Was the Apostle Paul Gay?

[csmovieman]

Check out my article (http://www.relijournal.com/Christianity/Was-the-Apostle-Paul-Gay.135422) and let me know what you guys think. Thanks!

http://www.relijournal.com/Christianity/Was-the-Apostle-Paul-Gay.135422

[pnggrad79]

I find that this idea may have validity, but given the conjecture I just don't know. Paul may have been gay, but who the hell knows? Nobody except maybe his closest friends, who are all as dead as he is. Does it really matter?

So much of the Bible has been misconstrued and misused over the centuries that it is hard to say if any of it is authentic. That is my struggle. 2008 years after Christ, how much of the Bible is real and true and authentic or merely the imaginations and prejudices and morality of the generations? Pardon my questions, but why can't we just rely on the Holy Spirit to give us discernment about what is true and what doesn't matter?:rolleyes:

[Gennee]

I have read that Paul may have been married at one time but perhaps his spouse died. In others writings, I see Paul as being a single man. If you read and study Corinthians, it was quite a messed up church because people were coming in and integrating Christianity with all other religions.

Whether Paul was gay or not I really don't know.I've never gotten that impression about Paul. Paul did change his thoughts about some things in his later epistles. He was singleminded and had strong opinions about a number of things. Perhaps God corrected him on some of them.

Gennee

[BishopIoan]

True, Gennee, but it's his messed-up opinions that have made many people's lives a living hell over the centuries. I honestly do not know if Pauk was gay or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a self-hating closet case. I've seen so many of that sort over the years that I think it's at least a possibility in Paul's case.

[Pablo Rafael]

It could be as mentioned that the "thorn in the flesh" Paul suffered from was his being gay. I have heard this suggested before. There is endless speculation about what the "thorn in the flesh" was. On this side of eternity we can only guess.

I have to come to Paul's defense a little. The Jewish culture made heterosexual marriage mandatory. There was no option. Marriages were arranged and no other option existed. Paul challenges this concept (as he does many cultural and religious regulations). He (under the inspiraiton of God, I believe) gives the option for people not to marry. Heterosexual marriage no longer is madatory.

Though Paul's writings have been used to oppress LGBT individuals for centuries, I don't think they are anti-gay at all. People have translated them and interpreted them as such. Only a few references in Paul's writing can even possibly be construed as anti-gay and those are all very vague and open to various interpretations. I think Paul would be shocked to learn how those few remarks of his have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.

[Daniel]

Read the article, and the first thing that stood out was the suggestion that gay men are dramatic, which, somehow came across to this reader as something of a stereotype. Are gay people more emotional as intimated? I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that straight me have their own drag- so to speak. They are just playing the silent heavy a lot of the time. And that has it's own drama! :lol:

The other things the writer suggests are ripe for discussion though. The verses brought to light are interesting to contemplate, that's for sure. Can one see them through the lense of a man who has desires that he can't quite control in the way that they thinks he should?

Well Paul. Join the human race! :D:rolleyes:

Christianity isn't the first (or last!) religion suggesting and even demanding the elimination of sexual desire, and, for men, celibacy and semen retention. Isn't that what we're really talking about here?

Yep. I went there! It's all about sex!

All the major religions and even present day teachers touch on this aspect of male sexuality in one way or another. In short, the idea is for men to sublimate their seed (a little alliteration there!) and use that 'energy' for enlightenment, union with the divine etc etc.

Interesting how women are left out of the picture. It's always about how MEN need to control themselves to make it to heaven. Interesting that, don't ya think?

Of course, the headline of the article, I feel, needs a better context. It's a great line to ask if Paul was Gay, but the word 'gay' is only a little over 100 years old. I think it would be better it think of the matter in terms of actions, nor orientation. In others words, is Paul's thorn in the flesh his desire to masturbate? That's something I've heard over the years too.

But we're not supposed to talk about sex, are we? Gotta make it 'spiritual' at all time. No reality allowed! ;)

What's the saying? If one of out ten men say he has never masturbated, he's lying?

[Gennee]

True, Gennee, but it's his messed-up opinions that have made many people's lives a living hell over the centuries. I honestly do not know if Pauk was gay or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a self-hating closet case. I've seen so many of that sort over the years that I think it's at least a possibility in Paul's case.

One thing I have done is really study each epistle for its own value. The Corinthian church was a mess and Paul needed to lay down some ground rules. Contrast that with the church at Ephesus or Galatia and we have different scenarioes. I believe over the centuries some denominations have made some of Paul's thoughts and opinions a hard and fast rule and they were not meant to be so. Paul had very few hard and fast rules. One was to abstain from eating food sacrufied to idols. That thread runs thorugh many of the epistles.

Some day I'll have to review the epistles and perhaps discuss them on Soulforce. Could make for some interesting conversation.

Gennee

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Though Paul's writings have been used to oppress LGBT individuals for centuries, I don't think they are anti-gay at all. People have translated them and interpreted them as such. Only a few references in Paul's writing can even possibly be construed as anti-gay and those are all very vague and open to various interpretations. I think Paul would be shocked to learn how those few remarks of his have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.

I have to agree with this. I believe that Paul would not have considered homosexuality to be a thorn in the flesh. I just don't get that from his writings. I guess, I don't see the early church as this large anti-gay group. I see it far more liberal than the modern church in many ways. I guess I just read too much Boswell.:lol:

[tdogg]

Whatever Paul's thorn was, it was something he felt sensitive enough over to keep it private. Maybe he was gay, maybe not, but it's obvious he felt the need to keep it private, between himself and God. We can speculate all we want, but will never really know.

