Was Paul really talking about pederasty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nurse_Joy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nurse_Joy

Guest
Source: usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-11-19-forum-religion_x.htm

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it’s between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
 
The Church has been clear in its condemnation of any sexual behavior outside of marriage (which is between a man and a woman) and no trying to say, “Well, Paul actually means…” is going to change that.

Thank God we don’t have to rely on the “selective enforcement” of Sola Scriptura and the mere opinions of “ministers” who can spout off anything they want.
 
Ok, clear on the church teaching. But what about the claim St. Paul talking about something other than “regular” homosexuality as generally understood?
 
None of the ECFs interpreted it as just applying to pederasty, and many lived in the very Greek culture being discussed. Likewise, St. Paul also condemns other kinds of homosexual acts besides older man on adolescent when he condemns women doing such acts in Romans 1.
 
Romans 1:26
For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women gave up natural relations for unnatural, 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 recieving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Upon examination, Paul says absolutely nothing about pederasty, but speaks of “men committing shameless acts with men,” and women with women.
While pederasty was commonly accepted in Greco-Roman society, homosexual adult relationships were not unheard of. Nero himself kept a male “wife.” Paul is connecting homosexual acts with everything bad in the world, including idolatry, murder, slander, etc.

As a “progressive Christian,” I had to try to wiggle around that passage; but it is fairly plain what Paul is talking about.
 
Nurse_Joy said:
Source: usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-11-19-forum-religion_x.htm

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it’s between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
Click to expand...
Sodomy, as well men laying with men is clearly condemned in totally unambiguous language.
 
Paul says that homosexual relations are sinful, as well as heterosexual fornication, adultery, and many other sins that don’t have anything to do with sex. “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers–none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, NRSV). But if you notice from these verses, Paul also says that people who had committed these sins are able to be saved if they repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus.
 
So the writer of the opinion piece is just making the pederasty stuff up? So there is no “truth” with these people?

It would be neat to see a translation from a super bible nerd that says, “here is the (greek?) word for pederasty, we don’t find it in the epistles.”
 
Nurse_Joy said:
So the writer of the opinion piece is just making the pederasty stuff up? So there is no “truth” with these people?

It would be neat to see a translation from a super bible nerd that says, “here is the (greek?) word for pederasty, we don’t find it in the epistles.”
Click to expand...
The NAB bible I use for daily reading says in the footnotes Paul was most likely talking of pederasty. I actaully read that passage not too long ago and was saddened to see that in the notes but it didn’t surprise me either. 😦
 
Jennifer123 said:
The NAB bible I use for daily reading says in the footnotes Paul was most likely talking of pederasty. I actaully read that passage not too long ago and was saddened to see that in the notes but it didn’t surprise me either. 😦
Click to expand...
Yeah, the NAB footnotes and commentaries deny the faith in various places. How notes that expressly and directly contradict the catechism are in a Catholic bible is beyond me–but of course this is the same translation that mutates the Angelic greeting to the Blessed Virgin, so, as you said, it’s no surprise.
 
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon

Hi Nurse Joy, this is the best book I have found on the subject.

Basically, there are some “christian” gay churches, who have gone out of their way to reinterpret the bible to fit their lifestyle.

The claim you asked about above is just one of their ways to get around what the bible teaches.
 
Nurse_Joy said:
So the writer of the opinion piece is just making the pederasty stuff up? So there is no “truth” with these people?

It would be neat to see a translation from a super bible nerd that says, “here is the (greek?) word for pederasty, we don’t find it in the epistles.”
Click to expand...
Nurse Joy:

Here is Romans 1:26 in the Greek Bible as used by the Greek Orthodox:

studylight.org/isb/ (Search for Romans 1:26 and Indicate all of the Greek Texts, None will indicate “Pederasty”, and Greek had a term for “Pederasty”)

or click Romans 1 on
scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

If it doesn’t come up the way you want, download the Greek Fonts (It’s worth it). I just had a look - It’s pretty obvious that “Pederasty” had nothing to do with it.

I just used the Online Concordance with one of them - 0 for Pederasty and Child Molestation.

I’m not a Greek Scholar, but I think these are pretty trustworthy. The Text of the Bible is trustworthy, but you can disregard the notes if you find they aren’t useful or seem to contradict the Faith.

My father used to have an Interlinear NT with the RSV as the interlinear Translation along with an Interlinear Septuagent with an RSV the translation. I don’t tink there are more valuable tools for serious Bible study.

Having it Online is a real blessing in spite of the fact that I’ll not get the use a real Greek scholar would.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Well while it has no bearing on Church doctrine I don’t think that we should just assume we know what Paul is referring to here. The homosexuality that we typically see expressed today was almost non-existant during the time of the Apostles.

Men didn’t have “commited relationships” the closest thing to that would have likely been relationships with slaves and/or young apprentices. Especially for the Romans the idea of a free man willingly letting himself be sodomized would have been horrifiying. For the Romans homsexual acts were usually considered degrading so they were typically reserved for those of lower station or too shame enemies.

