<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Thursday, February 22, 2007

The Centurion's Servant

This past Monday evening (2/19/07), Gene Cook interviewed a "Christian" gay apologist named Rick Bretlinger who is the author of a forth coming book entitled Gay Christian 101: A spiritual self defense for gay Christians. The MP3 is currently available for download and I would certainly recommend listening to it.

The fine boys at Fide-O blogged about the interview a couple of days ago, and the discussion on the comment thread is worth the read for anyone seriously involved with apologetics, because Rick wandered onto the comment thread to defend his gay "Christian" beliefs and has been interacting with everyone who wishes to debate him. Gene Bridges, who has left the most lengthy comment, wrote an excellent response to Rick and it alone is worth the time to read.

I personally believe the gay "Christian" apologetics will be something the Bible believing Church will need to be prepared to contend with, because the issue of homosexuality is only going to become more heated in our society during the years to come. The one thing currently going in favor for Christians, however, is that the revisionist arguments put forth by gay "Christians" in an attempt to twist the Bible to allow a homosexual lifestyle are not too sophisticated.

Their arguments are not built upon any meaningful exegesis of the biblical text, but around the re-defining of certain original language words and re-inserting them back into the narrative or doctrinal passage in order to make the text teach something utterly foreign to what the original writer intended. This "apologetic" allows the re-interpreter to infer certain points in the passage under scrutiny and draw conclusions that may never had been apart of what the original writer of scripture meant to convey.

For example, Rick mentioned in the interview on Monday that Jesus never condemned the homosexual relationship of the centurion and his servant. A person listening to the interview had to pause and say, "What homosexual relationship between a centurion and his servant?"

The reference is from Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 where a centurion comes to Jesus and asks for Him to heal his servant. Luke's gospel records that this was a servant dear to the centurion. In describing the servant of the centurion, Matthew employs the unique word pais. From these two bits of information, Rick concludes that this was a centurion and his homosexual partner in view here, because a) the servant is dear to the centurion's heart, and b) the word pais to describe the servant is a special word of endearment.

Much of his argument hinged on part b), the use of pais to describe the servant. What are we to make of this? It is true that pais is an unusual word to use to describe a servant. Normally, other words like doulos are often used. But, are we to conclude the use of pais means a homosexual partner is being described in the gospel narrative?

Most commentators understand this word to be in reference to a child servant or a servant who is younger than an adult. In fact, the word "child" is the main definition given in the standard language dictionaries for pais. Additionally, Luke uses pais to describe Israel as God's servant in Luke 1:54 and David being the Lord's servant in Luke 1:69. Surely our homosexual apologist wouldn't conclude there was a homosexual relationship between the Lord and Israel or David?

A much better way to understand the centurion's servant is that he was perhaps an adopted son. Hence the reason he would be dear to the centurion's heart, as well as described as a unique and special servant. Even so, just because a centurion is described as having endearing feelings for a faithful servant to the point of humbling himself to beseech a miraculous Jewish man in the hopes this Jew will help him, a hated gentile and Roman occupier, does not mean he was a gay man looking to have his partner healed.

This is purely the figment of an over active homosexual apologetic imagination.

Labels: ,

29 Comments:

Blogger thomas4881 said...

They just mentioned something about a new "gay" Bible at www.wayofthemasterradio.com on 2/21/2007 hour 1 show.

4:28 PM, February 21, 2007  
Blogger pilgrim said...

Actually, even if it could be proved without a doubt that there was something going on that way, how does the text condone it?
It doesn't.

jesus healed all sorts of people and didn't condone everything in their lives.

So the argument is quite a stretch for that reason as well.

7:24 PM, February 21, 2007  
Blogger Highland Host said...

Thomas. The new 'Gay Bible' is in fact the AV with someone's blasphemous pretended prophecy added.

The United Free Church of Scotland's Panel on Doctrine's report on homosexuality (http://www.ufcos.org.uk/doct95.htm) is well worth reading as a sane comment on the whole matter

12:30 AM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger Jason E. Robertson said...

Fred, you said, I personally believe the gay "Christian" apologetics will be something the Bible believing Church will need to be prepared to contend with, because the issue of homosexuality is only going to become more heated in our society during the years to come.

No wiser words have ever been spoken, my friend. Thanks for engaging this subject.

4:29 PM, February 22, 2007  
Blogger Rick Brentlinger said...

It might be helpful to acquaint yourself with the evidence before reaching a conclusion about the meaning of pais.

At the first Link, Dr. Robert Gagnon, arguably the most knowledgeable anti-gay evangelical alive today, admits that the word pais was sometimes used to describe one of the lovers in a same sex relationship.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Centurion-And-Pais.html

And this Link provides examples of other Greek writers who used the word pais to indicate one of the partners in a same sex relationship.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

Rick Brentlinger

12:00 PM, May 17, 2008  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

It might be helpful to acquaint yourself with the evidence before reaching a conclusion about the meaning of pais.