I'm not sure whether or not I feel that Paul would have accepted gay people openly, but there are definitely portions of Paul's writings that put women down below men. I get that out of it. Perhaps because I'm female? However, I do feel with all of the Bible, one must pray and meditate on the scriptures to get a feel for what they mean to them on a personal level. I do not feel that Paul's writings, or any other verses of the Bible can be applied literally in our lives today.

[jewelsangel]

I agree with many of you that we can not assume that Paul was gay or had gay feelings or gay tendencies. Though somewhere in the Bible (sorry I am not a scholar) I think it says that we all suffer the same "temptations". So maybe he thought about it. Who knows? The important thing to remember is that he was a representative of God/Jesus, imperfect as we all are, but he strived to share the gospel.

[Gennee]

I have to agree with this. I believe that Paul would not have considered homosexuality to be a thorn in the flesh. I just don't get that from his writings. I guess, I don't see the early church as this large anti-gay group. I see it far more liberal than the modern church in many ways. I guess I just read too much Boswell.:lol:

That's why I find the early Christian church so appealing. IThe pagans of that time found the the fledgling church was inclusive, compared with the exculusiveness and secrecy of many religions. This was a refreshing change. Women, poor people, the lame, prostitutes, and others were welcome. I do believe that there were LGBT people there too.

Gennee

[Daniel]

No one on this thread will even discuss in polite company matters of sexuality, which was, in part my point. Hello! Why should we think that Paul was any different? And can't his reticence be like our own?

We, like him, want to do away- at times- with that which sits uneasy for us, or are embarrassed to discuss.

I find this very interesting. Fascinating even. Makes me think that human behavior really hasn't changed that much over the centuries- only the cultural context.

I bet we can all remember the first time we said the word gay. Remember that? Or lesbian. And thought....well....that's me. It was radical then and it is radical now. And talking about sexuality, I suppose, will always be radical for many.

Ok. Let's just ignore what may have been meant by 'thorn in the flesh'. Let's just ignore out own thorns in the flesh while we're at it too. ;) Seems down right- how did they say it in the 80's?

Sex negative.

I can only posit that how we deal with such things and lust and love determines- to a great extent- our relationship with ourself and with our Beloved.

[Matt Algren]

But we're not supposed to talk about sex, are we? Gotta make it 'spiritual' at all time. No reality allowed! ;)

What's the saying? If one of out ten men say he has never masturbated, he's lying?


I have never jacked off while looking at pictures of muscular hispanic or blond men who have little body hair and well defined eyebrows. And a couple well placed tattoos.

And big dicks.

AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO SAY IT!!!

[requisite ;) ]

[Daniel]

I have never jacked off while looking at pictures of muscular hispanic or blond men who have little body hair and well defined eyebrows. And a couple well placed tattoos.

And big dicks.

AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO SAY IT!!!

[requisite ;) ]


Alert the Vatican immeditately!

[Matt Algren]

Alert the Vatican immeditately!
As long as they don't look in my nightstand.

...

I mean, not that there's anything in there, it's just, um, a mess in there. Yeah, it's a mess!

Ah ha ha ha.

Ha ha.

Ha.












I've said too much.

[Daniel]

As long as they don't look in my nightstand.

...

I mean, not that there's anything in there, it's just, um, a mess in there. Yeah, it's a mess!

Ah ha ha ha.

Ha ha.

Ha.












I've said too much.



The Vatican is noted for hiding it's messes, no? You'll be in GREAT company!

I hear the the top guy is the red shoes (and vestments) is a HO-MO-SEX-UAL- hiding in plain sight- for all the world to see. A very clever and deft move.

Perhaps we should retitle this thread:

Is the Pope Gay?

[Eugene]

Though Paul's writings have been used to oppress LGBT individuals for centuries, I don't think they are anti-gay at all. People have translated them and interpreted them as such. Only a few references in Paul's writing can even possibly be construed as anti-gay and those are all very vague and open to various interpretations. I think Paul would be shocked to learn how those few remarks of his have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.


I would have to disagree with this. There is a definite bias against homosexuals and against women in Paul's writings. I recognize the necessity to discount it, if the traditional view of infallibility is to be maintained. But it seems to me that it really can't be discounted. And recognizing it requires throwing out the traditional view of infallibilty or accepting that God condemns homosexuality. I have opted for the former (without throwing out my faith in Christ).

My opinion is that Paul was a self-loathing, celibate homosexual. (The idea that he was widowed is, in my opinion, a ridiculous invention by married fundamentalists who wish to justify their neglect of his teaching on celibacy.)

[Daniel]

My opinion is that Paul was a self-loathing, celibate homosexual. (The idea that he was widowed is, in my opinion, a ridiculous invention by married fundamentalists who wish to justify their neglect of his teaching on celibacy.)

Consider, for instance, what the church founded on the writings of Peter and Paul has became. But then, if we consider the work of Boswell, as Gregory has pointed out, the church didn't become really overtly homophobic until the 11th -12th century. So it may not be appropriate to project our own observation of what the church has become to that which is was. Hard to know certianly.

Could Paul have been self-loathing? That thorn in the flesh matter could be an indicator. Which is why I posited the matter of auto-eroticism. That might explain it. But then, men, straight and gay engage in it. Doesn't make one gay. He could be loathing his own propensity for lust and projecting that outward, which may result in the whole matter of Romans.

