That passage from Leviticus

[Digger71]

estesbob:

Nnsense. Both Judaism and the Catholic Church have been unwaverng in their teachings about the sinfullness of homosexual Behavior.

Ummm, no. Bring up some proper, uncontended references. Such as a reference to homosexuality which does not refer to paganism. No reference to Soddom is possible, because that is contended. A reference that does refer to bisexuals. etc.

estesbob:

The reason, BTW, that there was no condemnation of David and Jonathan is quite simple-they wererent invlolved in a homosexual relationship.

That is not uncontested. It does not qualify. Infact it clearly is gay, from the farthers anger, to the hand-over of all symbols of masculinity.

estesbob:

This is another of those new improved interpretations that the homosexual lobby has tried to foist on us in the last 30 years or so.

Conspiracy theory. Please reference 2500 year old references that are not contested. Nothing else will do.

 

[buffalo]

Digger71:

At what point do you claim our Church is 2500 years old?

Remember the original invocation was for 2500 years of consistent teaching.

I didn’t claim the CC was 2500 years old.

I did ask where you claim the Church made a definite error.

 

[estesbob]

Digger71:

At what point do you claim our Church is 2500 years old?

Remember the original invocation was for 2500 years of consistent teaching.

In sorry-I should have said 3,500 years. The Book of Leviticus was written around 1,500 bc. Only in the last 30 years or so have you seen claims that it didnt condemn homsexual behavior.

 

[buffalo]

estesbob:

Only in the last 30 years or so have you seen claims that it didnt condemn homsexual behavior.

What you are referring to is the “new-enlightenment”. A way of approaching morality through dope colored glasses.

 

[Digger71]

estesbob:

In sorry-I should have said 3,500 years. The Book of Leviticus was written around 1,500 bc. Only in the last 30 years or so have you seen claims that it didnt condemn homsexual behavior.

Really? Care to back up that claim?

 

[estesbob]

buffalo:

What you are referring to is the “new-enlightenment”. A way of approaching morality through dope colored glasses.

I think the corect term is “presentism”. The idea, as you mention, that we are of the most enlightened generation ever. The absolute arrogance , for instance, of claiming that all the great religious leader and scholars of the last 3,500 years were incorrect in their interpretation of Scripture is breathtaking, to say the least.

 

[Digger71]

buffalo:

I didn’t claim the CC was 2500 years old.

I did ask where you claim the Church made a definite error.

And I said Remember the original invocation was for 2500 years of consistent teaching..

So it seems we agree to start 2,000 years ago, with your first citation.

 

[buffalo]

Digger71:

And I said Remember the original invocation was for 2500 years of consistent teaching..

So it seems we agree to start 2,000 years ago, with your first citation.

Ok Ok Ok already, Now where do you claim the Church made the mistake?

 

[Digger71]

estesbob:

I think the corect term is “Remember the original invocation was for 2500 years of consistent teaching.”. The idea, as you mention, that we are of the most enlightened generation ever. The absolute arrogance , for instance, of claiming that all the great religious leader and scholars of the last 3,500 years were incorrect in their interpretation of Scripture is breathtaking, to say the least.

Oh please, thats three times you’ve said 2500/3500 year authorities without mentioning names.

And you have not mentioned which scripture.

qWhy not mention which scholars and which verses and we will see where we go from ther?

Anything else is rhetoric and arm waving.

“presentism” is a distraction, an appeal to tradition, and ‘arguing from conclusions’ when existance of that tradition is in question (in this case for 3500 years). You need to prove, so far:

1. 3500 years of consistent interpretation
2. The names of the scholars.
3. The absense of copntradictory views until 30 years ago.

Go for it.

 

[Digger71]

buffalo:

Ok Ok Ok already, Now where do you claim the Church made the mistake?

No, where do you claim the first condemnation was, after that, we disect your evidence and see if it stands up. I am following estabob, his assertion (and you agree in part) so lets start with the early evidence. And then I’ll prove it wrong (unless I can’t in which case I’ll say. “Yeah, good.”)

 

[estesbob]

buffalo:

Ok Ok Ok already, Now where do you claim the Church made the mistake?

He has already ducked out of the debate. Dont expect any cites for the new imprved interpreatations he clams are true.

 

[buffalo]

estesbob:

He has already ducked out of the debate. Dont expect any cites for the new imprved interpreatations he clams are true.