(Fred) Rick, you assume I didn't do my homework. I happened to survey several key Greek lexicons and language dictionaries, including Kittle, BDG, and TNIDNTT. In addition to those sources, I surveyed around 10 or more key academic commentaries on Matthew and Luke, and Matthew specifically seeing he is the only NT gospel author to utilize pais in reference to the Centurion's servant. So to suggest that I need to acquaint myself with the word usage is rather presumptive on your part. Looking at your articles, you appeal to secular, a-biblical commentary to define your words, as well as one - one! - so-called Greek scholar (out of hundreds!) to claim pais means homosexual lover. In one of your articles you opine of how no Greek lexicon defines pais as being "a gay lover," but there is good reason for this, IT IS AN UTTERLY FOREIGN DEFINITION TO THIS WORD!

At the first Link, Dr. Robert Gagnon, arguably the most knowledgeable anti-gay evangelical alive today, admits that the word pais was sometimes used to describe one of the lovers in a same sex relationship. ... And this Link provides examples of other Greek writers who used the word pais to indicate one of the partners in a same sex relationship.

(Fred) It may be that some extra-biblical sources utilized this word in this manner, but what is at stake is not how they used it, but how the biblical writers used it. You have to show this is what the biblical authors Matthew and Luke meant by their use of this story. All I have seen so far is a reading into this text a severe foreign meaning.

Additionally, you misrepresent what Gagnon says about this word, because your comment here suggests the word is ambiguous and uncertain as used in Matthew's gospel and that Gagnon is wrong to draw specific conclusions. An online article by him on this subject can be located here: Did Jesus Approve of a Homosexual Couple in The Centurion's Servant Story?. To cite from that online article, he writes this,

In a forthcoming work on the tradition history of the story of Jesus and the Capernaum official, I will argue (inter alia) that it is likely that the “boy” (pais) originally meant a “child” or “son” of the Capernaum official. The Q and Matthean versions are equivocal. They mention only a pais, which could mean “boy” in the sense of “child, son” or in the sense of “slave.” Luke interprets the pais to be a “slave” (doulos, 7:2-3, 10), but this is a product of later Lukan redaction and cannot tell us what Q or Matthew understood the pais to be. John 4:46-54 represents an independent variant version of the same account and there the pais is viewed as a “son” (huios) of the official (pais in John 4:51 = huios in 4:46-47, 50, 53). Probably Matthew (and thus Q) interpreted pais in a similar manner, given not only John’s version but also Matthew’s probable insertion of pais in the miracle story of the epileptic boy/son in Matt 17:18 (cf. 2:16 where he also uses pais of a “boy” or “child”). In 14:2 (Matthean redaction of Mark) and possibly also in the citation of Isa 42:1 in Matt 12:18 Matthew uses pais in the sense of “slave”; however, these uses, unlike those in John 4:51 and Matt 17:18, have nothing to do with a person being healed and so are rather remote as parallels. Prof. David Catchpole’s comment is helpful here: “pais and huios are equivalent in normal Josephus usage. . . . Significant above all is the use of pais/paidion with a clear sense of one’s own child in the related traditions of Jairus and the Syrophoenician woman: Mark 5:39-41/Luke 8:51,54; Mark 7:30. The appeal of the parent, not the master, seems to be a standard feature of this family of traditions.” Moreover, as I note below, the version of the Capernaum official story in Q is likely to have come about through contact in oral transmission with the story of the Syrophoenician woman, so that the image of intercession for a distance healing of one’s own child (not slave) in the latter is particularly significant. Needless to say, it is not very likely that Jesus would be commending an incestuous union between a father and his son.

Apart from his appeal to the mythical "Q" document that he pits against Matthew and Luke, his observations about the word pais are excellent. Especially his pointing out the use of pais in John's gospel as speaking to a son. I don't necessarily believe the "official" or "nobleman" is the same as the Centurion, but I am willing to entertain that possibility, and you don't even mention this text from John in any of your articles. Nor do you point out the primary meaning of pais in these other biblical texts is used to speak of children of various individual parents. Seeing that pais is primarily employed to speak of children, are you willing to suggest this "servant" was a boy? That the centurion was an ancient member of NAMBLA and Jesus approved of his pedophilia? Your absurd warping of these texts is no different that some child molester saying Jesus affirmed a pedophilic relationship. Knowing the ancient Greek philosophers' desire for young boys, I can see how they most certainly would use pais as a slang for their pedophilia.

7:18 AM, May 19, 2008  
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...

First, i know this page is old, but it came up in a search, one of the very few that result from any Googling on homosexuality Bible related searches, and I praise God for the few traditional Biblicists who realize the need to engage in such apologetics.

