Adventist Online

To Man Flower Grow

I am compelled to share what my humble knowledge of the scriptures says about the matter you have shared in your discussion. I opted to post a new discussion as a reply so that this post will not be buried under even more replies from the users of this site.

Let us start on a common ground. You may interpret the text upon posting as someone angry, sad, happy, or whatever manner of emotion this may seem to you. But I am hoping that this reply will sound as CALM and as ENLIGHTENING as possible. Not that this post will prove you or me wrong but that it may send my message from me to you in the most loving manner that I can possibly hope to do.

This post is by no means a way to change your way of thinking for it is not my job to do so. No, not in the very least for it is by the spirit that we are changed.

I bid you blessings and good health.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Your claim on the word PAIS which is pronounced as PAHEECE

I would like to humbly share my opinion on this matter base on concrete evidences and resources (as far as I am concerned and my little knowledge) that the word PAIS by no means does not refer to any homosexual relations or any tint of it (I hope I don't sound angry at all)

The word PAIS occurs 24 times through the entire scriptures and everytime it is used it refers to the definition stated by the image above. The image above is a snapshot of my computer and e-sword feel free to download online.

Philisophically and mathematically and even biblically saying, IF SOMETHING IS TRUE IT HAS TO BE TRUE IN ALL CASES - only one counter example is required to disprove a claim that something is true but that counter example must be very solid.

(Smiling and calm) my point here that I would love to share (humbly of course) is that you wrote and qouted this

For many centuries before Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, the Greek word pais was commonly used to refer to the younger partner in a same sex relationship. The younger partner was often an adult male but was sometimes a teenager.

I on the other hand would like to share my humble opinion on your post. The text above says that PAIS WAS COMMONLY USED TO REFER TO THE YOUNGER PARTNER IN A SAME SEX RELATIONSHIP (I am not shouting when I pressed the capslock forgive me if it sounds like that).

The definition above about PAIS on the image I posted is based on bible scholar definition and years of study on WHAT and HOW greek or hebrew scriptures are interpreted in our modern language - the english language.

If that is the case, then it disproves your claim on referring to a same sex relationship. PAIS even refers to someone who serves a KING or even GOD. (still not shouting or anything like that keeping everything calm for this text)

  • Receive the entire scripture and do not build a doctrine on an isolated bible verse or story

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church of the General Conference (my church and I hope yours too) obeys this simple biblical rule and that is why it's doctrines are solid through the years.

I couldn't help but notice that your claims on the existence on homosexuality on this certain bible story do not contain any biblical references or whatsoever but instead a random explanation which we do not know the source.

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Deutronomy 19:5

Our first doctrine of the SDA Church is about the SCRIPTURES and it plainly tells us one of the ways on how to use the scriptures through the prophet ISAIAH.

Isaiah 28:9-11King James Version (KJV)

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Deutronomy and Isaiah lays out a foundation on how to find God's message embedded in the bible. We do not assert or conclude something base on other people's opinion (although scholarly study of the bible is very helpful) nor should we create a doctrine on an isolated verse. We need witnesses or as Isaiah puts it, precepts upon precepts or simply saying - LET THE BIBLE EXPLAIN ITSELF.

So my brother in Christ, I humbly lay these reasons on scriptures upon you.

  • CHRIST IS OUR ULTIMATE MODEL NOT THE FRAILTIES OF ANY BIBLE CHARACTER

The failure of many who do not understand the word of God (that includes myself) is to look upon others and not Jesus.

1 John 2:6New International Version (NIV)

Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

I will not go down the endless argument of homosexuality and blah blah blah.

If we all claim to be Christians then why do we look at the CENTURION? Many bible characters failed in their stories.

Solomon was POLYGAMOUS

ABRAHAM, JACOB and a lineage of bible characters had disobeyed and did something wrong.

What most people do is look upon these faults and use them as excuses to justify there errors and then when confronted by the word of God they tend to despise whoever points out the error in their ways.

They tend to cover up and say IF GOD IS LIKE YOU THEN I DON'T LIKE CHURCH (for being reprimanded) or something like YOU ARE SO PREJUDICE AND YOU LACK LOVE

When DAVID was confronted by the prophet Nathan the prophet DID NOT SUGAR COAT his message and he sternly pointED out the fault of David.

But since DAVID WAS A MAN OF GOD, he DISPLAYED GOD'S CHARACTER moved by the HOLY Spirit and did not tend to excuse himself. Instead confessed and saw the folly in his ways.

AREN'T WE ALL CLAIMING TO BE CHRISTIANS? THEN WHY DON'T WE LOOK TO JESUS AND HIS LIFE AND MINISTRY?

WAS JESUS A HOMOSEXUAL? No, since it will violate the plan of salvation and a myriad of bible scriptures which I don't have time to post.

