How can a Catholic answer the following :"Jesus Christ not only accepted gay dating, but affirmed a gay couple in the book of Matthew (8:5-13)."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kazimer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kazimer

Guest
I posted the the above topic in the Ask An Apologist Board.

However, since it has been awhile since I asked the question and I have since seen other questions answered in that board that were asked after my inquiry, I thought to take the AAA Board suggestion and post my question in the General Forum.

If this question would be better placed in a different board or another forum, I would appreciate any direction that would be given to me.

Thank you.
My name is Kazimer and I belong to the Monroe Evening News - Monroe,MI - a 3000 member Community Forum called MonroeTalks.com.

The following statement ( and support for said statement) was proposed by one of the forum members and I would like know how to respond.

“Jesus Christ not only accepted gay dating, but affirmed a gay couple in the book of Matthew (8:5-13).”

The person who wrote this statement provided the following evidence for this claim :

"The Book of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and in looking at the original Greek you see that the Centurion uses the word ‘pais’ in referring to the “servant” that is ill. Now, the Greek word pais can mean different things. It can mean son, servant, or lover. Realize that in ancient culture, a man’s lover was considered to be his property much like a slave (thus we have the whole father giving his daughter to a man in exchange for other property) and that is why these words can mean such different things…the Greek didn’t think of them as that much different. Anyway, I digress.

When the Centurion refers to his other slaves, he uses the word ‘doulos’, which is a closer approximation on servant/slave and never means a person’s son. So, we can conclude that the Centurian is either referring to his sick son, or sick lover.

And to determine which is which, we look at the Book of Luke, and we see the same story told from Luke’s perspective, in which the ill son or lover is referred to as ‘entimos doulos’, which translated means “most honored servant”.

The Centurion in the Book of Matthew was asking Jesus to heal his homosexual lover, and Jesus obliged."
 
Kazimer said:
I posted the the above topic in the Ask An Apologist Board.

However, since it has been awhile since I asked the question and I have since seen other questions answered in that board that were asked after my inquiry, I thought to take the AAA Board suggestion and post my question in the General Forum.

If this question would be better placed in a different board or another forum, I would appreciate any direction that would be given to me.

Thank you.
My name is Kazimer and I belong to the Monroe Evening News - Monroe,MI - a 3000 member Community Forum called MonroeTalks.com.

The following statement ( and support for said statement) was proposed by one of the forum members and I would like know how to respond.

“Jesus Christ not only accepted gay dating, but affirmed a gay couple in the book of Matthew (8:5-13).”

The person who wrote this statement provided the following evidence for this claim :

"The Book of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and in looking at the original Greek you see that the Centurion uses the word ‘pais’ in referring to the “servant” that is ill. Now, the Greek word pais can mean different things. It can mean son, servant, or lover. Realize that in ancient culture, a man’s lover was considered to be his property much like a slave (thus we have the whole father giving his daughter to a man in exchange for other property) and that is why these words can mean such different things…the Greek didn’t think of them as that much different. Anyway, I digress.

When the Centurion refers to his other slaves, he uses the word ‘doulos’, which is a closer approximation on servant/slave and never means a person’s son. So, we can conclude that the Centurian is either referring to his sick son, or sick lover.

And to determine which is which, we look at the Book of Luke, and we see the same story told from Luke’s perspective, in which the ill son or lover is referred to as ‘entimos doulos’, which translated means “most honored servant”.

The Centurion in the Book of Matthew was asking Jesus to heal his homosexual lover, and Jesus obliged."
Click to expand...
As Sigmund Freud said, a spade is sometimes just a spade.
 
Even if this hypothesis were true (highly doubtful considering how the Jews felt about homosexual relations) Jesus would not have to give any sort of stamp of approval on any such relationship in order to heal the centurion’s servant. God loves everyone, remember.

Also, there is no hint of any kind of homosexual relation in the way Jesus praised the centurion for his faith. Jesus named things for what they were and wasn’t afraid of breaking social conventions. If there were any such thing going on he would have corrected it then and there.

