Was the Apostle Paul Gay?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2024
- The evidence suggesting Paul's anti-gay writings might be based on his own same-sex attraction.
Paul's enemies questioned his practice of working with male missionary companions and made veiled charges that these relationships were sexual. Meanwhile, in his own writings, Paul spent more time contemplating the idea of same-sex attraction than anyone else in the Bible.
Fascinating thank you. (Historian Tom Holland has interesting insights into 1st century sexuality btw!).
My (atheist) father was vehemently homophobic and misogynistic (he particularly hated ballet and male dancers, any sensitivity in boys). A heterosexual male I became a Christian age 17 and when I left home age 18 I joined a conservative Pentecostal community which was equally vehemently homophobic; as an artist working in the theatre with several gay people I was considered by my church to be misguided and actually toying with evil - complicit even - in the lion’s den so to speak - and I was told to have nothing to do with gay people, I ended friendships and work relationships on the advice of Pentecostal elders and so-called wise christian “friends”. I secretly held a judgemental attitude and contempt for gay people. This was early 1980s South Africa when homosexuality was illegal and police raided gay clubs and beat and whipped gays. I was aware that in my church fear and loathing masked as Christian love and an evangelistic burden for “sinners” souls. I so shamefully became complicit in all this cruelty. In an ironic turn I left the church under pretty traumatic circumstances - but it was a gay man - a dancer and painter - in the theatre - who offered me kindness and generosity when I was most vulnerable. He had no ulterior motives, made no advances, was simply a genuinely kind and concerned man. Even then I kept a pharisaical distance… and yet as time passed as a young man again and again I encountered gay men and women who accepted me even though I was really - secretly at least - a bigot. It took years to deprogram from the bullshit of my so-called mentors - and I can recognise the self-deception and disingenuousness of so many Christians - and I include my younger self here - who claim to love the sinner and hate the sin”.
It’s ironic that it was “sinners” who showed me what love is, when the”righteous” in their “holy” Pentecostal huddle were simply fearful, mean-spirited and self righteous.
.
The "idols cause gay thoughts" idea is so funny to me. If that were the case, wouldn't women lust after the male idols and men after the goddesses? Paul why are you only lusting after the male statues 👀👀👀🤷♀️
Herms were charged objects.
Unlike you Paul wasn't being self referential here.
I’m ex Mormon/LDS and have several gay friends who suffered through Conversion “Therapy” and my heart goes out to all those who’ve suffered it
Glad you got out of mormon lds but why are you running so fast to the pit of hell? Atheist apostate? I know that you have heard from the liars of mormons lds about God and Jesus but you have not experienced the truth and the power or you would be a disciple of christ and not apostate. Be mad it is written let the filthy be filthy and the clean be clean
@@gawiingego5107 I climbed out the pit of hell known as religion actually. After Mormonism I spend a year in Bible College to become a minister and discovered Christianity is man made and based mainly on Paul, not Jesus. I decided to convert to Judaism and studied with an Orthodox Rabbi for 5 years until I discovered it was man made as well.
Every turn of the page on both histories just screams false, and contradicts what science has proven. NO need for a god(s) to make it work either, it works all on its own.
@John Bryer shut your filthy mouth your a liar and you will be sorry for what you said every eye will see Him coming in the clouds even the dead every knee will bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. Good day
@John Bryer you are entitled to your own opinion and your own choice of whatever and so am I. All I was attempting to do was bring someone to the truth who had been subjected to false teachings and maybe save them from destruction. The day is coming when you will regret saying anything bad about Him and my God will forgive you in the next life but you want everyone else to give your ideas but you dont give mine hypocrite
@@gawiingego5107 best wishes to you. Seems a lot of time wasted first trying to be a minister then 5 years to be a rabbi. What living do you do now?
I've never thought Paul was gay. I simply thought that the reason he didn't marry was because he had eye problems. Not seeing out of my right eye since infancy & having two detached retinas in my left eye as a teenager, I always thought that Paul's being struck with blindness on the road to Damacus sounded like a detached retina (or detached retinas). Then again, everyone looks at the Bible from a personal perspective. To me, Paul also comes across as a very rigid, up tight personality in contrast to Jesus.
Paul is what Jesus would have called a false prophet.
Paul never married because he was a scammer and con man who was to busy running his scam and had too keep bouncing around, fleecing money like he was running a pyramid scheme.
The other apostles who actually knew Jesus (and he didn't) weren't constantly talking about money.
In Paul's letters he's always begging for money, and arguing with the apostles (who actually knew Jesus & the way Jesus practiced) because he was changing Jesus' Christianity into his own form of worship against Jesus' teachings.
All in order to attract Greek & Romans into converting, creating a larger flock to fleece more & more money out of the people.