I figured. It’s typical. Too bad, I was eagerly waiting some citations where the Church got it wrong.

 

[estesbob]

Digger71:

No, where do you claim the first condemnation was, after that, we disect your evidence and see if it stands up. I am following estabob, his assertion (and you agree in part) so lets start with the early evidence. And then I’ll prove it wrong (unless I can’t in which case I’ll say. “Yeah, good.”)

Lets start with you assertion that Jonathan and David were Homosexual lovers. "

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26; KJV)

This idea that this is decribing a homosexual raltionship is not accepted by scholars becuase the language of the original (the Hebrew word " ahabah ") was a general word for love which does not specifically indicate romantic or sexual love, and There was no explicit mention of any sexual encounter between the two (their kiss could have been, as they often were, a greeting); this in contrast to the account of Davids adultery with Bathsheba, which is explicitly mentioned.

 

[Digger71]

estesbob:

He has already ducked out of the debate. Dont expect any cites for the new imprved interpreatations he clams are true.

Umm, cited your uncontended references yet?

 

[Digger71]

buffalo:

I figured. It’s typical. Too bad, I was eagerly waiting some citations where the Church got it wrong.

Again, the assertion is that we have either 3500 or 2000 years consistancy of interpretation.

So far neither of you have referenced one uncontended interpretation.

And yet somehow, this is me dodging the issue? That is a wonderful

Come, your assertions were so strong…but the dertails seem like smoke in a strong breeze.

 

[Digger71]

estesbob:

Lets start with you assertion that Jonathan and David were Homosexual lovers. "

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26; KJV)

This idea that this is decribing a homosexual raltionship is not accepted by scholars becuase the language of the original (the Hebrew word " ahabah ") was a general word for love which does not specifically indicate romantic or sexual love, and There was no explicit mention of any sexual encounter between the two (their kiss could have been, as they often were, a greeting); this in contrast to the account of Davids adultery with Bathsheba, which is explicitly mentioned.

Impressive…but you missed out the rest of the cut and paste, the paragraph, which continues…

:“Most Christian scholars have therefore rejected a homosexual interpretation. Other scholars indicate that the Hebrew word in the passage, ‘ahabah,’ is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire, and sexuality is often indicated in indirect language.”

Your cut and paste is taken from the following page, from a side bar : answers.com/topic/homosexuality-and-christianity

If you are ging to copy and paste, there are two things to do, cite your sources, and do not leave out bits that disagree with your argument. It looks dishonest, even if accidental, or well meaning.

By the way, if you are trusting your bible, I lifted this:

“others, such as the Living Bible fail to mention the kissing altogether, saying instead that they “shook hands”. In fact, the Hebrew word, “gadal” for “exceeding” is translated elsewhere as a reference to “greatness”. The strong minority suggest this means “until David became great” (ie. until David had an erection).”

So some bibles even leave out the mention of a kiss.

Anyway, I seem to recal that the song of solomon contains ‘ahabah’ often in a clearly heterosexual-sensual fashion.

 

[Digger71]

estesbob:

Lets start with you assertion that Jonathan and David were Homosexual lovers. "

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26; KJV)

This idea that this is decribing a homosexual raltionship is not accepted by scholars becuase the language of the original (the Hebrew word " ahabah ") was a general word for love which does not specifically indicate romantic or sexual love, and There was no explicit mention of any sexual encounter between the two (their kiss could have been, as they often were, a greeting); this in contrast to the account of Davids adultery with Bathsheba, which is explicitly mentioned.

From strongs concordance…

ahab

1. human love for another, includes family, and sexual
2. human appetite for objects such as food, drink, sleep, wisdom
3. human love for or to God
4. act of being a friend
   a) lover (participle)
   b) friend (participle)
5. God’s love toward man
   a) to individual men
   b) to people Israel
   c) to righteousness
   b) (Niphal)
6. lovely (participle)
7. loveable (participle)
   c) (Piel)
8. friends
9. lovers (fig. of adulterers)
10. to like

Translation count: AV - love 169, lover(s) 19, friend(s) 12, beloved 5, liketh 1, lovely 1, loving 1; 208

So, the word aheb certainly can support a sexual interpretation.

You just are not reading what is written.

Next, explain (away) whyJonothan got undressed, completely naked, in front of David? Was it a common custom back then? ‘Hiya mate, have all my clothes?’