WAS JESUS BOASTFUL or HATEFUL? NO NO NO NO

What is my point? (I am not raising my tone in anger)

If we claim to be God's people though we stumble and fall we look upon the Savior and follow his examples and not the examples of the weak bible characters compared to the strength of our Savior Jesus Christ.

Upon writing this post a thought just occurred to me.

Jesus came to seek and save the lost but his pure and perfect character would clearly pierced through the soul of any imperfect person approaching him. I'm sure homosexuals existed in his time, but the question remains.

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAVIOR, WOULD ANY HOMOSEXUAL STILL EXCUSE AND DEFEND THEIR BEING HOMOSEXUAL KNOWING THAT THEY STAND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ALMIGHTY?

I leave that as it is.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may post more updates on this post but for now I hope I delivered my perspective on your post. I do not want to change you or your way of thinking for it is beyond me. It is only by the spirit of God that we are change.

Blessings be upon you and your family.

P.S.

My youngest brother is gay and I sometimes catch him watching gay porn in hiding so I am not prejudice against you being gay because it is burden enough for me to help my brother through Christ in his sexual issues but all I can do is share God's word I know I can't change my brother only Christ and His Spirit.

Views: 577

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear sir

Am a little confused on your stand- could you kindly clarify..

1- Are you saying that a practicing homo claiming to be christian would be saved?

2- definition of reviler/slanderer - Luk 13:32  And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. 

was Jesus a reviler according to this?

3-where does it state that they are all equal please?

Am sure with your knowledge and scholasticism you would spend a few minutes clearing this haziness

yours sincerely

DM

Hello David,

Manuela is the female (short)form of the Hebrew word עִמָּנוּאֵל or Immanuel.

"1- Are you saying that a practicing homo claiming to be christian would be saved?"

How am i supposed to honestly answer this?

If i say yes or no either way i would cast judgement which i am not able to do.

Thats a matter between the individuals in qu.estion and God and its not us to decide this question nor can or should we try to decide this.

As a matter of fact however i will state this:

I believe in a just and loving God and throughout my life and especially through my work i met a lot of people. Some of them were "bad" people and some of them were remarkable and very "good" people in my subjective view. Among either groups i found christians of all sexual orientations as well as non-christians.

Here on the forum and as well in our church we have examples of unjust christians which cast judgement upon people very harshly while they twist meaning of scriptures according their own sin. 

So who should God take?

The just "homo" (which is kind of offensive to use that term please use homosexual in future) who happens to have the "wrong" sexual orientation or the unjust christian who twists God meaning to justify his own sin?

"2- definition of reviler/slanderer - Luk 13:32  And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. "

I am unsure how you would come up with this text as a definition for "reviler/slanderer".

Jesus in this text compares the Pharisees and their craftiness or cunning to claim or suggest they mean good for him.

In fact your text and the description of the Pharisees or what they are trying to do would fit perfectly on some persons here in this forum which act exactly like the Pharisees did.

3-where does it state that they are all equal please?

The text itself states this.

They are all listed equally and all punished equally therefore they can only be viewed as equal offensive onto Christ.

If there would be anything worse than the other things than it would been pointed out and/or there would been different punishments and actions advised.

In fact Paul advised not only on those topics certain actions but on those specifically he mentioned to expel all of them. Furthermore if there would be any of these listings worse than the others the punishments would be unfair or unjust as it wouldn't fit the transgression any longer. Surely you wouldn't suggest that Paul was acting unjust?

Lastly we have a biblical guideline regarding those matters as well which completely forbids to judge one sin over another or suggest that a certain sin is worse than any other sin in Christs eyes:

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Regards

Same old Manuela. Should we not deal with the word at hand "Pais" and not Adams rib. 

Ian i think you misunderstood my point.

I did not try to prove something in regards of Adam or something i was merely giving one major example of a word having a single different meaning than in rest of scripture.

The "claim" was basically "Pais" can not mean this or that because 23 times it means something else...

Thats not a safe approach on how to read scripture as my example shows and there are lots and lots of other similar examples out there.

Sure.  It diverted the issue, and you could talk down to him as if he were some ignorant male that needed a tongue lashing.

"Well it hurts the eyes to read through capslock and there is a netiquette for the internet and writing etc. 

Today it usually means you are yelling when you use capslock for whole sentences etc. Thats common courtesy and as we understand any texts today. 

My point being is: Nobody likes being yelled at and yes your caps lock usage in this text does indeed suggest a yelling."

The only "ignorant male" in this thread is you Heisenberg.

I exchanged with the OP a discussion on a topic he brought up and explained why his way of interpreting scripture is not a safe approach.

Same old Manuela dealing with everything except the word at hand (Pais) To me it was shown that the word has not the meaning MFG claims.

And you know what Manuela it tells me that you have not a credible answer because if you had it would have been posted here long ago.

I do have the same observation about Manuela.

She has eyes for little details and always ready to answer and at times missing the message being sent.

From the greek word to the capslock. I somehow feel like everything has an issue.

Just saying...