If the Greeks & romans had to follow the life & ways of Jesus and the apostles (which is more strict than the loosey goosey way Paul says) he wouldn't be able to convert as many Greeks and Romans .
Paul just jumped on the bandwagon of a movement he saw spreading and started changing the laws & beliefs of Christianity to fit his view, that's easier for those in the West to convert too, and then keep them sending him money. Even people he converted started seeing he was all about the money.
@@masstv9052Funny how he sounds just like you, a wannabe scammer. Everyone on this bitter 1 note channel is bitter about some small slight, so it's not so much about "who hurt you" - it's all about, "who slighted you" - plot twist - they didn't even realise you existed - knife twist.
@@masstv9052 I actually wonder what the Apostle Paul did to hurt you? And if I was critiquing Paul the last thing my mind would be he kept asking people for money. Especially as he had a job working for his female Boss Lydia. Also the disciples of Jesus affirmed Paul and sent him out to preach to the Gentiles in Acts. So I believe the apostles over you thank you. If Pauls teachings was really so hostile to what the apostle taught then why didnt they stop Paul and allow him to have so much influence?
What about all the weird stuff he did w his boy slave
right, a total drama queen in other words.
1:02:07 this quote about dreamers is referencing 13 “If a prophet or (A)a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and (B)the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God (C)is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Not about gay people.. it’s about false prophets
Wow. You sound like a really gentle and thoughtful guy. The type who really knows what they are talking about. It seems you have 8 admirers. Id leave that bar of soap on the floor. This is advice.
@@taketimeout2share You sound unintelligent
@@Paul-dw2clCorrect. I am.
Right on
It foretells paul and the people did stone him
OMG, I was not aware of the soap opera going on in the subtext of the New Testament! 😂😂😂
That's because it's a long running click bait soap opera, with the usual obsession, eveything in history is gae! (Like meeee!)
It's a variety of Narcissism, seeing yourself and your fetishes in everyone.
Why does Paul have any authority at all?. He never met Jesus. He just made up his own religion.
Because his letters are the oldest documents christians have I suppose. The whole thing is pretty silly.
Pelosi never met George Washington....
Peter talked about Paul
He doesn't have any authority. He had ideas about how church meetings were conducted and views on salvation. He stated himself at one point that God never commanded him to say what he was writing but that it was his own views. Nothing written in the new testament of the bible should have any authority. That isn't the purpose of it. That's a notion dreamt up in the middle ages to counteract the authority imposed by the Catholic church.
@@888YouCantHandle I guess that's something
Richard the Lionheart was married to Berengaria de Navarra. But they had no children. He had destined as his successor his Nephew Arthur, who was the son of his late elder brother Geoffrey.
He had destined as his successor his Nephew Arthur, who was the son of his late elder brother Geoffrey - with whom he delighted in playing hide the salami.
One thing that I've never heard a good response about is how he could be a Roman Citizen when part of being one is sacrificing to the Caesar on the throne. It is one of the many things that I've never heard from the Christian pastors I've known.
I don't think that the sacrifice requirement came into effect that early on. From what I have read, I think it was started when Christianity had spread substantially and was starting to threaten the Romans. Sacrificing and eating that food was a way of demonstrating that you're not Christian and adhere to the Roman religion and practises
I'm sure all they did for Ceasar at the time was paying taxes.
Nope, historical records say that Pilate snuck shields honoring Tiberius into Jerusalem (Flavius Josephus or Clementine of Alexandria); also Pliny the Younger requested Christians say a prayer or pledge to Trajan in his account
I thought Jews, around the time of Jesus and Paul, had been granted special privilege to not have to observe certain Roman requirement or requests that violated the Torah. The Romans discovered the Jews would truly rather completely revolt and die than to do certain things. For a while Rome truly respected that and thought it wasn't worth the trouble to force them to work on Sabbath, mess with their temple too much, or force them to sacrifice to other Gods.
This, most likely, is partially why some Jewish Christians were so adamant in getting some Christians to get circumcised. At first Christianity was visually a jewish religion and so gained the same benefits. However as it grew more gentile, and as more and more it was accepted that gentiles did not have to keep the law, Rome [probably] questioned if it deserved the same exempt status as judaism. The problem really escalated when the majority of jews themselves completely rejected christianity as having anything to do with them
Love the expression on St Pauls face in the opening shot. "Whaaat? Me? Gay? N-no-o..."
"Love the expression on St Pauls face in the opening shot. "Whaaat? Me? Gay? N-no-o...": "I can explain this...uh..we were rehearsing for a play for the Sunnyvale Community centre..."
I thought this when I was younger and studying... Paul breaking traditions, him only travelling with young men, the slurs...
Paul vs. The Original apostles ideological disagreements led me to doubt a lot of The New Testament... Great analytical presentation!