From these things we can easily deduce that the Greek word was referring to a beloved servant, one who was like a son to the centurion. Hasn’t anyone ever seen Ben Hur–how the Roman took him in and adopted him as his son? Why does it have to be a homosexual relationship in Matthew? Just because the man was Roman? Because of an ambiguous interpretation of a couple of words in Greek? Isn’t that a bit of a stretch? I think so.
 
Sorry to put a damper, but “lover” isn’t one of the meanings of “pais”, not according to my lexicons anyway. If someone has a lexicon that says otherwise, I’d like the sources please.

“Pais” simply means “boy”, “girl”, “child”, “maidservant” or “manservant”.

For it to mean gay lover, it must be coupled with erastes (where we get the word “pederasty”. Sorry, but redefining a Greek noun cheating.
 
Kazimer said:
The Centurion in the Book of Matthew was asking Jesus to heal his homosexual lover, and Jesus obliged."
Click to expand...
Errrrrrrrrrrrr…no. Just because one is called “beloved” doesn’t mean they are having sex with them.
 
there’s a number of quite big jumps there, even apart from the meanings of the words, Christ helped prostitutes does this article now suggest that he was condoning prostitution?
 
Kazimer said:
My name is Kazimer and I belong to the Monroe Evening News - Monroe,MI - a 3000 member Community Forum called MonroeTalks.com.

The following statement ( and support for said statement) was proposed by one of the forum members and I would like know how to respond.

“Jesus Christ not only accepted gay dating, but affirmed a gay couple in the book of Matthew (8:5-13).”

The person who wrote this statement provided the following evidence for this claim :

"The Book of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and in looking at the original Greek you see that the Centurion uses the word ‘pais’ in referring to the “servant” that is ill. Now, the Greek word pais can mean different things. It can mean son, servant, or lover. Realize that in ancient culture, a man’s lover was considered to be his property much like a slave (thus we have the whole father giving his daughter to a man in exchange for other property) and that is why these words can mean such different things…the Greek didn’t think of them as that much different. Anyway, I digress.

When the Centurion refers to his other slaves, he uses the word ‘doulos’, which is a closer approximation on servant/slave and never means a person’s son. So, we can conclude that the Centurian is either referring to his sick son, or sick lover.

And to determine which is which, we look at the Book of Luke, and we see the same story told from Luke’s perspective, in which the ill son or lover is referred to as ‘entimos doulos’, which translated means “most honored servant”.

The Centurion in the Book of Matthew was asking Jesus to heal his homosexual lover, and Jesus obliged."
Click to expand...
Let’s see here:

1.) Jesus healed the centurion’s pais (which here we’ll take to mean ‘lover’). So what? That means nothing. Just because Jesus healed the servant doesn’t automatically mean that He approves of their (supposed) act. Jesus associated with tax collectors and sinners, and at one time forgave a woman caught in adultery. Does that mean that Jesus condoned their deeds? When Jesus helped the woman caught in adultery, He said: “Neither do I condemn you. Now go your way, and sin no more.”

2.) Obviously, not every Roman centurion or officer at that time is having relationships with their pais so Jesus could have hardly assumed that such behavior was going on. In fact, in the Gospel of Luke, the centurion is described as a pragdimatic ‘God-Fearer’ (Gentile proselytes to Judaism who had adopted the Jewish faith with their code of morality and attended synagogue services, but who were not full converts and did not want to submit to circumcision).

Also, we see that the Jewish elders of the synagogue pleaded on the centurion’s behalf (7:3-5). How could this happen if Judaism at that time opposed and was hostile to same-sex behavior (as evidenced by Leviticus 20:13, which says (KJV), “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”)? If the man was a ‘God-fearer’ and even the synagogue’s elders interceded for him, how in the world could he practice something that is not allowed by the Jewish religion?