I linked your comments to a comprehensive treatment of this issue, http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html,

Keep earnest contending, by God's grace, which is purposed to make us holy. (Rm. 8:4), and i am a work in progress.

12:39 PM, May 10, 2009  
Blogger loveneverfails said...

When I read the story of the Roman Centurian with the understanding of "pais" meaning young beloved boy of an older male partner - strangely I was not horrified or disgusted - I was overcome again by the absolute love and grace of Jesus who would have known acutely of the situation - and yet in the same way as he shamed the religious lawyers of the day in the case of the woman caught in the very act of adultery, chose to heal the centurian's "pais" and commend him for his great faith.I could'nt stop crying at the thought of that centurian admitting that he was not worthy of Jesus entering his home - but Jesus healed his boy anyway. Jesus did not go around looking for people who were worthy of his love - he wouldn't have found anyone! I don't think we should try and sanitise the Bible too much - the story of the homosexual roman centurian is a very powerful evangelical tool that we can use to demontrate that no-one is outside of His Love.

10:35 PM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

But the problem with your conclusion about the Roman centurion is quite simple: Nothing in the text says he was homosexual and the servant was his gay lover. That's the point. "Pais" does not have any homosexual connotations attached to it at all. Anyone who reads this story as Jesus healing the gay lover of a Roman centurion is twisting the story to fit their own perverted views of sexuality.

6:21 AM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger John Haselton said...

I find it facinating that those advocates of queer theology often spend inordinate amounts of time trying to insert queer reading based on a specific text. I thought that was called proof texting?

The argument I make is that the scope of the entire Bible is made up of men and women in relationship. From Adam and Eve in the garden, to Christ and his bride the church in revelation.

Not that I dislike word studies, as a seminary student I do them all the time. However, I think sometimes we can let the trees get in the way of the forest. Which leaves us both blind and lost.

4:57 PM, February 17, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

The argument I make is that the scope of the entire Bible is made up of men and women in relationship. From Adam and Eve in the garden, to Christ and his bride the church in revelation.

(Fred) Yes. I would agree with you. I have written a handful of articles addressing this fundamental issue. It is the key to the debate with homosexual revisionists.

However, it is still important to be prepared to answer these type of nuanced arguments, and it would be unwise to just dismiss it as if minute textual details are irrelevant.

5:57 AM, February 18, 2010  
Blogger Trellus said...

I think it's possible, but by no stretch sure given the scant evidence, that the centurion had any kind of sexual relationship with his servant, as it was not unusual and the account fits the scenario. Clearly, the pais was a beloved servant, but we know nothing beyond that. The nature of modern homosexual relationships is different in our culture than it was then, also, and so even if there was any sexual component to their relationship (which is unknown), calling them a "gay couple" as the apologists of this idea have called it, is a further stretch.

We also know it is quite possible Jesus could have healed this pais even if he was a sexual partner of the centurion, and still not condone any unclean sexual practices. Certainly, Jesus did not equate same-gender relationships to marriage (Matt 19:4-6).

The question that always burns in me is, why it is necessary to either prove or disprove that this centurion was in a sexual relationship with his servant? Has anyone considered that they might have had a very special relationship, perhaps even one like David and Jonathan? Where do people get the idea that same-gender affection and intimacy is something God hates? That is a perversion of truth. If you use your common sense, you know that there things that can be practiced that are unclean and even self-abusive, but intimacy is not, even physical intimacy and affection.

Truly, the love between Jonathan and David surpassed the love of women. It was not unclean; their souls were knit together.

7:16 AM, September 20, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I think it's possible, but by no stretch sure given the scant evidence, that the centurion had any kind of sexual relationship with his servant, as it was not unusual and the account fits the scenario.

Huh? You’re telling me that the centurion WAS having a sodomite relationship with this guy? I am not following you here.

Clearly, the pais was a beloved servant, but we know nothing beyond that.

And why DO we need to know anything beyond that? A servant is as servant. It’s a major leap of illogic to read into the text a sinful sexual relationship. Which if that was the case, would mean the man was committing fornication with this person and would mean Jesus owed the woman at the well an apology.

The nature of modern homosexual relationships is different in our culture than it was then, also, and so even if there was any sexual component to their relationship (which is unknown), calling them a "gay couple" as the apologists of this idea have called it, is a further stretch.

Yes. It certainly is a stretch to call them a gay couple. In fact, it’s a total fabrication designed to justify their sinful hearts and conduct.

We also know it is quite possible Jesus could have healed this pais even if he was a sexual partner of the centurion, and still not condone any unclean sexual practices

But if that were the case, Jesus would had commented on their sexual relationship, rebuked them for it and called them to repent and sin no more, just like he did with the woman at the well in John 4.