Actually Ian i answered the question or the claim already here and in the other thread.

But i will give you a full explanation if you wish so although you will most likely not like it or most likely not be willing to consider it or belief it.

The main problem we face, not only with this word but all words and instances we refer to as "homosexual" today in scripture, is that there is no such thing as a Greek word which means and translates into a meaning of the word homosexual today.

The reason for this is that the concept of sexual orientation and the need to give it a specific word or meaning is relatively new hence why in the time of scripture there was not a word to describe that.

Pais or paidika are both words which were used to describe the younger male partner in a homosexual relationship of some sort.

But we can not say that it always and 100% means this and we can not prove or disprove either meaning. Pais means in many cases simply "child" in some other cases "young slave" and in some cases "young servant".

Since you will most likely not believe me i will give you a quote from someone else:

Dr. Gagnon writes: “boy” (pais) could be used of any junior partner in a homosexual relationship, even one who was fullgrown.” Dr. Robert Gagnon, The Bible And Homosexual Practice, p. 163, footnote 6.

Before you claim now anything about Dr. Gagnon i should probably tell you that he is arguably one of the most anti-gay theologian there is so if even he admits this meaning of the word it should mean something.

However as i said already we can not claim that the centurion was gay nor can we claim that pais in this instance refers to a person in a homosexual relationship.

Thats not something which can be proven or disproven beyond reasonable doubt as there is not enough information about this particular case anywhere to be found to claim either way.

Furthermore most likely the centurion was not "gay" as in the meaning we today understand when using this word. To be more accurate in Rome during that time most people who engaged in same-sex sexual activities were not homosexual under todays definition but were heterosexual and married and had same-sex sexual activities as well. That was the widely accepted and practiced way for same-sex sexual activities during that time.

In many instances these practices are described and in many instances the words used for the younger male part of that relationship was pais or paidika.

We know furthermore of many instances were roman citizens, especially those of high standing, bought male children and had sexual relationship with those slaves. These children were described as pais or paidika.

Instances of this description during that time period are various and range from Thucydides writings (445-400 BC) to Eupolis, Aeschines, Plato, Callimanchus till Plutarch (75 AD) to just name a few well known writers and poets of these days.

Either way as i stated already whatever meaning you apply onto the text and even when you say that the Centurion had a male lover it does not suggest anything at all.

What would you Jesus expect to do when, lets assume here now, a homosexual with a homosexual relationship comes to him and pleas for the life of his homosexual lover?

Condemn him and let the homosexual partner die?

Would that be in the spirit of Jesus? 

Or would that be something we would like to see and read in scripture to justify a homophobic tendency within our Church?

Jesus did what was right and healed the pais and it would be right no matter which meaning we use for this word.

"In many instances these practices are described and in many instances the words used for the younger male part of that relationship was pais or paidika.

We know furthermore of many instances were roman citizens, especially those of high standing, bought male children and had sexual relationship with those slaves. These children were described as pais or paidika.

Instances of this description during that time period are various and range from Thucydides writings (445-400 BC) to Eupolis, Aeschines, Plato, Callimanchus till Plutarch (75 AD) to just name a few well known writers and poets of these days.

Either way as i stated already whatever meaning you apply onto the text and even when you say that the Centurion had a male lover it does not suggest anything at all.

What would you Jesus expect to do when, lets assume here now, a homosexual with a homosexual relationship comes to him and pleas for the life of his homosexual lover?

Condemn him and let the homosexual partner die?"

I am well aware of pagan Rome in that era, but now you are telling us Jesus winked at children sold as slaves for Pedophilia?

This goes from bad to worse.  Base minds?

How about a man who cared about a servant or slave with out reading disgusting things into it?  Do you have proof of this buggering Centurion or are you just reading things into the words used. 

 

Wow Raymond you really like to interpret something into my words i never stated now dont you?

Look what i exactly wrote:

"However as i said already we can not claim that the centurion was gay nor can we claim that pais in this instance refers to a person in a homosexual relationship.

Thats not something which can be proven or disproven beyond reasonable doubt as there is not enough information about this particular case anywhere to be found to claim either way."

So instead of spitting out unfounded accusations at me go read what i wrote.

 

And you can not even compare the word "children" as we understand it today to the times back than.

In biblical times it was standard that what we consider "children" still were already married and had their first child.

Just educate yourself on the age of Maria as she was pregnant before projecting standards from our time towards biblical times.

"And you can not even compare the word "children" as we understand it today to the times back than.

In biblical times it was standard that what we consider "children" still were already married and had their first child.

Just educate yourself on the age of Maria as she was pregnant before projecting standards from our time towards biblical times."

"projecting standards" I do not project, I leave that for liberals.  I am educated on the history of that time and you are the one who used the word children.  

"bought male children"

So you are saying because people did things younger at that time it was OK for a young slave to be abused?  Your digging deeper.

This whole subject is projected and you accuse me of projecting. That is funny.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service