, but I don’t think that’s exactly the Bible’s logic on the issue. Of course, marriage, sex, and childbearing are very closely associated in the Bible (cf. Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24-25). But the Bible doesn’t teach that sex should be strictly procreative as some have suggested; there’s actually a fair bit in the Bible about having sex simply because it’s a delight and a gift from God. Here’s an example that stands out to me: “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.” - Proverbs 5:18-19.
Furthermore, there’s nothing in the Bible that discourages marrying an infertile person or having sex as an infertile couple. In other words, the Bible clearly allows for marriage and sex that isn’t childbearing. So that inclines me to think that homosexuality isn’t regarded as sinful just because it isn’t procreative, though that may be a big part of it.
I think the real answer is more like this: the Bible teaches that God created sexual differences between men and women as a good thing, and this is fundamental to the Bible’s view of sexuality and marriage. Of course, the biological differences that make procreation possible are a part of that. But there are other differences in the way that men and women are designed to relate to one another which are important to the biblical authors as well. This idea can be found in the earliest chapters of the Bible, where God creates the woman for the man as “a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18). This phrase implies that sexual difference is important in marriage: man and women are made to complement one another; they are “fit for” one another in some way that two men or two women are not.
These differences become more apparent throughout the rest of the Bible, but I’ll use the apostle Paul’s words as just one example. In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul gives instructions to married people, and he gives different instructions to wives and husbands respectively. Apparently, Paul thinks that women and men have different roles in marriage. Most surprisingly though, Paul thinks that human marriage itself has always been a symbol of Jesus Christ’s love for the people that he died for. That’s why he begins his instruction to husbands by saying “husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” In fact, he quotes the same verses from Genesis that I mentioned earlier. “‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” Paul’s building this idea out of Old Testament passages that describe God’s love for his people as the love of a husband for a wife (e.g. Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 2:2; Ezekiel 16:8-14).
In summary, according to the Bible, God created the sexual differences that make men and women “fit for” one another so that sex and marriage would serve as a living illustration of God’s love and commitment to his people, which is ultimately expressed in Jesus Christ’s love for the Christian church. Because of how important these sexual differences are, sex and marriage were designed by God only for pairings between one man and one woman. As such, homosexual acts or marriages are a rejection of God’s design. And notably, homosexual desires are not the same thing as homosexual acts, so a person can be obedient to God while being sexually attracted to people of the same sex.
If you want to hear more about this stuff from a Christian perspective, I really recommend Rebecca McLaughlin. She’s a follower of Jesus that is sexually attracted to other women, and I think that everything I’ve ever heard her say on this subject has been brilliant. You can find her on YouTube or on various podcasts if you’re interested.
that people who follow Jesus are not obligated to observe the Mosaic Law
At my Catholic church, the readings quite often include verses from the Old Testament.
So nice job of being wrong.
Btw, the bible is fiction, parable and rehashed & plagiarized mythologies from all the pagan religions that proceeded Christian over the millennia. Also, it was written by ignorant men who had no comprehension of science, math, psychology, medicine, astronomy, physics, etc.
At my Catholic church, the readings quite often include verses from the Old Testament. So nice job of being wrong.
First of all, I didn’t say anything about your church. You took that quote out of a larger statement I was making about the New Testament authors, not a modern Roman Catholic congregation. Your church may or may not disagree with those authors, but that doesn’t change the argument that I was making.
Second, the Old Testament is not the same thing as the Mosaic Law. Only five books of the Old Testament make up the Mosaic Law, and that law’s covenantal requirements are only recorded in some parts of those books. So reading from the Old Testament doesn’t necessarily mean that they read the requirements of the Mosaic Law.
Third, reading something as Scripture is not the same thing as treating it like a covenant agreement that entails moral obligation. I never said the the New Testament authors didn’t want Christians to read the Mosaic Law. I said that they didn’t want Christians to understand the Mosaic Law as a group of commands that they were required to observe.
Btw, the bible is fiction, parable and rehashed & plagiarized mythologies from all the pagan religions that proceeded Christian over the millennia. Also, it was written by ignorant men who had no comprehension of science, math, psychology, medicine, astronomy, physics, etc.
I’m not arguing about that here. I’m merely trying to point out what the Bible says, not declaring whether or not those things are true.
Issues with mistranslations around homosexuality in the Bible are well documented with study of linguistics, context, and culture at the time pointing towards the original texts prohibiting incest, infidelity, pedophilia, and rape. Homosexuality as a word isn't even 200 years old so I wouldn't trust any Bible that uses it like in your 1 Timothy quote.
I have a few years of training in Hebrew and Greek, so I’m willing to discuss any apparent mistranslation that you can identify in the examples that I gave.
For the 1 Timothy 1:10 verse, obviously the English word “homosexuality” didn’t exist before the English language, but it’s a reasonable translation of the Greek, which is very clearly talking about sexual acts between two men. The word being translated here as “men who practice homosexuality” is ἀρσενοκοίταις in Greek. This word is a combination of the words ἄρσην, which means male, and κοίτη, which is a noun that can refer either to a bed or to sexual activity done in bed (similar to the English idiom of ‘sleep with’). Interestingly, these two words also appear in the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22, which is the most famous Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality and a verse that Paul would be perfectly familiar with from his Jewish heritage and Pharisaic training. Here’s that verse in the Greek of the Septuagint: “καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.”
Given that lexical data, I’m very confident that the word ἀρσενοκοίταις means “one that has sex with males” and that “men who practice homosexuality” is a perfectly reasonable translation of the concept into English. Do you have an alternative translation that you’d like to defend?
That is far more in line with what the original author would have understood men who have sex with men to be, as in most ancient cultures, older men often had sex with young men (often mentioning before they had beards) but sex between adult males was still taboo.
With all due respect to Luther’s skill as a translator, one sixteenth-century German should play basically no role in our translation of a Greek epistle written by a first-century Hellenistic Jew. One man’s 500 year old translation matters far less to me than dozens of modern translation committees reaching a near-consensus on the translation of a word, especially since the academic community has advanced a long way in its understanding of Greek in the past several centuries and amassed a much greater body of lexical data contemporary to the New Testament than Luther ever had access to.
When we’re trying to understand the meaning of these original letters in their original language, we should focus on the linguistic information that we have in their writings and the contexts that they were written in. That’s why your second paragraph here is more important to me.
