GakuseiDon

Wouldn't it become "Was Simon Magus gay?"

dog-on

Indeed it would.

Toto

Simon had his Helena (a prostitute rescued from her station)

linkAnd in the noncanonical Acts, Paul has Thecla

mountainman

Tertullian tells us that the author of "The Acts of Paul and Thecla"
wrote the Greek satire against Paul, incorporating a comparison
between Paul and the mouse in Aesop's Fable of the "Lion and the
Mouse", ...... "out of love of Paul".

What sort of love authors satire?

Doug Shaver

And that, in your honest opinion, is a cogent argument for inferring that he was in effect confessing to being gay?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the question.

Well, I do not think that he is confessing that he is gay, I think he is trying to hide it by being purposefully ambiguous. If he was confessing, he would complete his thought and have said, "I wish every man were like me and would have sex only with men." Instead he leaves the thought open for those in the know to fill it in correctly.

He begins the paragraph at 1 Corinthians 7 by saying "καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι" (It is good not to touch a woman). He is not opposing sex, he does not say that "it is good not to touch a woman or man." but he specifically only opposes heterosexual sex.

He says because of "πορνείας" immoralities or fornications, men and women should marry and then have sex. "πορνείας" comes from "porneuó" which comes from the word "πόρνη" (porne) prostitute. So basically, he is saying, to avoid prostitutes a man should marry a woman. Whereas in fornication with prostitutes, the man controls a prostitutes body, in marriage, he suggests there should be or is more equality and the man controls the woman's body and the woman controls the man's body.

He then says, " I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." In other words, he doesn't have sex with prostitutes or married women.

The second part of the sentence "each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that," The word translated as "gift" is "χάρισμα" which comes from χαρίζομαι which comes from "charis" which is freely given or forgiven or freely bestowed. In modern language, Paul is saying that some men swing one way and some men swing the other way. To be more accurate, Paul is implying that God gives some men the gift of loving women and some men the gift of loving men. Since Paul has already said that he doesn't have a wife or does not use the body of prostitutes, it is easy to infer that God has given Paul the gift of loving men.

I do not know how Paul could have been any clearer, without saying that he wishes every man was gay.

a little later (7:17), he says, "Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him." In other words, those who are heterosexual should remain heterosexual and those who are homosexual, like himself, should remain homosexual."

We may take from this that Paul's Christian sect was mainly, but not exclusively gay.

We may compare this to the homo-eroticism in the Gospel of John, where John lays on the bosom of Jesus. We may take it that John's sect and readership was also gay. One has to wonder if there was a relationship between John and Paul's gay Christian communities.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

dog-on

only in the baths

arnoldo

Is it possible that Jesus was Paul's gay lover?

Toto

Does the word "gay" even make sense in the first century?

The issue for Paul and early Christians seems to have been asceticism versus married life (which led to children.) Is there any indication that same sex relations would have been okay for an ascetic, either in practice or theory?

Susan2

Ridiculous. You are arguing homosexuality from the default position of hating women. If, “I love men” is true, then it must equally be true that “I hate women”.

Paul hated women, period.

Paul hated women. Paul is very clear that he hates women. That doesn’t make Paul a homosexual by default. Historically, it is more plausable that it makes Paul an abuser of women, a prosecutor.

Let us rephrase the rephrase’r.

To be more accurate, Paul is implying that God gives some men the gift of defending women, and some men the gift of prosecuting women. Historically, even currently religious zealots/persecutors think they are acting on God's behalf.

Perhaps this is the foundation of Paul’s Christianity that was found repulsive by so many, and why the Christians were prosecuted. The prosecutors became prosecuted.


Pay attention. Maybe it means Nero was the Hero. Iow's, being a bird (ponder that one), doesn’t get you into heaven. It gets you into hell.


Why does Paul hate women?


Maybe Paul had syphilis from brothels, where it is more likely then not, that women were forced into prostitution for various reasons, including trafficking/slavery. Paul is after all, not against slavery.

In that they didn’t have transplants back in those days, off with the head? He and all his cronies died deranged men, not unfortunately, before passing on their virus.

If, ‘depart from me ye who work iniquity, I never knew you”, is true, how does Jesus know whom to tell to depart, if he never knew them. He had no intercourse with them one way or the other. If he had no intercourse with them, one way or the other, then Jesus was not a homosexual.

Now Nero on the other hand was called a sick pup, possibly by those with an agenda. Perhaps it was that they didn’t like his building programs, infrastructures, athletics, arts, and theater; known today as economic revitalization programs; preferring religious fundamentalism, obsessed as they were with sexual immoralities. They didn't like it that he was popular with the poor.

“Hmm, sick pup? I can do sick pup”, Nero said. Nero was an actor.

Notice that there are no boo hoo’s, for Peter in the story I linked. He died upside down. Does that mean he had syphilis too?