3.) In homosexual relationships in the Greco-Roman world, the form which many relationships took at that time included not only coerced sexual activity but also forced feminization, up to and including castration. If we believe Jesus was endorsing homosexual relationships in this case, we that also say that He has no problem with, and was even condoning this exploitative form of same-sex intercourse.

4.) The word pais is usually understood 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 the word to describe Israel as God’s servant in Luke 1:54 and David being the Lord’s servant in Luke 1:69. Surely we wouldn’t say that was a homosexual (or even pedophilic) relationship between God and Israel or David?

Also, some Early Christian literature commonly refer to Jesus as God’s pais (usually translated as ‘son’ or ‘servant’). Now should we take that to mean that Jesus was God’s ‘homosexual lover’? :eek:

5.) The argument claims that the Greek word entimos (translated ‘dear’ in Luke 7:2) means “deeply cared for” or “most honored”. Since one male applied this term to another male, and since the slave was probably not there for his high utility value, we allegedly have good grounds for supposing that the two were engaging in a homosexual relationship. Not so.

To begin with, the fact that the slave may have been young (how young is unknown) really says nothing about his capabilities as a slave. Not all slaves, after all, were used for heavy labor. Moreover, the word entimos itself can be variously translated as ‘valued,’ ‘dear,’ ‘honorable,’ or ‘precious.’ It is rendered ‘more honorable’ in Luke 14:28, ‘in esteem’ or ‘in reputation’ in Philippians 2:29, and ‘precious’ in 1 Peter 2:4, 6.

Even granting that the word should be translated ‘precious’ or ‘deeply cared for’ as opposed to ‘dear,’ ‘honorable,’ or ‘valuable’ (quite an assumption), the argument is still a non sequitur. It is, after all, entirely possible for a male to apply such words to another male without implying anything of a sexual nature. Indeed, none of the Biblical usages of the word entimos even hint at having a sexual content.

6.) Following the same line of thought, in the story Jesus meets a centurion who owns many bondservants or slaves (doulos). Since Jesus did not say anything to the centurion about his slaves, does that mean Jesus was condoning slavery?
 
Eisogesisis. The OP article read into the passage what he or she wanted to comform the gospel to themselves instead of being transformed by the gospel. This is hardly the first attempt to add to the Bible through assumptions and outright intellectual dishonesty in order to justify one’s own lifestyle.
 
I’m starting to wonder I noticed a couple of other new members to these boards in their public profile have Catholic. It seems they support homosexually and that lifestyle. I could be wrong but I’m just wondering?

Anyway here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
 
Patrick -

That was a fantastic post. Especially on point 2. Often the most obvious contradictions are the easiest to ignore.

The line of thinking posed in the subject of this thread is just part of the full court press against the traditional family. It doesn’t fly for the great reasons you posted.
 
Thank you all for you responses to my inquiry.

I will be reviewing these posts in more detail and reflecting on the best course of action.

I will continue to check this thread for additional feedback.

In addition to the Catholic Answers Forum ( both the Ask An Apologist and Sacred Scripture Boards), I have an email on this topic for assistance from Fr. John Zuhlsdorf author of the blog What Does The Prayer Really Say ( www.wdtprs.com ).

I appreciate the references to the Catechism of The Catholic Church regarding Homosexuality.

I had already posted the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding this manner in connection with the appropriate sections using the website scborromeo.org/ccc.htm.

I used the Catechism to clarify and explain the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality and my belief and support of the Church’s teaching.

What I needed help on was the particular passage I listed so that I can counter the position by the member of the other forum and their interpretation of the Greek words that was used to support their claim.

Again, thank you all for you help and advice.
 
I don’t support homosexuality period. It does not mean I would discrminate against them though. However, on the non-religious boards when I explain that it is deviant and morally bankrupt behavior they all get pissed off and start insulting me to no end. usually calling me a bigot. And get this, they even claim that a person who has a strong moral opposition to it is a bigot.

Deviants never see themselves as deviant. They always see themselves as being normal and natural. Regardless of the deviant behavior, and always bury it under any rationalization they can.
 