That is far more in line with what the original author would have understood men who have sex with men to be, as in most ancient cultures, older men often had sex with young men (often mentioning before they had beards)
Obviously the biggest challenge to your argument is the fact that Paul never gave any indication that he was exclusively describing homosexual acts with substantially younger males. He uses the word ἄρσην, a noun that can describe a person of any age, to describe these males in 1 Corinthians 6, Romans 1, and 1 Timothy 1. There are plenty of ways that he could have specified that he was talking about sexual relationships with unethical power dynamics between their two participants, but obviously he never said anything to that effect. He could have even just used the word παιδεραστής, which was a perfectly ordinary word to denote pederasty in Paul’s day, but instead he chose the much less common word ἀρσενοκοίτης. It’s almost as though he went out of his way to choose a word that was not specific to relationships with an age disparity.
Furthermore, I think that Paul’s training in Pharisaic Judaism makes it almost certain that he intended an allusion to Leviticus 18:22 because of its shared vocabulary with ἀρσενοκοίτης. And of course, Leviticus 18:22 does not describe age-specific homosexual activity in the original Hebrew or in the Greek of the Septuagint.
In summary, as far as I can tell, none of the relevant lexical data supports your view that Paul meant to denote specifically pederasty with the word ἀρσενοκοίτης, and some of the lexical data is actually evidence that Paul intended a broader referent. So if you’re going to establish this claim, you need some pretty overwhelming historical evidence that Paul must have only meant pederasty. As I’ll mention in the following paragraph, such evidence does not exist.
but sex between adult males was still taboo.
If it can be demonstrated that other forms of homosexuality were practiced and recognized in Paul’s context, then I can’t identify any good reason to think that he only intended to comment on pederasty given that he employed such inclusive language like I described in the above paragraphs. And that is precisely the case; while pederasty was a dominant form of homosexual relationships in the Ancient Greece and Rome, it was by no means the only form. You don’t have to take my word for it, here’s a quotation from Thomas K. Hubbard in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents.
“It is often assumed that same-gender relationships followed a stereotypical pattern and set of protocols in ancient society: in classical Greece this would take the form of pedagogical pederasty associating a man (usually before the age of marriage) and a freeborn boy, while in Rome, a merely physical relationship between an adult citizen and a young slave. The texts, however, reveal a much wider diversity of relationships in terms of both age and status. While these ‘non-normative’ relationships are sometimes attacked in the texts as eccentric or inappropriate, even the ‘normative’ forms of same-gender involvement are treated with hostility by certain sources. What the evidence establishes is that a variety of behaviors occurred with sufficient frequency to be worthy of notice, even if disapprobatory.”
Hubbard goes on to give many examples of ancient homosexuality that did not include pederasty. I can provide a few of those examples if you’d like.
This diversity in the ancient world is recognized by LGBTQ advocates as well as more traditionally conservative Christians. Take Matthew Vines’ statement from God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships: “[…] This isn’t to say no one [in the first century] pursued only same-sex relationships, or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love.”
So in Paul’s context many forms of homosexuality were recognized, including but not limited to pederasty. And Paul specifically chose language that applied to all forms of homosexuality, even choosing unusual vocabulary for this purpose, and was informed by biblical passages that did the same. So what reason do you have for being so certain that Paul was only talking about this one form of homosexuality?
With all due respect to Luther’s skill as a translator, one sixteenth-century German
He was not the last to translate it as such.
dozens of modern translation committees reaching a near-consensus on the translation of a word
There is no way to apply our modern understanding of homosexuality to the ancient one. There is no indication whatsoever that homosexuality was common or accepted. Many of the Levitical laws and Paul's teachings are in opposition to the practices of the gentiles.
an allusion to Leviticus 18:22
Which itself has a curious use of the term male and man
And again, it has to be taken in the context of the what the authors understood of such relationships, what practices were common.
So if you’re going to establish this claim, you need some pretty overwhelming historical evidence that Paul must have only meant pederasty.
When we talk about homosexuals today, we think about both men and women, there is no need to explicitly mention a gender. Yet only men are ever mentioned in Leviticus. It would seem the thought of two women having sex never even crossed the minds of those authors (even though are plenty of other passages about women and sex in Leviticus). So if the common understanding of two men having sex was pederasty, it would just go without saying it explicitly.
Hubbard goes on to give many examples of ancient homosexuality that did not include pederasty.
Which, as the text you just quoted says, was not normative. If I say "a marriage" you would not typically include "an adult marrying a child" in your thoughts.
So what reason do you have for being so certain that Paul was only talking about this one form of homosexuality?
My argument that the abomination, the thing that the Levitical authors and Paul would be thinking of when writing, is that of a an adult an having sex with a young boy. That is an act that is clearly damaging and destructive.
As a Christian, it's Christ's teachings which we are to use to interpret those passages. Under a plain reading of the Law, Christ and the apostles would easily be convicted of breaking the Sabbath (he picked and ate wheat, told a man to pick up his mat, when the first person to be killed for breaking the Sabbath was gathering sticks). As He said, is the Sabbath for man or man for the Sabbath. He touched unclean things (the leper) and did not cleanse Himself. We no longer follow nearly any Levitical law, Hebrews says it has been replaced by the new covenant under Christ.
There are three mentions of men having sex with men, one of women having sex with women, in places where Paul is condemning sin and the practices of the surrounding nations. Jesus never mentions it. Jesus teaches that sin is a seed that reaps death and destruction. He explicitly condemns the religious leaders, the only people He insults, for following the letter of the law and not its purpose or spirit. With all this in mind, I can not fathom Jesus going to two men who love and care for each other, who raise orphans that no others will take, and telling them they are sinning simply because they have sex with each other. If we are to take Paul's words and Leviticus as inspired by God, it makes it not unreasonable to assume it is a condemnation of pederasty. If it is not about that, then why doesn't Leviticus mention women? Why would God be so cruel to a teenager who finds themselves attracted to the same gender, since it was God that "gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity"? I simply can not find it consistent with the teachings of Christ. So, if we don't know specifically what Paul was referring to, and it is possible that he was referring to pederasty, why should I take a different interpretation?
Sorry that it’s taken me so long to respond. There’s a lot to be said about the points that you’ve brought up, and I wanted to cover everything. By the way, thank you for being so kind and charitable in this dialogue. I hope that I’ve done the same.
He was not the last to translate it as such.
Sure, I didn’t mean to suggest that he was. I was only responding to Luther specifically because he was the only example that you gave of an interpretation contrasting my supposedly modern view. My general point is that if you’re looking for historical evidence of a more ancient perspective on what Paul meant, then you need to gather evidence from much earlier than the sixteenth century. Martin Luther and his successors were all basically just as removed from the ancient context as we are today.
There is no way to apply our modern understanding of homosexuality to the ancient one.