Very armchair pyschologist of me! :lol:

One thing that has always struck me about Paul. He didn't know Jesus in the flesh. His big experience came after the C and R. What does that tell me? That like all converts, they often have something to prove, that they can be more Christian than anyone else. I think that's one of the hidden factors in the whole matter.

In sum: Paul is not without his own ego, saint though he may have been.

[Steven E. Webster]

I'm not sure whether or not I feel that Paul would have accepted gay people openly, but there are definitely portions of Paul's writings that put women down below men. I get that out of it. Perhaps because I'm female? However, I do feel with all of the Bible, one must pray and meditate on the scriptures to get a feel for what they mean to them on a personal level. I do not feel that Paul's writings, or any other verses of the Bible can be applied literally in our lives today.

I agree with the last part of this paragraph, Tdogg, but I must insist that one cannot charge Paul with "putting down women" without making a distinction between the real Paul and writings included in the New Testament that bear Paul's name, but are not from Paul.

I've had some exposure to biblical scholarship and reading the Bible in the original languages--I can no longer read the New Testament without being conscious of the fact that not all that is presented as from Paul really is.

When it comes to the two genders, it appears that the genuine Paul was very much egalitarian, as was Jesus.

Unfortunately, a couple of the key passages that get interpreted as "anti-gay" (from Romans and Corinthians) seem to be from the portions of the New Testament that were most likely actually penned by Paul--so we can't make the same argument (i.e. that such passages are not from the real Paul). But there are other good reasons, most of which we've already discussed somewhere in these forums, not to accept an anti-LGBT interpretation of the Bible.

As to the topic of this thread, I don't think there is much point to speculating about Paul's sexual orientation. The ex-gay people would most likely make the claim that Paul was an "ex-gay" and use him to justify their rather sick (in my view) approach to life.

Paul, by the way, qualifies his views on marriage by pointing out that he does not claim the authority of Jesus' teachings for his own opinions on the matter. (And who knows, by the way, how much else that Paul wrote was "just Paul's opinion" and not the "Word of God") Also, he presents celibacy as a "gift" which he has, but which others may not, and so he does not counsel all Christians to be celibate, but encourages marriage for those who do not have the "gift" of celibacy. The very same argument can and has been made to allow for same-gender marriage. Better to be happily married to one same-gender partner, than to be an "ex-gay" who continually "falls" into one casual sexual encounter after another (e.g. John Paulk).

I think Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was some kind of chronic pain that hampered him in his day to day work. But who knows?

Steven Webster

[Eugene]

I agree with the last part of this paragraph, Tdogg, but I must insist that one cannot charge Paul with "putting down women" without making a distinction between the real Paul and writings included in the New Testament that bear Paul's name, but are not from Paul.


This argument has always struck me as a way of shoving dirt under the carpet. The "real" Paul is inaccessible.

After reading Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol, I might just as reliably decide that the real Charles Dickens didn't write Tale of Two Cities.

[Matt Algren]

I would have to disagree with this. There is a definite bias against homosexuals and against women in Paul's writings. I recognize the necessity to discount it, if the traditional view of infallibility is to be maintained. But it seems to me that it really can't be discounted. And recognizing it requires throwing out the traditional view of infallibilty or accepting that God condemns homosexuality. I have opted for the former (without throwing out my faith in Christ).Sure it can be discounted, because the bias was put there by other people many years after Paul wrote his letters. There are only two sentences in the NT that have been cited as being specific in their anti-gay language, and in both the translation is questionable at best. All the others are blanket condemnations of sexual sins that refer back to the Leviticus, which has its own translation problems, which. And if we argue the meaning of that verse (which I do), those NT verses don't speak to homosexuality at all.

The Bible's fallibility isn't at question; the fallibility of the translators is.

My opinion is that Paul was a self-loathing, celibate homosexual. (The idea that he was widowed is, in my opinion, a ridiculous invention by married fundamentalists who wish to justify their neglect of his teaching on celibacy.)Was there even reason for a homosexual person (as we would define it) to be self-loathing in the first century? I've always heard that man-man and woman-woman sex was not entirely uncommon.

Regardless, I just don't see the need to push the issue. We don't have enough evidence to prove the claim, so the only thing arguing it would do is throw up new walls. David and Jonathan is much easier an example, in my opinion.

[wmanion]

Was Paul's writing about women really different than what the overall view of women and their place in society for that time period in history? I always thought Paul was very anti-women, but was he really? Could Paul have been just reinforcing what the females place in culture was at the time, just as he did slavery? Paul had also been a Roman soldier and I am sure after becoming a believer he rebelled against many of the Roman acceptabilities. We know little of how he lived as a Roman soldier but when in Rome...we will never really know for sure but we do need to look at the culture at that time period and how much of it found its way into Paul's writings.

Bill

[Steven E. Webster]

Was Paul's writing about women really different than what the overall view of women and their place in society for that time period in history? I always thought Paul was very anti-women, but was he really? Could Paul have been just reinforcing what the females place in culture was at the time, just as he did slavery? Paul had also been a Roman soldier and I am sure after becoming a believer he rebelled against many of the Roman acceptabilities. We know little of how he lived as a Roman soldier but when in Rome...we will never really know for sure but we do need to look at the culture at that time period and how much of it found its way into Paul's writings.
Bill

Bill,
What's the evidence that Paul was a Roman soldier? I never heard that before.

I believe there is evidence that Jesus and Paul both were less into traditional gender roles than folks were at the time. There is archeological evidence that women were leaders (even Bishops) in the early church. As the church became more "respectable" in the culture of the time, it started to conform more to the sexist standards of the times.

