NationStates Jolt Archive

This post is mainly in response to all the other posts dealing with the punishments and such listed in the Old Testament. It can also be read as a response to that chain email most of you have seen about the person asking Dr. Laura (I think) all these questions about punishments prescribed in the Old Testament (i.e. stoning someone wearing clothes of more than on fabric).
All these comments are taking the Old Testament out of its context! What really gets me is how all of these people offer there opinions on these subjects without knowing what they're talking about. Usually when I see a heading dealing with christianity, or god or religion in general it, I start reading it for a while, though I certainly don't have the time to read all 500 replies to each one, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating a point made by someone else. What's going to follow is a very simplified explanation of a rather deep theological issue, so please don't expect it to answer every single nuance of the debates here in the forums.

I suppose the first thing to mention is that there exists, in the compendium of books known as the Old Testament, or TaNaK (that's not a typo, that's how it's supposed to be written), several, I think five, covenants. One of those covenants is known as the Mosaic Covenant, and that covers most of the laws, both casuistic and apodictic, that are referenced in these forums. With the death of Jesus on the cross, and his subsequent resurrection came a New Covenant. Incidentall, the word Testament, as in Old and New, can be translated as Covenant. Anyway, this new covenant meant that the old was gone. The key symbol of this in the New Testament is found in Gospels, when it is recorded that the Veil around the Holy of Holies was torn at the time of Jesus' death. What this all means, basically, is that all of those laws about stoning, and dietary restrictions and such, went away with the death of Jesus. Of course, we have the New Covenant now, but that's a whole other topic.

Now, as I said, that explanation was very abbreviated, mainly because I have a job and class tommorow, which I still need to read for. However, I'll be checking on this post from time to time, so if you have any questions or feel the need for further expansion on any point, or scriptural references to back this up, feel free to reply to this or email me at javid1@hotmail.com. Be sure to put something in the subject that lets me know that your emailing me about this. Also, as far as I know I didn't plagiarize anything I said above, so I''m not citing anything, though my source of the fact that Testament can be translated as Covenant came from Strong's Greek dictionary.

People quote those laws in the Old Testament in response to the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in Leviticus.

And yes, I know that Paul was against homosexuality, but the first thing homophobes bring up is Leviticus.

People quote those laws in the Old Testament in response to the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it says so in Leviticus.Does it? Where exactly? ;)

Does it? Where exactly? ;)
To be honest, I've never actually asked, but they all seem sure enough of it.

But the Old Testimate reads way better than that sissy new-thingummy.
Seriosly though...its much more interesting.

To be honest, I've never actually asked, but they all seem sure enough of it.Well, needless to say that I expected that
:rolleyes:

But the Old Testimate reads way better than that sissy new-thingummy.
Seriosly though...its much more interesting.
But I've always wanted to get stoned and have someone read me Revelation.

Does it? Where exactly? ;)


http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/familyfundamentals/special_chapter_3.html

But I've always wanted to get stoned and have someone read me Revelation.
Stoned as in high on marajuana, or stoned as in beaten to death by thrown rocks? :)

And yes, I know that Paul was against homosexuality, but the first thing homophobes bring up is Leviticus.

They say the wording of 1 Corinthians 6:9 is a condemnation of homosexuality:

9 Know ye not that the naff shall not inherit the kingdom of Gloria? Be not mogued: nishter fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with homiekind,


However, the original words rendered as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with homiekind" are "malakois" and "arsenokoitai". A more in-depth refuttal of this verse can be found starting on page 15 here: http://www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf , but I'll sum it up quickly and simply: Both words have confused scholars for donkey's years, but there's a general consensus that malakois refers to effeminate male prostitutes and that arsenokoitai is a mystery, perhaps the customers of said prostitutes. Since this refers specifically to the Greco-Roman tradition of men having extra-marital affairs with young boys(and girls), it's not relevant to homosexuality itself.

And yes, I know that Paul was against homosexuality, but the first thing homophobes bring up is Leviticus.

Considering some of the prejudices that Saul brought to the whole thing, I'm not terribly inclined to listen to much that he says. What a psycho!