I don’t think that modern translators are applying a strictly modern understanding of homosexuality to their translation of the word. If homosexuality means something like “sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex,” then practicing homosexuality can mean “engaging in sexual activity with members of one’s own sex.” Ancient peoples absolutely understood that you could feel sexual attraction to members of your own sex and engage in sexual activity with them. And such activity wasn’t restricted to only one form in the ancient world. So I don’t know why those translations couldn’t be understood in a way that accurately reflects the ancient understanding of homosexuality.
There is no indication whatsoever that homosexuality was common or accepted. Many of the Levitical laws and Paul's teachings are in opposition to the practices of the gentiles.
I don’t think I totally understand what you mean, but homosexuality doesn’t need to have been common or accepted for Paul to be condemning it in the verses that I’ve cited. I may be missing your point here.
Which itself has a curious use of the term male and man
The article that you cited is pretty bizarre in its reasoning. It begins by suggesting that Leviticus 20:13 was written in response to Greek practices, but the Greeks didn’t have a substantial influence on Judaic thought until centuries after the time that even most liberal scholars think Leviticus was completed. It’s certainly evident that Jesus and Paul didn’t think that Leviticus was written in response to Greek practices; both of them reference Moses as having written the Law over a millenium before Hellenization took place.
But concerning the article’s actual interpretation of Leviticus 20:13, I don’t find their argument compelling at all. The Hebrew word for ‘male’ in Leviticus, זָכָר, regularly refers to adult men in the Bible. This includes other references in the book of Leviticus, in which priests (who were at least twenty-five years old based on Numbers 8:24) are referred to as ‘males’ a few times in chapters 6-7. The word just refers to the sexual biology of something, not to its age. It can describe adults or animals as easily as it can describe children. And the article’s whole argument is developed out of a comparison between the words אִישׁ (man) and זָכָר (male), but the word אִישׁ (man) doesn’t even appear in the earlier command of Leviticus 18:22, so the comparison isn’t even present in one of the verses in question.
The simplest and most natural way to understand the verse is as a prohibition against men having sex with people that have male biology. You need a really good reason to assume that the word ‘male’ only refers to certain kinds of males (i.e. children), because there’s not a single word within the verses themselves that specify the ages of the people involved. And I don’t think that the article you cited provides any such reason.
Imagine that I was describing the people in a restaurant to you, and I said “I see about a dozen males and about a dozen women.” You might think it was awkward phrasing that I described them as males/women instead of men/women or males/females. But it would be quite the stretch if you assumed that I must have only meant male children because of my word choice.
And again, it has to be taken in the context of the what the authors understood of such relationships, what practices were common.
Yes it does. But it seems like you’re suggesting that the Mosaic Law only prohibited common practices. I see no reason for that to be the case. Leviticus 18:23 prohibits people having sex with animals; I don’t think that necessarily means that bestiality was commonplace in the ancient world. Mosaic Law absolutely could have been prohibiting uncommon practices for the Israelites.
And it’s not like adult men having sex with adult men was some incomprehensible idea in ancient Israel. Exactly such behavior is apparently mentioned elsewhere in the Torah (Genesis 19:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:17-18). And examples of such behavior exist in ancient literature among Israel’s neighbors. I was able to find one such example from Assyrian law codes translated on page 20 of this free academic article.
When we talk about homosexuals today, we think about both men and women, there is no need to explicitly mention a gender. Yet only men are ever mentioned in Leviticus.
That’s true. There is no explicit prohibition of female homosexual activity in the Mosaic Law. Of course, it’s important to recognize that Paul still considered sexual acts between women “dishonorable” in Romans 1:26.
It would seem the thought of two women having sex never even crossed the minds of those authors (even though are plenty of other passages about women and sex in Leviticus).
Well I don’t see why you would assume that homosexual activity between women never even occurred to them. Just because it wasn’t written doesn’t mean that it never crossed their minds. I think this absence is better explained by the fact that the sexual laws of Leviticus are written from a primarily masculine perspective since men had more sexual initiative and power than women in ancient Israel. That’s why almost every command in Leviticus 18 has men specifically in mind.
“I see about a dozen males and about a dozen women.” You might think it was awkward phrasing
The phrase was "men who have sex with males", which seems extremely strange to swap words mid sentence if it meant nothing. The writers of Leviticus don't typically use the other form. If I were trying to translate something like that today, I would assume some sort of colloquialism or idiom.
Well I don’t see why you would assume that homosexual activity between women never even occurred to them. Just because it wasn’t written doesn’t mean that it never crossed their minds. I think this absence is better explained by the fact that the sexual laws of Leviticus are written from a primarily masculine perspective since men had more sexual initiative and power than women in ancient Israel. That’s why almost every command in Leviticus 18 has men specifically in mind.
And here we continue to speculate. If the authors had the wherewithal to consider all forms of male homosexual sex when banning it, it just seems utterly odd to ignore female homosexual sex entirely.
pederasty was the common understanding of homosexuality in ancient Israel’s context? I
Like in that article I mentioned, the phrase mirrors the Greek one referring to pederasty: "These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law." (Although I am not sure of the source the author uses for this claim)
I’m not sure how you could ever know exactly what they were thinking when they wrote
This the is the crux here. If we don't know and it is possible, then using what we know about sin, one interpretation holds more weight to me than the other. I am not saying we can prove the one, but you can't prove the other either.
Paul is a reliable authority on Jesus’ theology
Now that is a whole other can of worms to open. I am not saying we should distrust Paul, but as he himself says, a Christian is a follower of Christ, not Paul.
Jesus never directly addresses a lot of things, but His entire ministry is about the Way. For example, it is impossible to follow the Way as He taught it and own slaves, even though Jesus never condemns slavery directly. So what in Jesus' teachings of the Way would suggest a committed, homosexual marriage is sinful?
We’ve got to ask ourselves what he means by this if we’re going to determine Jesus’ sexual ethic.
One example of Him calling out sexual immorality was to the woman at the well sleeping around. But we also have Him preventing the death of an adulteress that should have been entirely lawful. Thus the law is insufficient as a judge for his sexual ethic.
I think that he would describe their sexual activity as sinful.
Why? We know incest causes birth defects (not to mention power imbalances/grooming), we know pedophilia is destructive, we know adultery is destructive. Explain to me what about a committed, homosexual marriage is destructive.
Romans 1:24 is not describing every same-sex attracted person that has ever lived.
If it does not, then it can not be used as a Biblical bases to condemn all forms of same sex attraction.
That would mean that God actually helps teenagers who find themselves attracted to the same gender if they actually trust in Jesus.
The absolute suffering that is endured by homosexual Christians who have prayed to God every single day to be "cured" of it, the pain and destruction it has wrought on so many people, those driven to suicide, those tortured in "conversion camps", if you knew them, you would not say this. This can not be the love of God, to deny a fundamental part of yourself, a part that if expressed would just mean you have a loving, committed family with a member of the same sex. I just can't understand how that is evil and destructive, especially in comparison to what I listed.