I do not believe the passage in I Corinthians that says that women should be silent in church is really from Paul. For one thing, it contradicts something else Paul says elsewhere in the same book.

Paul is famous for saying "in Christ there is no male and female." The Gospel of Jesus that Paul preached was one of equality of all persons whether Jew/Gentile, male/female or slave/free. (The passage about "slaves obeying masters" is also from a letter of questionable Pauline authorship. In Philemon, an undisputed letter of Paul, Paul seems to call for the freeing of a slave).

Here's a Wikipedia article on the question of Pauline authorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's another interesting link on the question of the status of women in the New Testament:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm

This article makes some of the same points I've made about sorting out what is really from the historical Paul and what is later additions by other writers writing in Paul's name.

The passage about women being required to remain silent in church in I Corinthians may have been added by a scribe who was merely writing his own opinion in the margins of the book he was copying. Later scribes then copied this note into the body of the letter. This is a practice that is known to have happened.

The Bible is not "infallible," if by "infallible" you mean it was dictated by God to the human writers.

Steven Webster

[wmanion]

Steven,
It could be just my old fundamental teachings about Paul. I was taught that Paul was Saul before his conversion and was a Roman soldier who hunted and killed Christians. I will research some of my old documents and find out for sure. I also think Paul wrote some pretty amazing things but I cannot help but believe that culture played a role in some of his writings. Now, you are going to have me studying again...lol, but that is why I love this site, it challenges me and renews my spirit.

Bill

[Steven E. Webster]

Steven,
I was taught that Paul was Saul before his conversion and was a Roman soldier who hunted and killed Christians. I will research some of my old documents and find out for sure. I also think Paul wrote some pretty amazing things but I cannot help but believe that culture played a role in some of his writings. Now, you are going to have me studying again...lol, but that is why I love this site, it challenges me and renews my spirit.
Bill

Bill,
I agree that Paul was originally named Saul and that he was involved in arresting Christians, and that he was present at the stoning of Stephen, but I never saw any indication that he was a Roman soldier. He was, I believe, "deputized" by Jerusalem Jewish authorities (not directly by Rome) to go after Christians.

Of course, everything Paul wrote was influenced by culture--how could it not be. But given that the culture was sexist, it is all the more remarkable if we find expressions of gender egalitarianism in Paul and Jesus. There is evidence that women played leading roles in the early church. Jesus relied on the support of a group of women who traveled with him. Paul's ministry was also supported by women.

Please note that I am not claiming that Paul or Jesus were feminists in the modern sense.

Steven Webster

[kara speltz]

I have a rabbi friend, who knows more about the New Testament than most Christians do. He talks about how you can tell how Jewish Jesus was just from how he speaks. He also said that he doesn't believe that Paul was Jewish. He says Paul doesn't speak like a Jew.

When I pointed out that Paul was a Roman citizen, he said - the Romans would never allow a Jew to be a Roman citizen. I found all of this very interesting and tend to suspect my rabbi friend may well be right.

As for Paul being gay, Spong makes a very strong case for it, and I tend to think he's right.

Kara

[Eugene]

Sure it can be discounted, because the bias was put there by other people many years after Paul wrote his letters. There are only two sentences in the NT that have been cited as being specific in their anti-gay language, and in both the translation is questionable at best. All the others are blanket condemnations of sexual sins that refer back to the Leviticus, which has its own translation problems, which. And if we argue the meaning of that verse (which I do), those NT verses don't speak to homosexuality at all.


At the great risk of sounding theologically conservative (which I suppose I am, more or less) on a gay forum, I will note that your view of the Bible is such that it isn't necessary to even care one way or another whether it includes a bias against homosexuality or anything else.

I don't have a problem trusting that the English text is reliable. Neither do most other English-speaking Christians. And I daresay that most English-speaking Christians, putting the Bible side-by-side with the argument above will come out solidly on the side of the Bible. For which reason I don't see your argument as beneficial in dissuading any heterosexual Christian away from his bias against homosexuals.

The Bible's fallibility isn't at question

The Bible's fallibility is precisely the question. Whether the authors were speaking as fallible, biased humans or infallible instruments of divine revelation is the question.

Pretending that they didn't say what they obviously did say is no help at all.

Was there even reason for a homosexual person (as we would define it) to be self-loathing in the first century?

Well you noted the text of Leviticus. Given that Saul of Tarsus was so much of a Pharisee as to kill Christians, I assume that he derived his view of homosexuality from the Jewish scriptures. The same OT scriptures which lead modern, conservative, religious gay men to be self-loathing would have led him (the ancient, ultra-conservative Pharisee) to be self-loathing.

David and Jonathan is much easier an example, in my opinion.

While I agree that this was a homosexual relationship, the text isn't as explicit as the condemnations in Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. It is easier -- and less certain.

[Steven E. Webster]

At the great risk of sounding theologically conservative (which I suppose I am, more or less) on a gay forum, I will note that your view of the Bible is such that it isn't necessary to even care one way or another whether it includes a bias against homosexuality or anything else.

I don't have a problem trusting that the English text is reliable. Neither do most other English-speaking Christians. And I daresay that most English-speaking Christians, putting the Bible side-by-side with the argument above will come out solidly on the side of the Bible. For which reason I don't see your argument as beneficial in dissuading any heterosexual Christian away from his bias against homosexuals.

The Bible's fallibility is precisely the question. Whether the authors were speaking as fallible, biased humans or infallible instruments of divine revelation is the question.

Pretending that they didn't say what they obviously did say is no help at all.