The question that always burns in me is, why it is necessary to either prove or disprove that this centurion was in a sexual relationship with his servant?

It is necessary for the individual who wants to find approval from God for his sin. People have interpreted the Bible in this fashion for centuries.

Has anyone considered that they might have had a very special relationship, perhaps even one like David and Jonathan? Where do people get the idea that same-gender affection and intimacy is something God hates? That is a perversion of truth. If you use your common sense, you know that there things that can be practiced that are unclean and even self-abusive, but intimacy is not, even physical intimacy and affection.

No one is saying same gender affection is sinful. I have a tender affection for several close guy friends. What is being condemned is the fanciful notion that same-sex intercourse and the same “intimacy” one shares with his wife is “okay” with God. It is not, but is a perversion of what he has created. David and Jonathan didn’t have a sexual relationship either. As I noted in another article specifically addressing David and Jonathan, a broader context is to be considered concerning their relationship. It was not sexual, because both men were married and had families, and to have a secret sexual partnership would make them both law breakers before God. This fact is generally ignored by gay evangelical revisionists.

6:26 AM, September 21, 2010  
Blogger Peace by Jesus said...

More than that is ignored, while a carnal imagination supposes that D+J were like the pagans they fought, not only engaging in a homoerotic relationship but without repentance. http://conservapedia.com/David_and_Jonathan#Homoerotic_rendering_of_David_and_Jonathan

5:09 PM, September 23, 2010  
Blogger rottenqueerchristian said...

You guys really take the cake. When reading homosexuality into the text you call US the revisionist, yet aren't you the revisionist with doing back flips in reading homosexuality OUT of the text? Let's approach it this way, it really doesn't matter whether the pais was a sexual servant or not. The people who were witnessing the exchange between the Centurion and Jesus BELIEVED, as according to the custom and norm of Roman Centurions with male slaves, there was a sexual aspect to it. Historically this can't be denied and Jesus never clarified to the surrounding crowd with saying; "Wait a minute folks, I know you're thinking this Centurion is talking about his young lover as is the custom with these Romans, BUT, that's NOT the case here. It's not sexual and that's the only reason I'm healing his pais."

7:30 PM, September 17, 2012  
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...

No, it is you who are clearly being revisionist by reading something into the text that is nowhere stated or even inferred. All you have is a presumption that this pederasty was the norm, and conclude that this was the case in Mt. 8:5-13, and leaves Jesus sanctioning forced sexual predation of older men upon underage boys, and negating His condemnation of fornications, (Mk. 7:21-23) with marriage being based upon His specification that God joined male and female together in marriage. (Mt. 19:3,4)
And consistent with this hermeneutic, as with many other prohomosexual polemicists, a main source for this does indeed have Jesus also affirming includes adultery, prostitution, and perhaps lesbianism. See http://www.dennyburk.com/did-jesus-affirm-a-gay-couple/

Talk about reading into the text!

And Luke uses pais to describe Israel as God's servant in Luke 1:54 and David being the Lord's servant in Luke 1:69, and no doubt our homosexual apologists can also conclude, if needed, that there was a homosexual relationship between the Lord and Israel or David.

As shown by many real examples (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html), eisegetical contrivances and leaps of logic are not a problem for those who force of sex into passages it does not belong, in Scripture of in present life, and whom i hope you will not follow.

For there is room at the cross for all who will repent in faith in Him who died for them and rose again.

3:18 PM, September 21, 2012  
Blogger rottenqueerchristian said...

Nice try.

All the huffing and puffing you do doesn't make the Bible fit the way you want it to.
Apart from the Biblical account, we have the lives of the Roman Centurions spelled out by the historical record, period. Do what you want, doesn't take away from the historical account of what a Roman Centurion has in a relationship to a male slave, it was take for granted as a sexual relationship by the Jews, period.
Jesus was asked about the SPECIFIC topic of divorce between a man and woman (by the way, the only time he talked about marriage) and he answered, to take that further as a condemnation of homosexuality is so ridiculous it's not even funny. God forgive you. You aren't an average pew Christian who just takes in what they were taught, you actually know true Scripture and still mislead the blind.

By the way, hit my links before you blab;
http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/search/label/bible%20and%20homosexuality

7:57 PM, September 21, 2012  
Blogger rottenqueerchristian said...

The ball is in your court Mr. Butler. You allow commets. If even the possibility the church has been wrong on the issue of homosexuality, print what I have to say and see if I can answer the arguments, If not, delete my comment and you won't here from me again. Know you have to answer to Christ, whatever you do.

8:49 PM, September 21, 2012  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

A few things,
First, that previous response was not from me, but another commenter.

Second, I've moved my primary s
Stuff over to wordpress, so I am not monitoring this blog as much anymore as of Sept.