Starwynd said:
I don’t support homosexuality period. It does not mean I would discrminate against them though. However, on the non-religious boards when I explain that it is deviant and morally bankrupt behavior they all get pissed off and start insulting me to no end. usually calling me a bigot. And get this, they even claim that a person who has a strong moral opposition to it is a bigot.

Deviants never see themselves as deviant. They always see themselves as being normal and natural. Regardless of the deviant behavior, and always bury it under any rationalization they can.
Click to expand...
Starwynd -

I’ve witnessed the same type of behaviour on the non-religious forum that prompted my inquiry for assistance from this board.

Thank God for the Catholic Answers Forum.
 
Kazimer said:
I posted the the above topic in the Ask An Apologist Board.

However, since it has been awhile since I asked the question and I have since seen other questions answered in that board that were asked after my inquiry, I thought to take the AAA Board suggestion and post my question in the General Forum.

If this question would be better placed in a different board or another forum, I would appreciate any direction that would be given to me.

Thank you.
My name is Kazimer and I belong to the Monroe Evening News - Monroe,MI - a 3000 member Community Forum called MonroeTalks.com.

The following statement ( and support for said statement) was proposed by one of the forum members and I would like know how to respond.

“Jesus Christ not only accepted gay dating, but affirmed a gay couple in the book of Matthew (8:5-13).”

The person who wrote this statement provided the following evidence for this claim :

"The Book of Matthew was originally written in Greek, and in looking at the original Greek you see that the Centurion uses the word ‘pais’ in referring to the “servant” that is ill. Now, the Greek word pais can mean different things. It can mean son, servant, or lover. Realize that in ancient culture, a man’s lover was considered to be his property much like a slave (thus we have the whole father giving his daughter to a man in exchange for other property) and that is why these words can mean such different things…the Greek didn’t think of them as that much different. Anyway, I digress.

When the Centurion refers to his other slaves, he uses the word ‘doulos’, which is a closer approximation on servant/slave and never means a person’s son. So, we can conclude that the Centurian is either referring to his sick son, or sick lover.

And to determine which is which, we look at the Book of Luke, and we see the same story told from Luke’s perspective, in which the ill son or lover is referred to as ‘entimos doulos’, which translated means “most honored servant”.

The Centurion in the Book of Matthew was asking Jesus to heal his homosexual lover, and Jesus obliged."
Click to expand...

That shows at most that Jesus did not have qualms about healing homosexuals; it does not show positive approval of homosexuality. To use it in *that *way is like suggesting that Jesus was approving of marital irregularities by talking to the Samaritaness in John 4; which nobody - AFAIK - has yet suggested.​

If the pais was the centurion’s catamite, this shows that “even” “those who do such things” are not outside the mercy of Jesus; this is fully consistent with denying that Jesus is “affirm[ing] a gay couple” - if by “affirmed a gay couple” is meant, “approved the homosexuality of the couple as something good”. So the lesson would be, in part, that Jesus is merciful even to those “who do such things”. So the “pro-gay” interpretation cuts its own throat: even if the pais was as described, this is not in the slightest a “proof-text” for “gay activity” - it is (in part) an implicit condemnation of it.

Why should Jesus not heal homosexuals ? He had dealings with some pretty dubious characters - so why should homosexuals not be among them ? That does not make homosexuality morally good, any more than the activities of Zacchaeus become morally good: his unjust dealings (which he admitted) did not prevent Jesus dining with him. If the NT shows approval for homosexual activity, this episode at least is not the place to find it.

Another possibility: the episode may be no more than a doublet of the similar story told elsewhere in the Gospel, about a “ruler” & his slave or son. If it is a literary adaptation of an episode with different characters, it cannot be used to show that Jesus approved of homosexual activity - in such a case, it is too far removed from what Jesus actually said & did to be used as “biographical” information. On another level: form-criticism can be useful in undermining attempts to support
homosexuality that refer to the life of Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top