Well you noted the text of Leviticus. Given that Saul of Tarsus was so much of a Pharisee as to kill Christians, I assume that he derived his view of homosexuality from the Jewish scriptures. The same OT scriptures which lead modern, conservative, religious gay men to be self-loathing would have led him (the ancient, ultra-conservative Pharisee) to be self-loathing.

I'm a progressive Christian who feels no need to defend the Bible as infallible. Paul could very well be everything (e.g. a self-loathing gay) that folks may be suggesting here, and that doesn't matter much to my religious faith. But personally, I don't see the "self-loathing gay" hypothesis as either convincing or helpful to my understanding and appreciation of the New Testament.

I'd also like to point out that there are gay Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is infallible and accept the classic "five fundamentals" of the Fundamentalist faith, but who simply do not interpret Scripture as being anti-LGBT. I certainly don't agree with their faith-system, but I wouldn't completely discount that point of view.

Despite what Leviticus and Romans seem to say to alot of folks, it is really difficult to say for sure what Jesus and Paul would have thought of the subject because of our cultural differences. John Boswell points to same-gender pairs of saints in the early church and the early practice of blessing same-sex unions. I think it entirely possible that Paul could have written Romans 1:18 etc. and at the same time not have had in mind Christians in committed, non-exploitative same-gender unions. (As long as there was nothing "scandalous" or disruptive about such a union, he may not even have noticed much.) Such unions may not have been at all what Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 1.

Steven Webster

[wmanion]

Steven,
I went back and did some reading on the Apostle Paul and you are correct he was not a Roman Soldier. His father was a tent maker by trade which Paul also learned. One of the speculations was that his father made tents for the Roman Military which earned him Roman citizenship that was also given to Paul. However, another theory states that he could have bought his citizenship for his family. I have not explored another theory that I was taught which I plan to but I am going to throw it out here. Some believed that Paul was deeply in love with Timothy and they had a falling out at some point. Paul became depressed over losing Timothy and Timothy going his own way. Some have said the Paul and Timothy's relationship was just as strong as David and Johnathon's. However, I do not believe there was a sexual relationship between the two. In fact, I have wondered many times if Paul's thorn in the flesh was impotence. However, I have nothing to back this assumption up.

Bill

[Eugene]

I'd also like to point out that there are gay Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is infallible and accept the classic "five fundamentals" of the Fundamentalist faith, but who simply do not interpret Scripture as being anti-LGBT.

I am aware of that. I believe that such a position is inconsistent, or I might have become one of them.

it is really difficult to say for sure what Jesus and Paul would have thought of the subject because of our cultural differences

As for what Jesus would have thought of the subject, that is an entirely different matter.

As for what Paul thought, the cultural difference that mattered was between Graeco-Roman culture and the beliefs/practices of the Pharisees.

So the Pharisees had no problem with same-sex relationships? I doubt that.

[Steven E. Webster]

So the Pharisees had no problem with same-sex relationships? I doubt that.

In another thread we were discussing the Roman Centurian and his male slave who was "dear" to him. (The story is found in early in Luke and Matthew.) The setting is Capernaum, a village on the shore of Lake Galilee. We have been speculating, with good reason, I believe, that there was a homosexual relationship between this Centurian and his slave.

We also have the information from the Gospels that this Centurian financially supported the local synagogue. Very likely the leaders of the synagogue who came to Jesus to plead for this Centurian's slave were Pharisees. They may have respected the Centurian and appreciated his love for his slave without giving much thought to what was going on at night behind closed doors. They just knew that this Centurian and his household were good folks who supported the synagogue.

Could Paul have simultaneously denounced the "nasty things" the Gentiles do in their wild parties and temple orgies while at the same time silently tolerating "discrete," committed, same-sex relationship within the Christian movement? Sure--why not!

We just don't know. We have too little information to make any judgements for certain.

Also, I detect in your comments, Eugene, a certain stereotyping of Pharisees as "bad" and as universally intolerant, legalists. This is an unjustified and limited view of a group of people who were very varied in their views and approaches. Modern Jews all see themselves as descended from the Pharisees--Rabbinic Judaism is the creation of Pharisees, and as you pointed out one Pharisee, Paul, helped to found Christianity.

Jesus, himself, was closer to the party of the Pharisees than he was to the other Jewish sects of the time. The fact that he and the Pharisees debated one another, and that some Pharisees acknowledged that he bested them in debate is more evidence that Jesus was close to this party.

One of Paul's teachers, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, is noted in the Book of Acts as expressing very "liberal" and "tolerant" views towards Christians. Gamaliel counseled against persecution.

The Pharisees, as a group, were much more tolerant of disagreement, debate and varied viewpoints than are our own Fundamentalists. What Leviticus says doesn't tell us everything we might like to know about what the Pharisees really thought and did, no more than it tells us what the position of modern day Jews is on the matter of homosexuality. All modern Jewish sects are descended from the Pharisees and many of them are quite tolerant of LGBT people.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

This Wikipedia article presents a balanced and scholarly view of the Pharisees. It supports my claim that all modern, Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Pharisees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

We need to be careful not to read the New Testament as though the word "Pharisee" is a dirty word. Not all the Pharisees in the New Testament are presented as bad people. (Although alot of anti-Semitism finds justification in a certain reading of the New Testament.) Alot of Rabbinic Judaism is now more tolerant of LGBT people than most of our mainstream Christian churches.

What I appreciate about Rabbinic Judaism is the tolerance for continual debate and the allowance made for many points of view about the scriptures. Alot of Christians are far more narrow.