He only had disagreements about the gentiles if they needed to be formally converted to Judaism or not. That's only the disagreements between them. And Israeli Jews that time were anti-foreigners because Romans occupied the land of Israel so it just logical they would have reservation about gentile converts. Paul did not break traditions. He's a Pharisee, he knew Torah. The reality will still remain, Judaism, Christianity and Islam dont and will nevee permit homosexuality. 👍
The specific details varied through time and by city state, but classical Hellenistic cultures that embraced the institution of pederasty (mentorship) had a very strict social hierarchy: roughly, elite men, ordinary men, men who had received a phallus (orally or anally), women, male slaves, femaie slaves. Sexual intercourse between a mentor and mentee, therefore, was expected to be intracrural (non-penetrative, phallus between the other's thighs). Obviously the likelihood of undiscussed genuine penetration can be assumed fairly common, varying by degree of legal stigma in each city. Slavery was different than what Americans tend to think of, as it was not necessarily permanent and not justified by notions of human species or racism per se. Phallic reception, however, conveyed a permanent status change, if known by non-participants-or in some cities, it only mattered when it came up as a legal proceeding. Indeed couples were revered during some eras among the military, e.g. the army depicted in the movie "300."
Honestly? I've little doubt that at one point homosexuality wasn't even an issue. Although I can see how the powerful would exploit this. Kings and their page boys, away at war for months on end.
Homosexuality was condemned in the Torah 3,500 years ago.
The bad effect of Torah on Paul personally may be accepted (it's a fact of his psychology) but it was presumptuous of him to believe that everyone else responded as he did.
If he was, he’d be known as Panting Paula 😂
Having a male lover and not being gay, I would rather be celibate.
In your time maybe
Gay means you are into guys - so why would a guy have a male lover if he's not into men?
I hears someone say, I'm like sex with men, but I'm not gay. Or I'm a homosexual, but I'm not gay - or was it the other way around? Anyway, they just seem to have their own definitions other people don't know what the fuc* they're talking about.
@@peterfraser9070 Roman era slavery
@@JasonWolfeYT still...
As an atheist I try to know as much about religions as possible. No point saying your against anything without knowing about it. What I find in all religions is the reason I no longer join committed. Members eventually form cliques and turn on each other and eventually themselves, losing the the reason for their being and any semblance of the original
Atheism is a religion. It has it's "beliefs"...it has it's "doctrine"...it has it's authoritative writings... it has it's apostles, disciples and saints...and it's churches too. But it's a false religion because it can't address the fundamental questions of human existence, origin, meaning, morality and destiny. You need Christianity for that.
@@markanthony3275 You really do spout a lot of nonsense. You twist things around to suit yourself and then try to convince others. Try to use the brain
@@Gerryjournal Your post is what psychologists call "projecting". It's a defence mechanism whereby a person who doesn't want to accept an ugly truth about himself...projects that ugliness onto someone who reveals what's true. I've read enough history, psychology, medical science and theology to know exactly what's true and what's false...the three falsehoods of LGBT sexuality are #1 That their sexuality is innate, a matter of genetics #2 That their sexuality is irreversible...and #3 That their sexuality is natural and beneficial. If you're warped...you should actually read some relevant material that isn't just what you want to believe...cause that's what you're doing here. Who knows, if you decide you want out, you might outlive the shortened lifespan of the average male homosexual. Shortened because of much higher than average incidents of hepatitis A, hepatitisB, infectious hepatitis, fatal liver cancer, fatal rectal cancer, fatal oral cancer, all the STD's in existence including HIV/AIDs and HPV and related cancers, plus higher than average incidences of drug addiction, alcoholism, anxiety , depression and suicide. Those are some of the medical facts I alluded to earlier...so your future isn't very bright should you continue in the lie.
@@markanthony3275 What an extraordinary bigoted and ignorant fool you are. I pity you and your wasted life
Having read all Paul's writings I began to suspect that Paul was a self-loathing ex-gay. Not only is Paul outspoken on the subject, but he also has a strong anti-female bias. In addition, Paul often speaks of the "wicked" behaviour he was involved with before his conversion. While this is not definitive, the implication is clear. Sadly, I believe he suffered a life-long inner torment between his sexual preferences (whether he acted on them or not) and his determination to avoid sexual immorality as he saw it.
Wow. If anything, I originally thought he might've been a demisexual hetero the way he seemed to be okay with abstaining from sex and alluding that he, himself, did not burn with the desire for sex (I Corinthians 7:2-7).
The "wicked" behavior" he was involved with before his conversion , refers
to his massive persecution of Christians ( mentioned in Acts ) when
he was still Saul . As a Pharisee he really hated them !