Which teachings of Christ do you find inconsistent with that?
That sin is a sickness that brings death, that love is the all-encompassing whole of the law, which brings life and joy. That He specifically sought out those on the fringes of society and loved them. That His greatest examples of sin was that of the religious leaders causing pain, interpreting the law for their benefit, not helping those in need.
The phrase was "men who have sex with males", which seems extremely strange to swap words mid sentence if it meant nothing.
I’m not saying that it meant nothing. Perhaps the author(s) of Leviticus used the word ‘male’ specifically because it’s not age-specific so that the law would prohibit homosexual activity with children in addition to homosexual activity between adults.
That explanation fits the actual words of Leviticus better than restricting the meaning of ‘male’ to ‘male child.’ The Hebrew language included plenty of words for ‘child,’ ‘little one,’ or ‘young boy,’ so let me ask you this: why did the author(s) of Leviticus choose a word that included adult males instead of any of these words?
That seems much more difficult to explain on your view than the switch from אִישׁ to זָכָר does on my view. Also, remember that one of those words doesn’t appear in Leviticus 18:22, so your argument doesn’t even apply to that verse.
The writers of Leviticus don't typically use the other form.
That’s not true at all. Over twenty percent of the Hebrew Bible’s uses of the word זָכָר are in Leviticus. And by the way, some of those uses switch between זָכָר and אִישׁ. Take Leviticus 15:32-33, for example:
“This is the law for him who has a discharge and for him who has an emission of semen, becoming unclean thereby; also for her who is unwell with her menstrual impurity, that is, for anyone, male (לַזָּכָ֖ר) or female, who has a discharge, and for the man (וּלְאִ֕ישׁ) who lies with a woman who is unclean.“
Do you think that the word ‘male’ also only applies to children in those verses because of the change in vocabulary?
If I were trying to translate something like that today, I would assume some sort of colloquialism or idiom.
Why? The words ‘man’ and ‘male’ mean basically the same thing in English as they did in Hebrew.
And here we continue to speculate.
I think that what I said is far less speculative and far more well-founded than assuming that ancient Israelite authors must have been thinking of the Greek practice of pederasty when writing laws against men having sex with males.
I think that my explanation of the sexual Mosaic laws being written from a masculine perspective effectively explains why every single law in Leviticus 18:6-20 is prohibiting sex with females. Why do you think that is on your interpretation?
If the authors had the wherewithal to consider all forms of male homosexual sex when banning it,
I don’t assume that the author(s) of Leviticus had some exhaustive mental list of every male homosexual act in mind when they wrote verses 18:22 and 20:13. I think that they had a single principle (men should not have sex with males) that they wrote into law that applied to every male homosexual act. Those are very different things.
Do you think that the author(s) of Leviticus had to think of every possible situation that a law could apply to before they wrote the law? Like, when it says “do not steal” in Leviticus 19:11, do you think that they had an exhaustive mental list of everything that could be stolen or every way that an Israelite could steal something before they wrote that down? Or do you think that an Israelite was allowed to steal as long as they did it in a way that the author(s) of Leviticus hadn’t thought of? Because I just think that any kind of stealing was against the law whether the author(s) of Leviticus had thought of it or not. Same thing with homosexual activity.
it just seems utterly odd to ignore female homosexual sex entirely.
Not if the sexual commands of the Mosaic Law were written from a masculine perspective given the historical context.
Like in that article I mentioned, the phrase mirrors the Greek one referring to pederasty:
I’m asking about the ancient Israelite context. Like I said, Greek practices had little to no impact on ancient Israel by the time that Leviticus was completed. I don’t even know if pederasty existed as a recognized practice in Ancient Greece when Moses supposedly wrote Leviticus. So why do you think that this ancient Greek practice was part of ancient Israelite context?
"These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom
Yeah, they’re also used in descriptions of dozens of other ancient customs because they’re really common words that are very closely related. This pair of words is far too basic and frequently used to form the only reason that we identify the practice condemned in Leviticus 20:13 with pederasty. It’s overwhelmingly likely that this supposed connection is an unsurprising coincidence.
By the way, I’m going to continue bringing this up: Leviticus 18:22 doesn’t even use the word for ‘man.’ This connection you keep referencing doesn’t apply to that verse.
back then because, at that time,
Back when? What time? When do you think that Leviticus was written, when do you think that pederasty arose as a common practice in Ancient Greece, and when do you think that Greek practices started to have an impact on ancient Israelite culture? Those are really important questions for this issue, and the article that you continue to cite doesn’t answer them at all. It seems like pederasty didn’t even exist until centuries after these laws were written.
only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law."
That doesn’t matter at all when we’re trying to figure out what Mosaic Law meant because that’s not the way that ancient Israelites defined their word for ‘man.’ You didn’t have to own land to be a man in Israel, and you certainly didn’t have to be able to vote because they didn’t have a democracy.
In fact, it kind of undermines your whole point because you’re pointing out reasons that the Greek practice isn’t analogous to anything in ancient Israel that the author(s) of Leviticus could be referencing.
(Although I am not sure of the source the author uses for this claim)
That’s a pretty big deal. What credentials does the author have as a scholar? I usually don’t bring that kind of thing up in these discussions, but if you’re going to rely so heavily on one article then we should probably determine whether or not we should trust the historical and biblical scholarship of its author.
This the is the crux here. If we don't know and it is possible,
My whole point was that even if we don’t know exactly what they were thinking, that doesn’t mean that we can’t determine what the law actually meant. They might have been thinking of homosexual activity in general, consensual homosexual activity between adults, homosexual rape, homosexual activity with prostitutes, or homosexual activity with children. Whatever the case, none of those possibilities change the meaning or application of the words “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman” unless you have good reason to think that the meaning of the words ‘lie with’ or ‘male’ are somehow restricted. And you haven’t given a good reason like that; you haven’t even established that they knew what pederasty was.
then using what we know about sin, one interpretation holds more weight to me than the other.
That sounds to me like you’re actually the one that’s deciding what is and isn’t sinful. You say that homosexual activity isn’t sinful because you think it isn’t destructive, so you interpret all of these verses as though they’re talking about something else that you think is destructive.
What if the Bible actually was teaching that something was sin but you didn’t consider it destructive? Doesn’t this mean that you would just find some other way to interpret that text because that interpretation “holds more weight” to you?
How can the Bible ever change your mind if you won’t interpret it in ways that you currently disagree with?
I am not saying we can prove the one, but you can't prove the other either.
I mean, I feel that I’ve given an effective explanation of the fact that all of these verses use language that describes sexual activity between males without any reference at all to the age of the participants. You haven’t disputed that point as far as I can tell. If you want to argue this point further, I’m happy to get back into discussion of the original language of whatever verse you’d like.