Steven Webster

[Eugene]

Also, I detect in your comments, Eugene, a certain stereotyping of Pharisees as "bad" and as universally intolerant, legalists.

Well, closing comments and I'm finished.

The words above are yours, not mine. They are nowhere implied in my post.

My view is that the Pharisees were the religious conservatives/fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism. As such, and as is obvious in the NT texts, they held to a literal interpretation of scripture that had much in common with the view of modern fundamentalist Christians. The assumption that they derived the same view of same-sex relationships (as modern fundamentalists) is one that I will own.

I am not aware of the relations between modern Judaism and the Pharisees, nor is it cogent to the point I was making.

We need to be careful not to read the New Testament as though the word "Pharisee" is a dirty word. Not all the Pharisees in the New Testament are presented as bad people.

Certainly, you are correct. Best to view the Pharisees as they are portrayed in the gospels. I can think of a few individual Pharisees who were portrayed well in John's gospel. But on the whole, the Pharisees were condemned as intolerant, religious hypocrites. And I think the portrayal could be extended without error to modern, American fundamentalists.

Jesus, himself, was closer to the party of the Pharisees than he was to the other Jewish sects of the time.

I would prefer to say that Jesus shared the Pharisees' high regard for scripture. I would not class Jesus with any of the religious sects in Judaism at the time, because the gospels make it plain that He found them all wanting.

[Steven E. Webster]

My view is that the Pharisees were the religious conservatives/fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism. As such, and as is obvious in the NT texts, they held to a literal interpretation of scripture that had much in common with the view of modern fundamentalist Christians. The assumption that they derived the same view of same-sex relationships (as modern fundamentalists) is one that I will own.

I am not aware of the relations between modern Judaism and the Pharisees, nor is it cogent to the point I was making.


Eugene--these words of yours above are exactly what I'm disagreeing with. I see you as incorrectly stereotyping the pharisees and incorrectly equating them with modern Fundamentalists. If the ONLY information we had about the Pharisees was from the New Testament, your conclusions might seem reasonable. The trouble is, we have more information about the Pharisees than that--for one thing, they wrote alot and left behind things like the Talmud. They also left behind a living movement--Rabbinic Judaism (including Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox and Restorationist Judaism). Again, the wikipedia article above on the Pharisees is important to read if all one knows about the Pharisees is the New Testament.

Why is this important? You were drawing certain conclusions about what Paul must have thought based upon his background as a Pharisee. You equate being a Pharisee with being something like a modern Fundamentalist, and therefore Paul must be viewed as something like a modern Fundamentalist on the topic of homosexuality---I'm just saying that it ain't necessarily so.

Just to lay it all out there. I don't believe that I, as a liberal, progressive, gay Christian need to reject Paul as a homophobe, a misogynist, a Fundamentalist or any of the negative stereotypes sometime attributed to Paul. I don't think Paul was any of those things. (Though, of course, I could be wrong.)

I apologize if any of my remarks come across as a personal attack, Eugene. I certainly don't intend that, but maybe I'm clumsy or unintentionally rude in expressing myself. I certainly don't want to discourage your participation here.

Steven Webster

[Matt Algren]

I've read that the Pharisees were a generally conservative faction of Judaism, and Sadducees were a generally liberal faction of Judaism.

Which makes the fact that they teamed up against Jesus even more amazing and relevant to what we're dealing with today.

[kara speltz]

Why is this important? You were drawing certain conclusions about what Paul must have thought based upon his background as a Pharisee. You equate being a Pharisee with being something like a modern Fundamentalist, and therefore Paul must be viewed as something like a modern Fundamentalist on the topic of homosexuality---I'm just saying that it ain't necessarily so.

Just to lay it all out there. I don't believe that I, as a liberal, progressive, gay Christian need to reject Paul as a homophobe, a misogynist, a Fundamentalist or any of the negative stereotypes sometime attributed to Paul. I don't think Paul was any of those things. (Though, of course, I could be wrong.)


Steven Webster


Steve: I agree with you. My parish is run by the Paulist Priests who have helped me understand a great deal more about Paul. I took a short class on Pauline theology and one of the things that helped me get over my biases against Paul was hearing him described as probably the most passionate of the apostles. As someone who has often overstepped her bounds because of her passion, I came to see Paul in a whole different light.

In addition, what I came to understand is that Paul was really pretty radical in the way he approached the issue of women and marriage. We have to understand the context of the times in which this was written, and Pauls calling husbands to love their wives just as Jesus loved the church was a radical statement.

So I now don't cringe when I hear Paul's letters, I understand his passion, and I understand that he was trying to move people along in their understanding of more equal relationships. He was a man of his times.

Kara

[andrewlittle]

A good work on the Sadducees:
http://www.livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/sadducees.html

Another on Pharisees:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm

Since Fundamentalism emerged in the 19th century as a reaction to Modernism, I agree with Steven et al. that comparing anything in the time of Jesus to Christian Fundamentalism is seriously flawed.

As for the Sadducees and Pharisees, we can only know what we have from scripture and historical writings. To say there is only one kind of Pharisee, or one kind of Sadducee, is as ludicrous as saying there is one kind of Christian or Buddhist or whatever.

Also, when it comes to hypocrisy, no one group has the lock and key to that epithet. There are people running the gamut from very liberal to fundamentalist who truly believe what they profess, and there are those who do not and just use professed "beliefs" for expedience and power. Just because we don't believe just like someone else doesn't mean that they are hypocrites.

