Interpretating Paul's Letter to the Romans

  • Thread starter Thread starter tom_c_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tom_c_1

Guest
I recently was involved in a discussion where one person claimed that Romans is actually now being reinterpreted to deal with adultery. I’ve also heard that Paul was not in fact speaking of or condemning homosexuality. Doing some research online I found that some supporters of this theory cite to Aristides and Justin Martyr for support. I was a bit surprised by all this and wondered what others may have heard about this and how they respond.

Thank you.
 
Very interesting. Could you provide specific passages and maybe link to some of the resources you found?
 
People with an agenda to push go to great lengths to support it. They likely had to go through thousands of commentaries to find a small handful of quotes they could distort into supporting their cause. I’ll stick with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, thank you. Justin Martyr and Aristides the Athenian were in agreement with this teaching so this is an obvious abuse of their writings.

BTW, Paul never condemned those who struggle with same sex attraction; only those who fall into practice.
 
He is talking about Romans 1:26-27, and it is not possible to construe it in any way except its denunciation of homosexuality. Those who try to make it say something else indeed are pursuing an agenda.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
 
He is talking about Romans 1:26-27, and it is not possible to construe it in any way except its denunciation of homosexuality. Those who try to make it say something else indeed are pursuing an agenda.
Okay. Thanks Zena. I’ll have to assume you are quoting the passage that the OP had in mind. It’s a pretty good denunciation to be sure. I haven’t done the work of seeking out commentary or tother thoughts on the passage and the OP hasn’t seen fit to provide his take.
 
I apologize for not being as swift to respond to your questions. As stated, I was referring specifically to verses 26 and 27. Here is one link I read that purports to state that Justin Martyr and Aristides: gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html and another from the same site: gaychristian101.com/Questions.html

To be honest, I have no idea what the guy is talking about. If anyone wants try to figure it out and illuminate me, please do.

I’ve tried unsuccessfully to look for some evidence that somewhere someone has now decided that when the Bible describes homosexual activity it actually means adultery. The person who said this never quoted any passages but I presume she was referring to Romans 1:26-27. In retrospect, I wish I would’ve challenged her more on that. When the Biblical writers mention adultery, they are usually pretty clear about it.
 
I apologize for not being as swift to respond to your questions. As stated, I was referring specifically to verses 26 and 27. Here is one link I read that purports to state that Justin Martyr and Aristides: gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html and another from the same site: gaychristian101.com/Questions.html

To be honest, I have no idea what the guy is talking about. If anyone wants try to figure it out and illuminate me, please do.

I’ve tried unsuccessfully to look for some evidence that somewhere someone has now decided that when the Bible describes homosexual activity it actually means adultery. The person who said this never quoted any passages but I presume she was referring to Romans 1:26-27. In retrospect, I wish I would’ve challenged her more on that. When the Biblical writers mention adultery, they are usually pretty clear about it.
From your first link:

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27.

This is what chapter 27 says:

CHAPTER XXVII – GUILT OF EXPOSING CHILDREN.
But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And as the ancients are said to have reared herds of oxen, or goats, or sheep, or grazing horses, so now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; and for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods, and along with each of those whom you esteem gods there is painted a serpent, a great symbol and mystery. Indeed, the things which you do openly and with applause, as if the divine light were overturned and extinguished, these you lay to our charge; which, in truth, does no harm to us who shrink from doing any such things, but only to those who do them and bear false witness against us.

&

(St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, Homily III, written in AD 391)

Homily 3 does not deal with Romans 1:26-27. Homily 4 does.

newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

It seems to be the wicked trying to justify their wickedness. 🤷
 
I apologize for not being as swift to respond to your questions.
My apologies. My post was poorly worded. By all means take your time. I do appreciate you posting the link. don’t have time right now to read it carefully I’ll get to it later. Again sorry for the negative connotation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top