I’d say it’s likely that Paul probably didn’t have in mind what we typically think of as homosexual. Again that really has no bearing on Church teaching but realistically he would have likely been mystified by the idea of two free men of equal status have a consensual and on going sexual relationship.
 
Men didn’t have “commited relationships” the closest thing to that would have likely been relationships with slaves and/or young apprentices. Especially for the Romans the idea of a free man willingly letting himself be sodomized would have been horrifiying. For the Romans homsexual acts were usually considered degrading so they were typically reserved for those of lower station or too shame enemies.

That argument is refuted (quite well) in the paper linked in post #12.
 
Men didn’t have “commited relationships” the closest thing to that would have likely been relationships with slaves and/or young apprentices. Especially for the Romans the idea of a free man willingly letting himself be sodomized would have been horrifiying. For the Romans homsexual acts were usually considered degrading so they were typically reserved for those of lower station or too shame enemies.
Click to expand...
That argument is refuted (quite well) in the paper linked in post #12.
Click to expand...
Actually no it isn’t. The afore mentioned text is refuting against a completely different argument. My contention was not that Paul’s writing doesn’t apply too modern homosexuality as I believe it does and even if it didn’t the Sacred Text as a whole clearly states that ultimately all sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage is not appropriate.

What I was saying was that given the particular culture that Paul lived in what he particularly had in mind may not have been our modern concept of homosexuality. However, as I stated this doesn’t affect current Church doctrine.
 
rtconstant said:
Well while it has no bearing on Church doctrine I don’t think that we should just assume we know what Paul is referring to here. The homosexuality that we typically see expressed today was almost non-existant during the time of the Apostles.

Men didn’t have “commited relationships” the closest thing to that would have likely been relationships with slaves and/or young apprentices. Especially for the Romans the idea of a free man willingly letting himself be sodomized would have been horrifiying. For the Romans homsexual acts were usually considered degrading so they were typically reserved for those of lower station or too shame enemies.

I’d say it’s likely that Paul probably didn’t have in mind what we typically think of as homosexual. Again that really has no bearing on Church teaching but realistically he would have likely been mystified by the idea of two free men of equal status have a consensual and on going sexual relationship.
Click to expand...
Start at item VIII b on page 20 and read a couple of pages. The author finds there is nothing unique about modern homosexual committed relationships.
 
But what about the claim St. Paul talking about something other than “regular” homosexuality as generally understood?
Click to expand...
“regular” homosexuality is a modern phenomenon, that Paul wouldn’t have dreamed of.

His verse condemned what was “regular” homosexuality at the time, which was largely pederasty. But not only, although usually an older and younger man, it was not necessarily adolescents.

But by analysis, condemning pederasty DOES condemn ALL homosexuality, because what else could Paul find wrong with it?! It was NOT the age difference. Christians married 40 year old men to 14 year old women just like all civilizations (except our own). But if it was not the age-difference that he found disordered about pederasty, then what was? It must have been the homosexuality. The pederasts of old were not pedophiles (their protegees were post-pubescent) and once you hit puberty, the ancient world didn’t see anything perverted about age-difference beyond that point.

So, it is true that Paul could not have been condemning the homosexual social/romantic/sexual interactions as they now exist (Because they didnt), and the particular manifestation of sodomy he saw in his culture was sort of pederastic. But so what? The reason he condemned it was the homosexuality (as his description makes quite clear) not any specifics. We know culturally that age differences didnt matter to people, it is illogical to conclude that Paul only had a specific grudge with one particular socio-sexual phenemenon. He condemned pederasty and its paraphilia for a reason, and that reason was clearly homosexuality.
 
Struggling said:
“regular” homosexuality is a modern phenomenon, that Paul wouldn’t have dreamed of.
Click to expand...
This appears to be a problem then with the concept that the problem is genetic. When exactly, then, did modern homosexuality appear on the scene?
 
This appears to be a problem then with the concept that the problem is genetic. When exactly, then, did modern homosexuality appear on the scene?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. We do however have many new trends in sexuality in Western culture today though. Many things affect it. Exposure is one. People in western culture are by and large much more sexually sophisticated than in recent history. We see it more often and we see different types. This seems to be affecting attitudes and dispostions.

My grandparents thought that deep kissing was beyond belief. Today oral sex isn’t even considered sex. That is just two generations.

Culture and soceity play powerful roles in the average person’s sexual expression. Todays soceity views sodomy (in general) and fetishism more or less with acceptance. So today these things abound. Does that mean that we suddenly had an influx of people with that genetic build? No, it’s just OK to do it today so people do. Human nature really wants to push to sexual envelope at all times.

So I’d say that our modern style of homosexuality is simply our soceity’s standard expression of that tendancy. Just like pedophilia is frowned upon today but was basically widely practiced in the past. Human civilization is always changing in what it promotes and tolerates. It will continue to change as time moves on.

The Bible because it was inspired by an eternal being uses language that will still apply to any given generation. In the end the root issues are still in place even if they are expressed in different ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top