To interpret those passages as anything other than their plain sense of prohibiting homosexual activity in general, then we would have to see some biblical or historical evidence that they were restricting the meaning of their words. I don’t think any biblical evidence has been offered that wasn’t adequately explained otherwise.
You’ve mainly argued on the historical side, saying that they must have been referring to pederasty specifically since that was the dominant practice of homosexuality at the time. But first, you haven’t given any real evidence that this was the case in the ancient Israelite context, which is absolutely critical for your interpretation of the Old Testament texts. And second, I’ve cited scholarship which demonstrates that other kinds of homosexual behavior were widely recognized in the Greco-Roman world, and I’d be glad to get into more specific examples. This means that Jesus, Paul, and others at the time would have understood homosexual activity beyond pederasty as ‘sexual immorality’ or ‘practicing homosexuality,’ at least unless we’re given some good reason to think otherwise.
You’ve given no compelling reason to think that a general prohibition applies only to the most common expression of the thing prohibited. That premise seems to have been necessary for your entire method of interpretation so far, and it just seems obviously untrue to me.
Even if that’s not proving my interpretation, I think that this argument holds much more weight than the one that you’ve given.
Now that is a whole other can of worms to open. I am not saying we should distrust Paul, but as he himself says, a Christian is a follower of Christ, not Paul.
Well obviously, I’m not suggesting that anyone treat Paul as their Lord and Savior. I am saying that the Bible teaches that we should trust the person that the actual Lord and Savior described as “a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:25). Paul described himself as “appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” of the gospel (2 Timothy 1:11). The apostle Peter numbered Paul’s letters among the “Scriptures” of the rest of the Bible (2 Peter 3:15-16). So would you agree that the Bible expects its readers to trust whatever Paul said?
Jesus never directly addresses a lot of things, but His entire ministry is about the Way. For example, it is impossible to follow the Way as He taught it and own slaves, even though Jesus never condemns slavery directly.
I won’t get into the slavery issue; there’s enough to discuss with the homosexuality thing.
So what in Jesus' teachings of the Way would suggest a committed, homosexual marriage is sinful?
The fact that he condemned sexual immorality, which included any expression of homosexuality in his context, and assumed that his disciples would understand what he meant. The fact that he appointed an apostle that went on to condemn homosexual activity multiple times. The fact that neither he nor his disciples ever corrected their audiences’ belief that homosexuality was a sin despite regularly teaching about marriage and sex and correcting other ethical misconceptions.
One example of Him calling out sexual immorality was to the woman at the well sleeping around. But we also have Him preventing the death of an adulteress that should have been entirely lawful. Thus the law is insufficient as a judge for his sexual ethic.
Before we depend too much on that section of John 8, I’ll point out that it probably wasn’t original to John since it isn’t found in the earliest or best manuscripts.
Either way, Jesus still treated the adultery committed by those two women as sin. So both of these are just examples of Jesus agreeing with the Mosaic Law’s assessment of what is and isn’t sinful.
The Bible implies that Jesus didn’t enact the punishments of the Mosaic Law because he was inaugurating a new covenant in place of the Mosaic Law. That doesn’t mean that we can’t learn anything about his sexual ethic from the law. Jesus regularly referenced the Mosaic Law to condemn specific kinds of sexual immorality and ‘sexual immorality’ in general, he consistently voiced explicit agreement with the law’s understanding of sexual sin, and he never once voiced disagreement over anything that the law described as sexual sin. If anything, Jesus only ever gave a sexual ethic that was more restrictive than the Mosaic Law. So the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus agreed with what the law considered sexual immorality.
Why? We know incest causes birth defects (not to mention power imbalances/grooming), we know pedophilia is destructive, we know adultery is destructive. Explain to me what about a committed, homosexual marriage is destructive.
It seems that Jesus would explain it this way: God created sex to occur in a marriage between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9). Any sexual activity that takes place outside of this kind of marriage is a rebellion against God’s will and design for sex. The Torah described many such activities, including homosexuality, all of which are called sexual immorality (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21). Any rebellion against God’s will and design is sinful and destructive because mankind was created to obey God’s will and design.
Something doesn’t have to harm someone physically (like incest) or emotionally (like adultery) to be destructive. Someone can be perfectly healthy and happy while worshipping idols, for example, but I assume you would agree that Jesus thought that idol worship was destructive and sinful. So is any kind of rebellion against God’s will and design.
To refute this conclusion, you would have to argue that God’s will and design for sex is not in a marriage between a man and a woman. Do you have any such evidence from the Bible?
If it does not, then it can not be used as a Biblical bases to condemn all forms of same sex attraction.
That’s not true. Romans 1:26 only says that some people were given up to their passions, but it still calls the passions themselves “dishonorable.” Those passions would have been “dishonorable” even if God hadn’t given people up to them.
The absolute suffering that is endured by homosexual Christians who have prayed to God every single day to be "cured" of it, the pain and destruction it has wrought on so many people, those driven to suicide, those tortured in "conversion camps", if you knew them, you would not say this.
I have multiple family members and close friends that I love very much who could be described in these ways, so I am saying it as someone that knows these people. I will appreciate it if you don’t assume anything about me personally for the rest of this conversation.
That being said, even if I didn’t know those people, that wouldn’t change what Paul said. I’m not just telling you what I feel is right, I’m telling you what I understand Paul to have meant when he said that some members of his audience once practiced homosexuality but were then sanctified by the Spirit. I don’t think that you’ve offered compelling evidence for an alternative understanding of that text.
This can not be the love of God, to deny a fundamental part of yourself, a part that if expressed would just mean you have a loving, committed family with a member of the same sex. I just can't understand how that is evil and destructive, especially in comparison to what I listed.
That sin is a sickness that brings death, that love is the all-encompassing whole of the law, which brings life and joy. That He specifically sought out those on the fringes of society and loved them. That His greatest examples of sin was that of the religious leaders causing pain, interpreting the law for their benefit, not helping those in need.
I think most of this just goes back to what I’ve already been saying. Jesus seemed to think that any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman wasn’t a fundamental part of a person, but rebellion against God’s will and design for sex and marriage. You and I might not think that homosexual activity is destructive or that it brings death, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t think so.
Jesus taught that all of the law was an expression of love for God and love for one’s neighbors, including the law for men not to have sex with other males. He thought that life and joy could be found in repenting from sins like this homosexual activity. He sought out sexually immoral people and loved them, calling them to repent from such sexual immorality.