Third, and more to your point, what historical record of centurions? Your claim about centurions and their slaves has a lot of assumptions connected to it, the chief of which is that all centurions treated slaves a sexual chattle. This is hardly the case and it makes me wonder if you are getting your info from Boswell's debunked material or some other revisionist historians.

Fourth, it assumes Jesus is going to affirm a situation that is some blatantly spelled out as sinful in the OT. The homosex revisionist wants two things. He wants Leviticus to be condemnations against homosex sin in the context of pagan abuse, yet here a centurion, that is assumed to be pagan and obviously abusing his slave sexually, is affirmed by our Creator by his healing the boy. BTW, the pias is more than likely a young boy, which means you also affirm pedophilia. So if you plan to cling to this argument you are making here, you have some serious problems to overcome.

11:12 PM, September 21, 2012  
Blogger rottenqueerchristian said...

First, my brother in Christ, If you went over to Wordpress, that's fine, the comments I'm answering are on THIS blog, I will be happy to go over to your other blog if it's worth my time or trouble (you popped up like a burnt corn kernel when I typed in my Google search engine "Jesus and homosexuality). I don't know why you're making this an issue. And whatever I have to say to your 'crowd,' I'm sure you will agree with them so who cares what who said what first? I see you just had a knee-jerk reaction to what I said because you didn't even bother to go to my blog before you responded to me within the time frame.To answer your 'third' point about Centurians and their male slaves as sexual love objects, this is shown by Dover, 1978, p. 16; Gagnon (who you love so much and actually link to the left of your blog), 2002, p. 162; Jennings & Liew, 2004, pp. 472-473 and Nissinen, 1998, p. 58). Need more historical sources? So here you have a Roman Centurion (given the utmost respect in Roman society) wandering among the Jews who hated him (Jews hated all Romans) looking for a Jewish faith healer to humiliates himself to with BEGGING him to heal his "beloved servant." Keep in mind that a Roman Centurion can get a replacement slave as easily as getting a loaf of bread. So everyone here See's this as just a run of the mill story of a man who really liked his butler? A "junior" to a centurion by the way can be up to only 3 years in age difference so I don't even know what you're implying other than to be ugly. Don't EVEN bring up the old Levitical laws that are dead to us, grasping for straws?

1:16 AM, September 22, 2012  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I see you just had a knee-jerk reaction to what I said because you didn't even bother to go to my blog before you responded to me within the time frame.

Honestly. I don't really have time or the desire to go over to your blog. You came to my blog and made a claim. If you are going to do as such, then be prepared to backup and defend the claim where you made it. If you wrote something specifically about this, summarize your case here, then link me to the actual blog article from where it came.

To answer your 'third' point about Centurians and their male slaves as sexual love objects, this is shown by Dover, 1978, p. 16; Gagnon (who you love so much and actually link to the left of your blog), 2002, p. 162; Jennings & Liew, 2004, pp. 472-473 and Nissinen, 1998, p. 58). Need more historical sources?

Who are these people? What is there philosophical background? Are they gay advocates? The only one I know is Gagnon, and you totally misrepresent what he says on this subject. That makes me wonder if you misrepresent the other authors you cite.

Taken from his online paper, http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexCenturionStory.pdf

(1) Sex with male slaves not a universal phenomenon. Not every provincial or Roman officer was having sex with his slave so Jesus could hardly have assumed such behavior was going on. This is especially true in Luke’s version where the centurion is portrayed as a paradigmatic “God-fearer.”

Additionally, you need to deal with his argument for pias itself on page 3 of that document (he goes into more detail with his book). Gagnon argues quite convincingly that the pias was a son (I believe adopted son) of the Capernaum official in John 4:46ff.

Overall, what is sorely lacking from so-called gay "Christian" apologists is a theology of sex and sexuality as outlined in the Bible. What do you believe about the creation account of Genesis? God's creation of Adam and Eve? Jesus and the NT writers directing us back to Adam and Eve when they address marriage, sexual sin, sex roles, divorce and other matters that involve what God has actually revealed about sexuality. Lastly, how can a gay "Christian" fulfill Paul's illustration of marriage in Ephesians 5:20ff where a Christian marriage is equated to Christ and the Church? The affirmation for homosexual perversion is found nowhere in the Bible.

My call to you is to flee from your inordiate affections and truly embrace Christ, not this chimera "christ" you have invented.

7:56 AM, September 22, 2012  
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...

Rather than this being a pederatic relationship, "pais" nowhere infers a sexual relationship, and the reality is that rather than being some hedonistic pagan in a pederastic relationship, which the Jews would have abhorred, , the text indicates that this centurion was a God-fearing man, who even built a synagogue.

"And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue."
(Luk 7:3-5)

And and rather than not wanting Jesus to come to his house because he feared Jesus would steal away the paralytic as his own “boy-love," as your Jennings and Liew polemicists perversely postulate, the centurion was a man of faith.