Stoned as in high on marajuana, or stoned as in beaten to death by thrown rocks? :)
Yeah, I suppose under the circumstances my statement was dangerously ambiguous... I meant the former, btw. :)

And yes, I know that Paul was against homosexuality, but the first thing homophobes bring up is Leviticus.
No, don't remind them! I am so fed up with having Leviticus quoted in support of the whole 'homosexuality is wrong and is a sin against nature because God hates gays" argument.

I agree that the New Testiment is more important than the old, but in no way agree that it has been done away with. The covenant is with the JEWS! I am not Jewish. Therefore, the New Covenant is the only part that deals strictly with me. I mean, Leveticus and Exodus can be great for learning some things that God appriciates, as well as Song of Songs, Psalms, Proverbs, Samuel I-II, Isaiah, and the list goes on. I am definately a Gentile, and had no covenant with God long ago in the desert. Therefore, I don't need to go around stoning folks to death.

I think the person who created this got the idea, but not the reasoning. Christ died so that we could have the chance not to follow every law to the letter and still have our chance to go to Heaven. If you look at it, much of the laws are there to almost make old Israel into Heaven. People though are never ready in their human bodies for Heaven, and God made that point very well. We are first bound to do as Christ tells us. For help, Old Testiment is still importent, and examples are there, but it is not to be foremost in our minds.

-R. S. of UC

Oh, and by the by, Paul (over and over), Leveticus and more than one other reference specifically target men having sex with other men as being a sin. I read it in Leveticus as (paraphrased mind): You are not to lie with a man as you would lie with a woman. This is disgraceful to the Lord.

Yeah, so the perscribed cure for this is stoning. Little harsh by my standards, but homosexuals can find Christ just the same as everyone else, and can have their sins forgiven too. Remember that guys. Is your heart completely sinless? Is your house not too made of glass? Homosexuality is a sin, not a brand of Satan on the foreheads of the evil like so many Christians make it look like.

-R. S. of UC

Just so you know, in the case of Dr. Laura (a Jew), the quoting of passages from the Old Testament is perfectly viable, because, as the previous poster said, she's Jewish and so abides by that covenant.

Just so you know, in the case of Dr. Laura (a Jew), the quoting of passages from the Old Testament is perfectly viable, because, as the previous poster said, she's Jewish and so abides by that covenant.
Ah. I didn't realize she was Jewish. So basically, the whole thread is moot.

Just so you know, in the case of Dr. Laura (a Jew), the quoting of passages from the Old Testament is perfectly viable, because, as the previous poster said, she's Jewish and so abides by that covenant.

The Jews were not mentioned in scripture until 2nd Kings, they have no right to use the Old Testament because they are not of the people whom the Old Testament refers to. They don't abide by the Covenant.

However, the original words rendered as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with homiekind" are "malakois" and "arsenokoitai". A more in-depth refuttal of this verse can be found starting on page 15 here: http://www.soulforce.org/whatthebiblesays.pdf , but I'll sum it up quickly and simply: Both words have confused scholars for donkey's years, but there's a general consensus that malakois refers to effeminate male prostitutes and that arsenokoitai is a mystery, perhaps the customers of said prostitutes. Since this refers specifically to the Greco-Roman tradition of men having extra-marital affairs with young boys(and girls), it's not relevant to homosexuality itself.
Arsenokoitai was a word invented by Saul. Roughly translated, it means "Male temple prostitutes".

What's also odd is how most Jews I speak to say that homosexuality isn't contrary to their religion.

Right Arm, read the stuff. Just once. Paul isn't referring to homosexuals, the word didn't exist until the 19th century, nor did any close analogue. He is referring to the adulterous practices and pagan orgies of Greco-Roman society, quite rightly, and we have no basis to extend this over the whole of heterosexuality, just like criticism of hetero adultery and rape isn't condeming heterosexuals.

Leviticus 18:22, I've seen this translated as "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." This is quite clearly clarifying adultery law, since having the opportunity of using a woman's bed implies that one of the men is married. That aside, there are a great many possible translations of this verse, most of them notably different or directly contradictory.