[Eugene]

There are people running the gamut from very liberal to fundamentalist who truly believe what they profess

(Well, as usual, I rest a few days after saying I'm done, and I'm not done. I have a love/hate relationship with discussion forums.)

I don't think the issue of the Pharisees being "hypocrites" is entirely bound with their not truly believing what they professed to believe.

Continuing with the fundamentalist analogy, if I may ...

There are a great many fundamentalists who truly believe what they preach. That is irrelevant. They are, as Jesus described the Pharisees, "the blind leading the blind" (which, of itself, qualifies them as hypocrites). They place demands on themselves and others that are impossible to meet, and their religion is quite devoid of compassion for others different from themselves. That renders them as much "hypocrites" -- however sincere -- as the Ted Haggards among them.

Since Fundamentalism emerged in the 19th century as a reaction to Modernism, I agree with Steven et al. that comparing anything in the time of Jesus to Christian Fundamentalism is seriously flawed.


Well, perhaps it isn't obvious, but it seems obvious to me. Fundamentalism isn't an American phenomenon nor is it a uniquely Protestant phenomenon. I would call ultra-orthodox Jews fundamentalists. There are, as you know, Islamic fundamentalists. And I remain convinced that the Pharisees were the fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism.

In any event, no matter how favorably you view the Pharisees, Jesus did not view them favorably. Which is what matters, in my opinion.

[Steven E. Webster]

And I remain convinced that the Pharisees were the fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism.

In any event, no matter how favorably you view the Pharisees, Jesus did not view them favorably. Which is what matters, in my opinion.

Eugene,
I guess my only problem with this is that it over-generalizes. SOME Pharisees might have been something like "fundamentalists of 1st century Judaism," but not ALL. Jesus did not view ALL Pharisees unfavorably, and not ALL Pharisees viewed Jesus unfavorably

Also, I would caution against limiting all your evidence to the New Testament. There are other sources of information about the Pharisees, and it actually helps clear up what is written in the New Testament.

As some of the references which I and especially Andrew posted here suggest, it was the Sadducees who seemed to be the party of narrow textualism and preservation of social privilege. The Pharisees were known for a developing "oral tradition" that did much to update, modify and make practical some of the provisions of the Law. Thus, one of the articles Andrew posted suggests that the Sadducees were the "conservatives" and the Pharisees were the "liberals."

It is also a mistake to write-off Judaism as being all about "Law" and to hold up Christianity, by contrast, as being all about "grace." There is grace and law in both religions.

The fact that these Soulforce forums are interfaith and not merely Christian make me especially concerned not to allow anything to pass which may be either intentionally or unintentionally anti-semitic. I think that unqualified denunciations of the Pharisees can be seen as intentional or unintentional anti-semitism. I'm sure no one here is intentionally anti-semitic.

I once shared your view of the Pharisees--I now consider my former views as uninformed.

I'm not trying embarrass or prove you wrong, Eugene, I'm just suggesting that you not over-generalize about a whole group of persons like the Pharisees, most of whom we know very little about, other than that their living descendants, modern day Jews, include some very fine folks, some of whom are our fellow Soulforce supporters.

Even in the New Testament, Pharisees included a very wide range of individuals. Paul's teacher, the Pharisee Gamaliel preached against the persecution of Christians, for instance, and counseled tolerance--this according to the New Testament Book of Acts. I suspect that it took a while for Paul to fully appreciate Gamaliel's teachings--probably not until after he became a Christian.

Steven Webster

[Eugene]

I'm not trying embarrass or prove you wrong, Eugene

There is no need to worry about that. After years of posting on discussion forums, I hardly care about being embarrassed or being proven wrong.

The fact that these Soulforce forums are interfaith and not merely Christian make me especially concerned not to allow anything to pass which may be either intentionally or unintentionally anti-semitic. I think that unqualified denunciations of the Pharisees can be seen as intentional or unintentional anti-semitism. I'm sure no one here is intentionally anti-semitic.


That was unnecessary. I'm not into political correctness, and if Soulforce has any problems with my posts, then I expect a moderator will notify me or ban me. I can do without the threat of being labeled "antisemitic", thank you very much. And I won't waste my time trying to prove that I'm not antisemitic, as I've said nothing that would justify such a suspicion.

I once shared your view of the Pharisees--I now consider my former views as uninformed.

Am I supposed to care about that? Likewise, I hold a dim view of "progressive" Christian theology. I tried accepting it after coming out, and just wasn't able to do so. So what?

I'm just suggesting that you not over-generalize about a whole group of persons like the Pharisees, most of whom we know very little about, other than that their living descendants, modern day Jews, include some very fine folks, some of whom are our fellow Soulforce supporters.


There's that political correctness again. You know that you can so dilute honest discussion with these concerns that no worthwhile or contrary views ever get aired. And that's rather boring. Perhaps there is a more polite way to say it, but I am both old enough and confident enough to dismiss your suggestion. If anyone is offended by my traditional view of a religious group that existed 2 millennia ago, then I don't think I'm the one with a problem.