See here on Jenning & Liew, etc.

Moreover, slaves were sometimes adopted by their masters, and the "love" ("entimos' in Lk. 7:2 as some render it) for this does not mean sexual or romantic love, except for those who force sex into places it does not belong.

See here on that.

And even if this was a typical centurion, which he was not, and even if "entimos" meant sexual love, which does not, and even if pederasty was the norm btwn centurions and servant boys, which is presumed, nothing in language or description shows this was the case here. (Nor did Jesus healing a centurions ear infer approval of his immoral actions. Lk. 22:51)

Thus nothing changes the fact that you are reading into the text that which is not there, but that it was taken for granted as a sexual relationship by the Jews, and that this means this was the case here, as with the proposed typical centurions, is only presumed, period (and which again, can easily be used to support Jesus affirming forced sex), and such that presume so also see Jesus affirming other aspects of sexual immorality. All of which is in stark contrast to His condemnation of fornications and definition of marriage.

And rather than Lv. 18 being abrogated, the moral law is not, but is upheld and intensified, esp. as regards sexual immorality. Again, see here

And that Jesus was responding to a question about divorce in no way takes away from His definition of marriage as being btwn opposite genders, quoting its institution in Gn. 2:24 (after nothing else would do) and instead it disallows the homosexual perversion of marriage./

The reality is that despite the attempts to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and to assert sanction for the same, homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept. God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:3-5)

However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God.

9:16 AM, September 22, 2012  
Blogger rottenqueerchristian said...

"Honestly. I don't really have time or the desire to go over to your blog. You came to my blog and made a claim. If you are going to do as such, then be prepared to backup and defend the claim where you made it. If you wrote something specifically about this, summarize your case here, then link me to the actual blog article from where it came."



I've made my claims with quoting historians that you dismiss as maybe being "gay activist" (I have to admit that made me chuckle). Showing your ignorance with who these people are really isn't helping your case.



"Who are these people? What is there philosophical background? Are they gay advocates? The only one I know is Gagnon, and you totally misrepresent what he says on this subject. That makes me wonder if you misrepresent the other authors you cite."



Sir Kenneth J. Dover, (a heterosexual):



New York Review of Books: “Dover's is an authoritative discussion; he is a philologist of great stature with wide achievement as editor, commentator, and literary critic... The subject was one which needed to be exposed to the light of day; we can be thankful that it has been done by a great scholar and one who treats the subject without prejudice.”




Martii Nissinen, (a heterosexual):


"I strongly recommend Nissinen's work. It fills a major need in contextualizing the Old Testament references to homosexual relations in a study of ancient Near Eastern references to same-sex sexual interactions. Many of the relevant texts have simply not been accessible to the general reader heretofore." ---Phyllis Bird Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.




Gagnon:



“boy” (pais) could be used of any junior partner in a homosexual relationship, even one who was fullgrown.” Dr. Robert Gagnon, The Bible And Homosexual Practice, p. 163, footnote 6."


My take on Gagnon by the way:


http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2012/06/robert-gagnon.html



Overall, what is sorely lacking from so-called gay "Christian" apologists is a theology of sex and sexuality as outlined in the Bible. What do you believe about the creation account of Genesis? God's creation of Adam and Eve? Jesus and the NT writers directing us back to Adam and Eve when they address marriage, sexual sin, sex roles, divorce and other matters that involve what God has actually revealed about sexuality. Lastly, how can a gay "Christian" fulfill Paul's illustration of marriage in Ephesians 5:20ff where a Christian marriage is equated to Christ and the Church? The affirmation for homosexual perversion is found nowhere in the Bible.


Because God created Adam and Eve FIRST, does not mean no other relationships are acknowledged (how many concubines did Jacob have?) and your reading prohibition from omission, that's just bad Bible reading. This hang-up people like you have with a one man, one woman deal is a little much, like with Gagnon, it blinds you:


http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2012/09/refute-to-gagnons-adam-and-eve-fixation_1.html


Do a little reading up if you believe the Bible is silent on homosexuals:


http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-eunuchs-as-homosexuals.html



You give a twisted Gospel Fred and the sooner you repent of this Biblical error that you hold so dear to your heart, the better off you will be in this world, and the next.

5:54 PM, September 22, 2012  
Blogger rottenqueerchristian said...

PeaceByJesus,



The SPECIFIC word 'Pais' used in the SPECIFIC story of the Centurian was used in the Greek as a synonym for the word eromenos—a Greek word meaning “the boy you love” and specifically denoting a homosexual relationship (Plato’s Symposium (385 B.C.E.), The History of the Peloponnesian War (433-411 B.C.E.), Aeschines (Against Timarchos) (345 B.C.E.). You do have a point with Jesus saying nothing about approval, but he could have used this as a perfect time to say; "Go and sin no more" or even give some type of negative sentiment instead of praising the Centurian for his faith that he had in higher regard than the faith of the Jews around him (Matt 8:10-13).