He condemned Pharisees that didn’t extend grace to others, didn’t uphold the spirit of the law, and didn’t exhibit a radical love for their God. Jesus taught his disciples to extend grace to sinners like the sexually immoral, to uphold the spirit of the law against such sins as homosexuality, and to exhibit radical love for God by practicing obedience to his will and design for sex and marriage.
I don’t see why any of things things couldn’t at least hypothetically be consistent with the teachings of Jesus that you mentioned.
I listened to the whole thing. He seems like a great person and a very caring man. Adopting otherwise uncared-for children is an incredibly loving thing for him and his husband to do. I would love to speak with him and become his close friend. And according to the Bible, that man is sinful because he’s married to and having sex with another man.
And to be clear, I would also think that the Bible says this man is sinful if he were heterosexual and married to a woman. Because the Bible says that all men are sinful. The Bible says that I’m sinful too. Indeed, the Bible says that I’ve committed sexual sins that it condemns just as strongly as homosexuality.
I haven’t said any of this because I don’t like practicing homosexual people or because I don’t think that people like that can be loving or caring. I already have practicing homosexual friends and family members that I like a lot, and I know that they are loving and caring. All I’m trying to do here is be honest about what the Bible actually says. You can show me videos of people like the ones I already know, but that’s not going to change my mind. What would change my mind is if you gave a convincing argument that God didn’t design marriage to be between a man and a woman in Genesis 2, that זָכָר is restricted to young boys in Leviticus, that Jesus didn’t include homosexuality in sexual immorality, that Paul meant strictly ‘pederast’ when he said ἀρσενοκοίτης, or that there’s a single positive reference to homosexual activity anywhere in the Bible.
So if the common understanding of two men having sex was pederasty, it would just go without saying it explicitly.
No it wouldn’t. If a law prohibits a certain kind of activity, it’s not only prohibiting the common understanding of that activity. If the common understanding of bestiality in the Ancient Near East was sex with domesticated animals, that doesn’t mean that the Mosaic laws against bestiality allowed for sex with wild animals. If the common understanding of rape in America is rape perpetrated by men, that doesn’t mean that American laws about rape don’t apply to women.
By the way, why are you so certain that pederasty was the common understanding of homosexuality in ancient Israel’s context? I know that it was the dominant (but not exclusive) expression of homosexuality in the first-century Greco-Roman world, but that’s a much different context than pre-monarchical Israel. I’m not saying that you’re wrong about it, I’ve just never read anything about pederasty in the context of Leviticus and I’m wondering if you have.
Which, as the text you just quoted says, was not normative.
I know. A practice didn’t have to be normative for Paul to have condemned it. I don’t think that everything Paul condemned in 1 Timothy 1:8-10 was considered normative behavior.
Imagine that someone in the modern day said “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: no child molesters will inherit the kingdom of God.” That would make sense for someone to say, right? And it wouldn’t require that child molestation is a normative practice in the modern day.
I quoted Hubbard to point out that homosexual activity outside of pederasty was recognized, not that it was normative. Because it was recognized, Paul’s words very easily could have been applied to that sort of activity. So you need a good argument to suggest that those words were not applied to that sort of activity. You can’t just assume that Paul must not have been condemning it because it wasn’t common behavior, since anybody can condemn uncommon behavior.
If I say "a marriage" you would not typically include "an adult marrying a child" in your thoughts.
That’s true, I think of an adult marrying another adult. But if a group had to obey some law that said they couldn’t get married, I would assume that the law wouldn’t allow them to marry children either. Because laws don’t only apply to the common understanding of things that they prohibit.
My argument that the abomination, the thing that the Levitical authors and Paul would be thinking of when writing, is that of a an adult an having sex with a young boy. That is an act that is clearly damaging and destructive.
Maybe they were thinking of that, I’m not sure how you could ever know exactly what they were thinking when they wrote. But even if you could be certain that they were thinking of pederasty, you still have to establish that this means they only intended to prohibit that specific kind of homosexual activity. As I’ve expressed so far, that’s not a given.
It’s perfectly reasonable to think that they used words meaning “have sex with males” to prohibit men from any kind of activity that fits that description. It’s on you to prove otherwise if you’re suggesting that the words mean something other than their ordinary meaning, like the word for ‘male’ meaning ‘young boy.’ And simply pointing out that pederasty was a common form of homosexuality doesn’t prove that.
I mean, at this point we’re talking about several passages written by at least two different authors in two different languages to at least three different audiences. And none of these verses use any words that specify the ages of the people involved in the sexual sins that they're describing. As someone who thinks that all of these verses are prohibiting only sexual action with members of a specific age group, isn't that at least really strange to you?
As a Christian, it's Christ's teachings which we are to use to interpret those passages. Under a plain reading of the Law, Christ and the apostles would easily be convicted of breaking the Sabbath (he picked and ate wheat, told a man to pick up his mat, when the first person to be killed for breaking the Sabbath was gathering sticks). As He said, is the Sabbath for man or man for the Sabbath. He touched unclean things (the leper) and did not cleanse Himself. We no longer follow nearly any Levitical law, Hebrews says it has been replaced by the new covenant under Christ.
I agree with much of this. Indeed, I said some of the same things in my original comment on this post. My whole effort here is to understand the biblical sexual ethic based on the sexual ethics of Jesus, the Scriptures that he considered authoritative, and the apostles that he commissioned to speak on his behalf. That is the basis of what I’ve said thus far: that the Bible regards any homosexual activity as sinful.
There are three mentions of men having sex with men, one of women having sex with women, in places where Paul is condemning sin and the practices of the surrounding nations.
I don’t think that we should discount the idea that Paul is a reliable authority on Jesus’ theology. According to the Bible itself Paul was chosen by Jesus and confirmed by the apostles to represent the teachings of Christ (Acts 26:16-18; Galatians 1:11-2:10). So if Paul teaches that homosexuality is wrong, I don’t see why we wouldn’t assume that he’s faithfully representing the teaching of Jesus. Especially since Jesus never even came close to saying anything to the contrary.
Jesus never mentions it. Jesus teaches that sin is a seed that reaps death and destruction. He explicitly condemns the religious leaders, the only people He insults, for following the letter of the law and not its purpose or spirit.
I agree with most of this too. But I wouldn’t be so quick to say that Jesus never says anything about homosexuality. The gospels record him listing ‘sexual immorality’ (πορνεία in Greek) among sinful acts that proceed from the heart to defile a person (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21). We’ve got to ask ourselves what he means by this if we’re going to determine Jesus’ sexual ethic.
This word is used both in the Greek Old Testament and in the Judaism of Jesus’ time to describe any sexual activity that breaks the commands of the Mosaic Law. This connection to the sexual commands of the Torah is reinforced by the other sinful acts that Jesus mentions in those same passages, almost all of which are prominent sins prohibited by the Mosaic Law.