[wmanion]

Honestly, does it really matter if the Apostle Paul was gay or not. He was just a man who knew that we were looking through a mirror darkly...that we did not have all the answers. He was struggling just as many of us still do today to really know what the will of God is in our lives. We have more knowledge today than Paul had to work with, especially if the field of Science, yet still we struggle. We may never know for sure until we meet him in person. I agree that fundamentalists existed then as they do today, but you cannot lump all fundamentalists into the same pot. I have fundamentalists friends, yet they believe being gay is not a choice. I also have had dealings with fundamentalists that take the Bible so literally that I have been doomed to hell since birth, not because I am gay, but because I am a bastard and will not be allowed into the congregation of the Lord. The Bereans were told to search the scriptures daily to find whatsoever was true. This tells me that the scriptures needed to be searched because the ideology of man was also a big input into the scripture. God may have chose man as his vessel to deliver his message, but we have to remember man is not God and not perfect. God meets us at our own level of understanding and he meets us their with the ultimate gift of love, and to me that is all that really matters.

Bill

[Steven E. Webster]

There's that political correctness again.

Eugene,

I object! Is caring about people, especially our fellow Soulforce members, "political correctness"? I wouldn't call it "political correctness," I'd call it good manners.

I don't think you really addressed my arguments, you just pulled out a rather cliched put-down--i.e. "political correctness." Rather than address my arguments you labeled and/or ridiculed me, it seems to me.

I'm honestly trying not to offend you. Can I get the same consideration in return?

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

If anyone is offended by my traditional view of a religious group that existed 2 millennia ago, then I don't think I'm the one with a problem.

Does a view being "traditional" exempt it from question? There are alot of "traditional" views of Jews (and that is who the Pharisees were) that would be very problematic in my view.

Surely you don't think bigoted views against LGBT people are o.k. just because they also are "traditional."

Defending a view merely because it is "traditional" is no way to further the "honest discussion" you accuse me of "diluting."

So, to get back to what I think we were really discussing before we were diverted by the "political correctness" red-herring, my assertion at it's simplest is that you are overgeneralizing about the ancient Pharisees based on precious little information (i.e. a "traditional" reading of the New Testament), and I don't think that's a just way to treat any group of people ancient or modern. This is exactly the kind of problem we are faced with when "traditionalist" interpreters of the Bible condemn all modern LGBT people based on the precious little information there is in the Bible about ancient LGBT persons. Or would it be too "politically correct" to challenge "traditionalist" views of LGBT persons?

Again, I want to apologize, if I am being too harsh--you seem to hold some grievance against "progressive Christians" in general, and I feel this has colored your attitude towards me because I am "one of them". Maybe I am mistaken?

Is there some way we can move this discussion toward some common ground? Can we at least agree that we should avoid over-generalizing about people? I know for a fact that not everything about traditionalists is bad, neither is everything about progressive Christians bad.

If I've put anything here unfairly, or unjustly or too personally, I'll gladly amend it. (I sometimes take things too personally, and I'm lousy at appreciating irony.) I've read some of your other postings and believe you are a good person who is seeking the truth like we all are.

Steven Webster

[paul]

Paul, by the way, qualifies his views on marriage by pointing out that he does not claim the authority of Jesus' teachings for his own opinions on the matter. (And who knows, by the way, how much else that Paul wrote was "just Paul's opinion" and not the "Word of God") Also, he presents celibacy as a "gift" which he has, but which others may not, and so he does not counsel all Christians to be celibate, but encourages marriage for those who do not have the "gift" of celibacy.

Steven,

I was thinking about this passage as well. It's hard to imagine that Paul's "thorn" was sex, be it gay or masturbation or a thorn fetish, if one believes Paul was being genuine when he wrote this. As you note, Paul claims to have the "gift" of celibacy (which is kind of like getting coal in your stocking at Christmas if you ask me), so I don't see him struggling with sex.

I have always thought it funny how he says it's better to marry than to burn. Some endorsement, eh?

Anyway, assuming Paul was being honest about having such a rare gift, it wouldn't logically follow that he struggled with sex.

[Steven E. Webster]

Steven,

I was thinking about this passage as well. It's hard to imagine that Paul's "thorn" was sex, be it gay or masturbation or a thorn fetish, if one believes Paul was being genuine when he wrote this. As you note, Paul claims to have the "gift" of celibacy (which is kind of like getting coal in your stocking at Christmas if you ask me), so I don't see him struggling with sex.

I have always thought it funny how he says it's better to marry than to burn. Some endorsement, eh?

Anyway, assuming Paul was being honest about having such a rare gift, it wouldn't logically follow that he struggled with sex.

Thanks, Paul,
I think we should also notice that Paul (your namesake) actually speaks of his "thorn in the flesh" as a positive thing, another "gift". Even though he says that this thorn is from "Satan," he sees it as part of God's purpose to further his spiritual progress, and that God chooses not to remove the thorn. (see 2 Corinthians 12)

It might also be helpful to note that "Satan" in the Bible isn't quite what modern Christians make him out to be--a principle of absolute evil dualistically opposed to God.

Whatever the "thorn" is--it does not seem to be connected with any "self-loathing" on Paul's part as I read it.

Steven Webster

[wmanion]

Thanks, Paul,
I think we should also notice that Paul (your namesake) actually speaks of his "thorn in the flesh" as a positive thing, another "gift". Even though he says that this thorn is from "Satan," he sees it as part of God's purpose to further his spiritual progress, and that God chooses not to remove the thorn. (see 2 Corinthians 12)

It might also be helpful to note that "Satan" in the Bible isn't quite what modern Christians make him out to be--a principle of absolute evil dualistically opposed to God.

Whatever the "thorn" is--it does not seem to be connected with any "self-loathing" on Paul's part as I read it.

Steven Webster

And it is important to note that no matter what the thorn in the flesh was, Paul knew that God still loved him no matter what. I think a lot of times we feel like God doesn't love us because of our own personal thorns. Unconditional love, indeed!

Bill