I don't know why you and Fred continue to negate the historical record. I've given you 3 exampes of the word 'pais' in the historical reading proving my point and I've given you 4 historians who back it up including a historian Fred respects and you both STILL refuse to budge. Don't worry about saving face, just come out and admit you're wrong. You do know that God equates stubborness with idolatry don't you?


Congratulation, You know who the historians Jennings & Liew are, now tell Fred.



Thus nothing changes the fact that you are reading into the text that which is not there, but that it was taken for granted as a sexual relationship by the Jews, and that this means this was the case here, as with the proposed typical centurions, is only presumed, period (and which again, can easily be used to support Jesus affirming forced sex), and such that presume so also see Jesus affirming other aspects of sexual immorality. All of which is in stark contrast to His condemnation of fornications and definition of marriage.



Your are linking homosexuality with fornication, that is YOUR construct and you're doing what you accuse me of, reading into the text. The fact is you cannot find a Biblical condemnation of homosexuality outside of rape, idolatry or exploitation no matter how much you reach.




And rather than Lv. 18 being abrogated, the moral law is not, but is upheld and intensified, esp. as regards sexual immorality.



http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2012/09/my-justice-your-job.html





The reality is that despite the attempts to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and to assert sanction for the same, homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept. God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:3-5)
The reality is that despite the attempts to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and to assert sanction for the same, homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept. God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:3-5)


Oh please with your screed! You give much more importance to marriage than the Bible.

http://rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2012/08/against-nature.html



However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God.


Well THAT we can agree on. I didn't go to your links, because like Fred, I'm lazy.

9:50 PM, September 22, 2012  
Blogger rottenqueerchristian said...

This will be my last post.

It's interesting Fred, I looked up some of what you believe on your various sites and we are down the line with agreement on so much (Dispensationalism, the innerancy of the Bible, creationism etc), yet you see homosexuality as so great a sin, it's like your seething when you talk to me. I've wondered how to approach people like you. I've run the gamut. Anger for the hurt you do with being a stumbling block to gay men and women, resentment with how you bring reproach to the name of God, pity because you don't see your error, frustration because you have no desire to change your spirit with that error, you truly put homosexuality as "A greater THAN sin." What's sad is you miss the mark. the Bible gives an account (Matthew 25:31-46) to what we will answer for in this life before we stand before the Great White Throne of Judgment and maybe I missed the part where it said; "Did you preach my precepts to the Sodomites?" You see your walk of faith with a homosexuality demon behind every tree to be aware of instead of seeing the spiritually wounded on the side of the road to tend to. I don't hate people like you anymore Fred, it's not to say I won't try to counter your toxic Gospel when I come a cross it, it's just the Pharisaic leaven you give off I'm no longer going to take to heart.

God carry you on your journeys Fred and I pray that He speaks to you heart, deep in your soul, on a night when it's just you and God in a dark room, I trust God will give you your answer, if you truly ask with a sincere heart, like with anyone else who's reading these words, like He did with me. Love God with all your heart and soul and all the Laws and Prophets will hang on this.




Yours in Christ,

Frank

2:23 AM, September 23, 2012  
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...

While pais can sometimes denote a pederastic relationship (and besides servant, child and maiden, as seen in scripture, pais was also used by Greeks as a term of endearment, such as by a parent for a beloved child or wife), the SPECIFIC word 'Pais' is never manifestly used in the Greek NT as denoting a homosexual relationship.

But which insist you MUST it mean in Mt. 8:6-13, consistent with the spirit that drives homosexual activists to arrogantly insist and force all to agree with them.

Mat 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children [pais] that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Mat 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant [pais] lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant [pais] shall be healed.

Mat 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant [pais] was healed in the selfsame hour.

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant [pais] , whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Mat 14:2 And said unto his servants [pais] , This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

Mat 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child [pais] was cured from that very hour.

Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes [pais] and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Luk 1:54 He hath holpen his servant [pais] Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

Luk 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant [pais] David;

Luk 7:7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant [pais] shall be healed.

Luk 8:51 And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden [pais] .

Luk 8:54 And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid [pais] , arise.

Luk 9:42 And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child [pais] , and delivered him again to his father.

Luk 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants [pais] and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

Luk 15:26 And he called one of the servants [pais] , and asked what these things meant.

Joh 4:51 And as he was now going down, his servants [pais] met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.

Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son [pais] Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

Act 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son [pais] Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant [pais] David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child [pais] Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Act 20:12 And they brought the young man [pais] alive, and were not a little comforted.