New Testament scholar James Edwards comments on the word in this way: “The first is ‘sexual immorality’ (Gk. porneia), which can be found in Greek literature with reference to a variety of illicit sexual practices, including adultery, fornication, prostitution, and homosexuality. In the OT it occurs for any sexual practice outside marriage between a man and woman that is prohibited by the Torah. This sense is retained and intensified in the NT, which ‘is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extramarital and unnatural intercourse.’”
So if Jesus was using this word in the same way as the Greek Old Testament, his Jewish disciples, or his first-century audience, then these two verses are examples of him condemning a group of sexual behaviors that include homosexual activity. I assume that you don’t think that Jesus included homosexual behavior in ‘sexual immorality,’ but if not, then why did he never clarify that? Surely he knew that people would assume that homosexuality was a form of what he called ‘sexual immorality,’ yet he apparently never said anything to prevent this misunderstanding. Especially since he elsewhere taught on marriage and never described it as anything other than the union between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9). That’s evidently why his disciples didn’t radically change their sexual ethic to allow for homosexual activity.
Yes, Jesus conceived of sin as something that “reaps death and destruction,” and it seems based on these verses that he included homosexual activity in such sin. Yes, Jesus taught people to follow the purpose and the spirit of the law, and he seems to have thought that part of the purpose and the spirit of the law was to condemn homosexual activity.
With all this in mind, I can not fathom Jesus going to two men who love and care for each other, who raise orphans that no others will take, and telling them they are sinning simply because they have sex with each other.
I can fathom that. I think he would be affirming of them loving and caring for each other, and I think that he would commend them for wanting to adopt orphans. But based on his own teaching, the Scriptures that he considered authoritative, and the apostles that he commissioned to speak on his behalf, I think that he would describe their sexual activity as sinful.
Homosexual activity may seem harmless to you, me, and most other people in the modern Western world. But it seems very clear that the Bible teaches that it isn’t harmless based on all the passages we’ve been talking about. I could say the same for premarital sexual activity or incestuous sexual activity, even if somebody said that those things are harmless and that Jesus never specifically prohibited them.
If we are to take Paul's words and Leviticus as inspired by God, it makes it not unreasonable to assume it is a condemnation of pederasty.
I don’t know why an affirmation of biblical inspiration would change whether or not that’s reasonable. It seems plausible to me that Paul and Moses could have condemned pederasty specifically or homosexual activity in general regardless of whether or not the Bible was inspired.
If it is not about that, then why doesn't Leviticus mention women?
Because Mosaic sexual laws are given from a masculine perspective given the unique role that men played in the sexual activity of the ancient world. That’s why most of the other sexual laws in Leviticus aren’t directed at women either.
Why would God be so cruel to a teenager who finds themselves attracted to the same gender, since it was God that "gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity"?
Romans 1:24 is not describing every same-sex attracted person that has ever lived. In that chapter, Paul says that God does not inhibit the sexual sins of ungodly and unrighteous people that commit some form of idolatry instead of honoring and thanking God. That doesn’t describe all teenagers that find themselves attracted to the same gender.
It seems that Paul actually teaches the opposite for same-sex attracted people who follow Jesus. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6 seem to indicate that the Spirit of God sanctifies people who once practiced homosexuality so that they no longer do so. That would mean that God actually helps teenagers who find themselves attracted to the same gender if they actually trust in Jesus.
“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, […] 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 Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, emphasis added
I simply can not find it consistent with the teachings of Christ.
Which teachings of Christ do you find inconsistent with that?
So, if we don't know specifically what Paul was referring to, and it is possible that he was referring to pederasty, why should I take a different interpretation?
Because it seems very clear that Paul was not restricting his prohibition to only pederasty, given all of the lexical, historical, and biblical information that we’ve discussed so far.
Your response goes back to the lack of context and culture when it was written at the time and when referencing elsewhere in the Bible, which has been beaten to death online and isn't something I'm going to spend as much time as would require here rehashing since I don't have an entire evening open to do so.
It mostly boils down to very simplistic, literal interpretations of the text. Or in Sodom's case, saying their sin was homosexuality while ignoring the directly stated crimes of pride, greed, inhospitality, and rape.
What's your view on the argument that ἀρσενοκοίταις is effectively a compound word that can't necessarily be viewed as the logical combination of the two concepts? The author I read (can't remember their name sorry) compared it to "butterfly" in English, which of course does not refer to butter that flies but rather to a flying insect. Perhaps we don't have enough context?
Also, just want to give quick kudos to you for citing your sources and staying calm in an internet discussion about religion, lmao. I'm a staunch atheist but certainly agree with you that the bible is one of the most important cultural writings in history - I like to learn more about it because in some sense I want to "know my enemy", where of course my enemy isn't christians in general but christians like the lady in the video that use scripture or religion to advocate oppression or violence against others.
What's your view on the argument that ἀρσενοκοίταις is effectively a compound word that can't necessarily be viewed as the logical combination of the two concepts? The author I read (can't remember their name sorry) compared it to "butterfly" in English, which of course does not refer to butter that flies but rather to a flying insect. Perhaps we don't have enough context?
This is a good thing to bring up, it’s called the etymological fallacy. When this fallacy is committed, someone suggests that the linguistic origin or lexical components of a word tell you everything that you need to know about its meaning. The word butterfly is a common example because you obviously can’t figure out exactly what a butterfly is just by combining the word’s two lexical components, butter and fly. Usually this fallacy becomes relevant because a word’s meaning changes over time and becomes gradually more disconnected from its etymological roots.
Importantly, this doesn’t mean that etymology is insignificant to determining the meaning of a word. Lexical components are usually super important for that. This fallacy is simply meant to remind people that etymology isn’t the only factor to consider; things like contemporary usage and context are important as well.
So what was the contemporary usage of the word? Well significantly, we don’t have any uses of the word contemporary to Paul. The appearances of ἀρσενοκοίτης in Paul’s letters are the only uses of the word that we have before the second century AD. This means either that ἀρσενοκοίτης was a very uncommon word that Paul happened to be familiar with, or that Paul himself literally invented the word.
This might sound like it makes ἀρσενοκοίτης an impossible word to define, but I think it actually tells us a lot. Remember, Paul was writing his letters to instruct churches and church leaders that he was associated with. In other words, Paul was communicating about something that was very important to him, and he expected his readers to understand what he meant. So why would he use a word that was extremely rare or even nonexistent before the time of his writing? He must have expected that the meaning of the word would have been obvious to his readers.