Anyway, read the books of Samuel, David and Jonathan are obviously gay.

Stoned as in high on marajuana, or stoned as in beaten to death by thrown rocks? :)

Actually, being stoned wasn't getting a bunch of rocks thrown at you until you died. That could take days. Usually they threw you down a hill and rolled a boulder on top of you. If that didn't kill you, THEN they threw rocks.

What's also odd is how most Jews I speak to say that homosexuality isn't contrary to their religion.

Right Arm, read the stuff. Just once. Paul isn't referring to homosexuals, the word didn't exist until the 19th century, nor did any close analogue. He is referring to the adulterous practices and pagan orgies of Greco-Roman society, quite rightly, and we have no basis to extend this over the whole of heterosexuality, just like criticism of hetero adultery and rape isn't condeming heterosexuals.

Leviticus 18:22, I've seen this translated as "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." This is quite clearly clarifying adultery law, since having the opportunity of using a woman's bed implies that one of the men is married. That aside, there are a great many possible translations of this verse, most of them notably different or directly contradictory.

Anyway, read the books of Samuel, David and Jonathan are obviously gay.

Samuel, David, and Jonathan are not Gay!

Samuel, David, and Jonathan are not Gay!

The books of Samuel. Read them. David and Jonathan are clearly gay. Read 1 Samuel 18. It speaks clearly of covenant, love and union of soul. The usage of the word soul in the Bible is the whole person, spirit and body. So there's a physical relationship. Jonathan even strips naked in front of David in 1 Samuel 18:4, which would be unthinkable in that age unless the two were married.

The books of Samuel. Read them. David and Jonathan are clearly gay. Read 1 Samuel 18. It speaks clearly of covenant, love and union of soul. The usage of the word soul in the Bible is the whole person, spirit and body. So there's a physical relationship. Jonathan even strips naked in front of David in 1 Samuel 18:4, which would be unthinkable in that age unless the two were married.I think this is rather all about Saul having to accept David as his successor and as the replacement of his own son Jonathan, since the support of the people and the strength in military power was transferred from Saul to David, i.e. from Israel to Yehud. All about this change in the political set-up of the central hill-country and the following downfall of Saul can be re-read in the Amarna-tablets.

Back again to clear up a few misconceptions. First, in no way did I mean to belittle the Old Testament. It's still quite useful for Christians as well as Jews. Also, the reason why you don't see Jews running stoning people is that they believe that the Roman's destroying the Temple around 70 A.D. signified the end of the Old Covenant. Now, I don't know near as much about what governs Judaism now, as I do Christianity, but I do know that much.

The Jews were not mentioned in scripture until 2nd Kings, they have no right to use the Old Testament because they are not of the people whom the Old Testament refers to. They don't abide by the Covenant.

So who are the people to whom the Old Testament refers?

This talks about homosexuality but it's a short response to liberal arguments about Temple prostitution. http://www.tektonics.org/romhom.html

The thread starter would have alot more to go into than what he has already written. It's very complicated stuff.

I think this is rather all about Saul having to accept David as his successor and as the replacement of his own son Jonathan, since the support of the people and the strength in military power was transferred from Saul to David, i.e. from Israel to Yehud. All about this change in the political set-up of the central hill-country and the following downfall of Saul can be re-read in the Amarna-tablets.

Where does this alledged link to a shift in power link in to the stripping and the kissing and the moving in with each other? How's does it link in to Saul saying, in Samuel 18:

21 And Saul cackled, I will parker him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the famble of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul cackled to Davina, Thou shalt this day be my homie chavvie in law in the oney of the twain.

Now, 'Thou shalt this day be my homie chavvie in law in the oney of the twain.' seems to say that after having rejected the older daughter, his acceptance of the younger makes him a homie chavvie(son) in law in one of the two ways. However, 'the oney of' is noted in the KJV of the Bible this Polari translation is based off as an addition, i.e. it was made up by the translators. So, Davina(David) must already be the son-in-law of Saul to be the son-in-law in twain, i.e. twice over. He didn't marry the older sister, so it must be her other sibling he was married to- which would be Jonathan.