3:06 PM, September 23, 2012  
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 2

Despite how it is used in Scripture and established reasonable principles of exegesis, homosexual activists insist that pais refers to a pederastic erastes-eromenos relationship in Mt. 8: 6-13, and that Jesus approved it, all because that word sometimes meant that among pagan Greeks in which pederasty was practiced. And because (as they show in many other examples) when they see brotherly or even familial love between a man and his son or servant or btwn same genders, then they easily assert it must mean homosexual relations are taking place, not matter how much forcing that takes.

Here this assumes what it seeks to prove, that Jesus did not simply define marriage as being btwn male and female, which he specified in dealing with what God joined together, but included same gender unions (or even with other beings);

Or that His condemnation of fornications (plural) did not apply to all extramarital sexual unions (and the servant is not referred to as a wife), though motive is never the determinative issue in laws against fornication in Scripture;

And that He not only sanctioned homosexual relationships but that of pederasty, and that being after the typical Greek practice.

And thus He did not uphold the moral law of Moses, despite upholding it otherwise and fornication being clearly part of it, and in which homosexual relations are only condemned.

And that this presumed radical departure was not a problem with kosher Jews, neither any of His disciples, who questioned even eating non-kosher food, nor His enemies who never used it against Him, while condemning Him for ministering to such sinners as tax collectors. (Lk. 7:27-32)

And it also presumes that the centurion at issue was your typical proposed pagan practicing pederasty with a boy lover, and that the Jews also did not see this as an issue, rather than being a God-fearing man of faith, like Cornelius (Acts 10) who favored the Jews who interceded for Him.

Thus the issue is not what researchers who can document pais was sometimes used to denote pederasty in Greece, but the warrant for the polemical conclusions drawn from it as regards it used in the text at issue. And such polemicists typically do not stop here, but their hermeneutic results in effectively negating any moral ethic, which as here, reveals the perverse nature of their eisegesis.

Some pro-homosexual authors, like Daniel Via, choose the position that, "that Scripture gives no explicit approval to same-sex intercourse. I maintain, however, that the absolute prohibition can be overridden, regardless of how many times it is stated, for there are good reasons to override it." (Dan Otto Via, Robert A. J. Gagnon, "Homosexuality and the Bible: two views," pp. 38,94)

Walter Wink states "I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept a loving homosexual relationship for a minute."

However, he joins similar revisionists who disallow that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality") Daniel Helminiak's theory of ethics is similar.

3:13 PM, September 23, 2012  
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...

Pt. 3
However, the majority are more likje William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, who explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today.

John Boswell stated, regarding the Bible, that "one must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative." (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 92)

John Barton states that the Bible is "a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike." (John Barton, "The Place of the Bible in Moral Debate," Theology 88 (May 1985), 206)

Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosexual relations, and advocated removing such from the canon. (Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid7)

Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” (Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)

Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics. (Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121)

Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes (Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?") and relegates the clear condemnation of homosexual relations in Romans 1 to being the product of the apostle Paul's “ill-informed, culturally biased prejudices.” (Spong, Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality, 149-52)

The lack of any established sanction for homosexual relations in the Bible is often explained as being the result of editing by homophobic editors, (B.A. Robinson; Thomas Horner; Steven Greenberg) and by deeming that writers of holy writ were too ignorant on the subject of homosexuality for their censure of it to be valid. (Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: p. 85)

Similar to one of the women in 1King. 3:17-27, they would rather effectively destroy the authority of the Bible than allow it to be used to prove them wrong, and being consistent with to their established tactics they typically arrogantly as with you (in saving face and stubborness) seek to force and intimate whatever is needed to conform to them, in both the physical and exegetical sense, and thus extended meaningful and reasonable exchange is often unwarranted.

3:17 PM, September 23, 2012  
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...

Once again, when met with resistance and the negation of your linguistical sophistry, you resort to insisting people see things according to the way homosexual activists lust to see them, and assuming what you cannot prove.

The reality remains that there is no evidence that this was your typical pagan centurion, and that the Jews and the Lord affirmed pederasty (by their favor toward him), which some believe was the norm (not just happening);

and instead the abundant evidence is that the Jews deplored such as being contrary to the Law, and that the Lord upheld the moral law, and defined that what God joined together was male and female, leaving all other sexual relations to be fornication, which He and the rest of His word condemns, and nowhere affirms homosexual relations, much less pederasty.

In the end, your insistence that Jesus affirmed pederasty is as blasphemous as those who insist that Jesus was in a homosexual relationship with John, which depends upon the same forcing of homosexuality and sex into passages it does not belong in, which is driven by the unholy deceptive spirit that is behind the entire homosexual agenda

May God grant us all grace, and repentance as needed for any sin.

5:28 AM, September 24, 2012  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home