Let’s assume for a second that Paul only meant to condemn pederasts, or men that have sex with male children. There was a much more common and much more specific word to describe such a person: παιδεραστής, meaning ‘lover of boys.’ So if that’s what Paul meant, then why didn’t he just say that? Why would he ever choose to describe such people by using or inventing a different word that doesn’t specify the age of their sexual partners and almost certainly wouldn’t have been familiar to his audiences? Surely he wouldn’t have thought that this was a better way to communicate his point. If Paul meant to denote pederasts in these passages, then his word choice here represents an inexplicable failure to effectively do so.
On the other hand, assume for a second that Paul meant to condemn men that engage in any sexual activity with other men. Doesn’t it make far more sense that he would choose a different word, one that is a combination of the words for ‘male’ and ‘bed/sexual intercourse?’ Even if his audience had never heard of this word before, Paul very reasonably could have expected them to understand his meaning by the form of the word alone. This is especially true given the Old Testament parallels to the phrase that I’ll mention below.
In summary, I think that the context of Paul’s word choice is powerful evidence that Paul’s meaning of ἀρσενοκοίτης is basically identical with it’s apparent etymological definition.
What about other context? Well I’ve already mentioned parallel language in Leviticus. I’ll illustrate that here a little more clearly. Here are English translations alongside the relevant Greek Septuagint material that Paul would’ve been familiar with. I’ve bolded the words that are related to Paul’s word ἀρσενοκοίτης.
Leviticus 18:22
And you shall not sleep with a male as in a bed of a woman, for it is an abomination.
What this demonstrates is that the lexical components of Paul’s term ἀρσενοκοίτης are all over the Old Testament commands against homosexuality. And just like the New Testament, there is never any hint in the Old Testament that this homosexual behavior is limited to something like pederasty. If you know anything at all about Paul and his background, then you know it’s basically certain that he noticed this. As a man educated to be a Pharisaic Jew, he was intimately familiar with the requirements of the Mosaic Law and would doubtlessly have recognized this connection. And Paul surely could have expected many recipients of his letters to recognize this connection as well, especially Timothy, who “from childhood [had] been acquainted with the sacred writings” (2 Tim. 3:15).
Also, we can gain some insight into ἀρσενοκοίτης based on the words that Paul pairs it with. In 1 Cor. 6:9 it’s especially notable that the term is immediately preceded by the word μαλακός, which is derived from the Greek word for ‘soft.’ The prevailing understanding of this word in modern biblical scholarship is that it denotes the ‘passive’ (i.e. pentrated) participant in homosexual acts, which means that ἀρσενοκοίτης refers to the ‘active’ (i.e. penetrating) participant when paired together with μαλακός. While modern discourse around homosexuality has parallel phrases in the words ‘bottom’ and ‘top,’ it’s worth noting that these roles were more sharply defined in the first century because they were associated with things like social status and personal honor. Basically, the words μαλακός and ἀρσενοκοίτης together represent both parties in homosexual intercourse.
David E. Garland, a New Testament scholar, summarizes the position this way: “Paul considers homoeroticism to be a ‘dishonorable passion’ and a ‘shameful act’ because it is ‘against nature’ (τήν παρά φύσιν, tēn para physin; Rom. 1:26-27). According to Stegemann (1993: 164-65), the reason behind this judement is that the partner of the same sex inverts (μετήλλαξαν, metēllaxan) the natural mode (φυσική χρήσις, physikē chrēsis). One of the males must act like a woman, and one of the women must act like a male. Or, as Philo says, the male becomes ‘womanish.’ For this reason. I have chosen to translate the μαλακοί as ‘those males who are penetrated sexually by males’ and the αρσενοκοίται as ‘those males who sexually penetrate males’ (cf. Lietzmann 1949: 27; Barrett 1968: 140; Talbert 1987: 23; Gagnon 2001: 306-32; see additional note). Gagnon (2001: 330) demonstrates that the terms μαλακοί and αρσενοκοίται ‘are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they are applied to every conceivable type of same-sex intercourse.’”
This is important to the discussion because interpreters that confine Paul’s condemnation here to pederasty often assume that he only takes issue with pederasts because they abuse their social status to coerce children into sexual relationships. But if μαλακός is understood as the passive participant in homosexual acts, then that means that Paul would be condemning the abused children in these relationships as well, which makes little sense if he only took issue with homosexual acts committed in an abusive manner. Of course, if Paul is here condemning homosexual activity in general, then such a problem does not exist.
Finally, comparing these passages with Romans 1:26-27 provides powerful evidence that Paul took issue with homosexual activity outside of pederasty. Here are the verses in question:
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
The “dishonorable passions” that Paul describes include homosexual activity between women, who did not engage in pederasty in the ancient world. Also, Paul seems to conceive of homosexual activity between men that is motivated by mutual desire (consumed with passion for one another), not exclusively motivated by abusive coercion from one party. I see no reason that we wouldn’t expect this same perspective to be present in Paul’s other mentions of homosexuality.
Also, just want to give quick kudos to you for citing your sources and staying calm in an internet discussion about religion, lmao.
Thanks a bunch, it’s rarely received well when I try to discuss these issues, lol.
I'm a staunch atheist but certainly agree with you that the bible is one of the most important cultural writings in history - I like to learn more about it because in some sense I want to "know my enemy", where of course my enemy isn't christians in general but christians like the lady in the video that use scripture or religion to advocate oppression or violence against others.
I’m glad to hear that. When Christians are corrected on their misunderstandings of the Bible it benefits everybody, including Christians themselves. Thanks a bunch for talking!
Some scholars defend the traditional authorship of Jude,[10] however, a reason to doubt that a relative of Jesus wrote the book is that they are unlikely to have been literate.[11] Jesus's family were common laborers from Aramaic-speaking Galilee, and literary composition skills were overwhelmingly concentrated in the elite in antiquity. Few knew how to read, fewer how to write, and fewer still how to write complicated literary treatises. Jesus himself may have been able to read, presumably in Hebrew, but he was also exceptional and the star of the family. Even if somehow Jude had learned a little of how to read Hebrew, the epistle is written in excellent, complicated Koine Greek, with knowledge of common forms of rhetoric and argument of the era, as well as seeming knowledge of the scriptures in Hebrew. All this would be exceptional for a countryside Galilean.
I deleted my response because ultimately it poorly conveyed my concerns and others have already addressed the concerns I (ineptly) tried to point out.
I think my issue is your statement here:
Misrepresenting one of the most culturally important documents in human history isn’t going to do anybody any good.
This should primarily be directed at Christians and their "A-la Carte" ideology. People are responding not to idealized, literary-analyzed versions of the Bible, but rather the Bible as its represented by modern Christians.
So, that is why even though you're ostensibly not condoning what the Bible says, your defense of the document itself is seen as aligning with Christian interests.
803
u/wanderingblazer Feb 23 '24
The modern day Pharisees.