Doug Shaver

Your argument to that conclusion seems to depend on a boatload of assumptions.

I think Paul did not explicitly say he was celibate because, for him and his readers alike, it was simply taken for granted that if a man didn't have sex with a woman, then he just didn't have any sex at all. That seems, to me, like the most parsimonious explanation.

Of course others are possible, but you cannot infer "X is probable," much less "X is certain," from "X is possible."

yalla

1Cor 9.5
"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister as a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the lord and Cephas?"

Yikes!
Presuming that "brothers of the lord" equates to real brothers in a blood/kin sense, then I suppose, being consistent, the use of sister as a wife means....?
:huh:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

As a child, I found it strange that in my synagogue there was a steambath for men. I took it as a religious ritual. As an adult, I now realize that there is no textual support for that position.

The question is, was the writer of Paul's epistle, 1.Corinthians, advocating celibracy or did later writers portray the writer this way to cover up his homosexual inferences?

The question relates to the passage at 1 Corinthians 6.9.

Here is the King James Translation:

The New American Standard Bible translates it:

The Greek word translated as "effeminate" is malakoi (μαλακοὶ) The word here, that is tranlated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" and "homosexual" is Arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται). Here is what Jeramy Townsley says of the words in an exchange on an ibiblio.org forum in 1998: (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/002084.html)

Townsley further elaborates on these two words in an article entitled "Homosexuality and Christianity" (http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html)

Townsley's idea that arsenokoitai is a Pauline neologism for homosexual rape rather than homosexual activity makes sense in the context of 1 Conrinthians 6 and 7, where the sexual references are attached to ideas of control over the body.

Homosexual rape would be a loss of control of the body. He immediately afterwards, talks of the loss of control of the body in male-female relationships in 7.1:

In "immoralities" (πορνείας)which seems to refer to sex with prostitutes, the male client controls the body of the prostitute. It is no different than homosexual rape in that one person takes control of the body of the other. Paul suggests that in marriage there should be mutual control of the each other's body, which is fair.

Paul has to say this because he has just said this:

The body is a temple. It is pure. That is why you do not want to defile it by using another man's body against his will (homosexual rape) or a female's body against her will (heterosexual prostitution) or perhaps it is the prostitute whom he sees as the rapist, using the man's body to earn money. This leaves only two acceptable ways of expressing sexuality: Marriage and consensual male to male sexuality. He compares marriage with a woman to a kind of double rape - the man uses the woman's body, but the woman also uses the man's body. He says he consents to this because he realizes that all men are not like himself (homosexual).

So Paul sees four sexual relationships:
1. Homosexual rape: bad - because a man loses control of his body
2. prostitution: bad - man loses control of his body and/or woman loses control of her body.
3. Marriage: bad but acceptable - man loses control of his body, but man gains control over the woman's body.
4. As he is: Good. Nobody loses bodily control in an equal man to man sexual relationship.

If Paul was against abstinence, he would not favor sex in marriage. It is loss of bodily control that he is against. This is what makes homosexuality superior to heterosexuality as suggested in Platonic discourse.

Because of the society and time he lived, it is easy to see why Paul would not think it advisable to openly trumpet his homosexuality.
Given the fact that most of the men of Corinth were heterosexual, it would have been useless to come out and demand that they be like him (homosexual) but still, he "wishes" they were.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Doug Shaver

I believe he was advocating celibacy.

In my view, the question is: Supposing we had incontrovertible evidence that Paul was strictly heterosexual, is there anything, anywhere in his writings, that we would have to suspect, in light of that evidence, might have been forged by someone trying to make him look like a homosexual? I don't think so.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

Yes, Paul wants Christian men to greet each other with a kiss (Romans 16:16; 1Corinthians 16:20; 2Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26). That sounds the way a homosexual would ideally want other homosexuals to greet him. We know that this was a kiss between men on the lips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_kiss). There were two types of kisses on the lips practiced in Rome - the Basium a kiss between lovers and the saviolum a "French Kiss" involving the tongue and signaling the desire for further sexual intercourse. (see http://www.mmdtkw.org/VRomRom.html) It is impossible to say if the holy kiss was a basium, simply meant to indicate that the Christians were homosexual lovers or a saviolum meant to indicate that all Christians should desire homosexual encounters with each other.

Also, if the argument by Townsley is correct, his creation of the term Arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) (men layers or homosexual rapists) would also indicate perhaps that he was gay.

Of course, instead of having evidence that Paul was heterosexual, we have the evidence that he rejected sex with women for himself both inside and outside of marriage which indicates that he was certainly not heterosexual.

Note also that in the story of Paul and Thecla, he attacks the idea of women having sex altogether, in and out of marriage. He demands that women stay virgins. He makes no such demands on men. Again, this indicates that the writer/s consciously or unconsciously thought of the character as a homosexual.

Please note, that I do not mean to condemn or praise Paul or homosexuality, it is just an attempt to consider the character of the early writers about Paul and how they thought.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Keith&Co.

-OR- it was a social convention that had nothing to do with wanting to get in the other man's toga.

I really think that Paul's writings make as much or more sense if evaluated based on Paul being a misogynist rather than a sodomist, who perceived an approaching end to all things on Earth.

Doug Shaver

That would certainly raise some eyebrows coming from a 21st-century American male. Coming from a 1st-century Middle Easterner, I'm not so sure.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

I can imagine the following exchange between Rufus, the head of the Roman Family Values Association and his Slave, Felix

Rufus: By the gods, Felix, are those two men kissing on the lips?
Felix: Yes, sir, they are part of that new Homosexual Jewish organization. I think they call themselves "Christians".
Rufus: What Immorality. What impiety. They are going to destroy Caesar's sacred institution of marriage. They ought to be thrown to the Lions.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

GakuseiDon

Nor a 20th C Middle Easterner. Culture is key. Here is Arafat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a4hozaPKo4

ph2ter

According to that the kiss of Judas would then mean that Jesus and Judas were also the gays and mutual lovers?