@@chrisbrown8640 But what were the wicked things he kept on doing that he didn't want to do (Romans 7:15)? Do you seriously think he was secretly beating Christians as backsliding behavior? C'mon. Lol
@@freshstart2105 The Scripture does not say what his " backsliding
behavior" was . You can spin it any way you want to....
Instead of trying to dismantle God's Servant on the psychiatrists
couch, why not make a Fresh Start and let the Holy Spirit guide you in all things....you know not how long your days on this earth will be....no one does.....
@@chrisbrown8640 Don't be presumptuous. I never said what sin(s) Paul was referring to. I was telling you that your response to the comment did not address what they were really saying. His slaughter of Christians was one thing and whatever he struggled with after converting was another.
The story that Paul changed his name from Saul appears only in Acts not in Paul’s letters.
Because of tithes and offerings. Gays will soon be lovingly accepted by the christian church just as those who were divorced were accepted. My focus is on finding the favor of the creator and that alone. Humans have a seemingly inherent nature to become a part of groups that actively seek other humans for the sole purpose of condemning them. Now it's as simple as, if you stand alone somewhere there is a group that is going to condemn you.
Thanks for sharing this absolutely amazing video!
The information regarding Paul's sexual orientation is eye-opening, brilliantly put forward, and seems logical to me. Actually, I always believed that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was sexual owing to his marital status; but the likelihood that he was gay never dawned on me...
Thanks again. Blessings on you always.
A thorn in the flesh was something God gave him. It wasn't of his own doing and was given to him later in his life because he had grown proud of what God had shown him. When you get deep with God, God will show you things and you experience things most don't and that can make you feel better than others. That is the reason Paul was given a thorn.
I haven't watched the video, so I can't really say anything about its content. But no, of course he wasn't, not from his texts. How do people read *so* much into his writing? People can read homosexuality into anything these days, its incredible.
49:53 - "Jesus had not one word to say about homosexuality". I mean sure, if you ignore where he says "for out of your thoughts (your "heart") come evil ideas, murder, adultery, *sexual immorality* , thievery, slander, false witness. It's things like this that defile a human being [to God], not eating food when your hands are unwashed"
Many of us miss this in Jesus's teaching.
58:00 - With the understanding of the "New Perspective on Paul" Paul is mainly against Ritual Purity laws, circumcision, dietary observance, Sabbath/Holy Days. These were mainly "the works of the law" for him. He thinks he's under "the torah of Messiah" now however (1 Corinthians 9:21), the words and instruction of the Messiah, no longer Moses. He did think Jesus repeated some of leviticus, namely the laws on sexual immorality and perversion, which included things like incest, adultery, homosexuality, (and presumably beastiality). Paul's faith *certainly* included works, this is more than evident from even just his undisputed writing, he just didn't include "works of the law" as defined above.
59:57 - Regarding James's letter, though it can be argued he was advocating for Jewish law and/or directly and intentionally challenging Paul's view. It also can equally, if not more persuasively, be presented that James is advocating for any recipient of his letter to have faith + obedience in his brother Jesus's words, not Moses. Notice, in all of Paul's examples against works it's to do with "works of the law" (Food isuess, circumcision, holy day observance). It's never over matters of caring for another human being in love or maintaining divine sexual holiness. Paul says that everyone who refuses these things should expect death when Jesus returns. James's letter is against people neglecting basic care for another human being (food-clothing) while claiming "faith". James's "works" example is caring-empathetic acts of love, not "works of the law". If he was writing against Paul or for the keeping of the works of the law, he never actually contradicts Paul's argument nor does he ever say people need to keep the works of the law.
1:03:13 - Balaam purposefully, with conscience evil intent, got the Israelites to eat idol food with the Israelites fully knowing it is. All Paul said was if you don't know if it's idol meat, just eat it. But if you find out it is, *don't* eat it. He never advocates for eating it, he just doesn't force people who are in situations where it's really difficult to find out to become vegetarians or stress themselves out over it.
People are looking for all these secret code words to call out Paul, yet fail to notice we have no record of anyone calling out Paul by name or directly going against his teachings, if he was such a problem and an enemy. The gospels call out the Pharisees, even the high priest. Acts calls out Simon Magus. Jude calls out the people in his communities advocating for freedom to be sexual immoral, the letters of John call out their enemies by directly opposing their teachings.
"But no, of course he wasn't." Well, of course, lol, that's impossible. Get yer head out of yer as*.
Dude why you think the Catholic Church began implementing celibacy and harbored so many pedos? Yeah they follow the teachings of paul to a t
@@peterfraser9070Ok sir, sorry, i should say, improbable.
Have you read Paul's writings? I have and so have many others. What did you read in Paul's writing, that in context gave you any sort of idea he was gay?
Is there a bibliography for this , please?
I was thinking this before I even saw this lecture!
Me too
I was thinking about the "are you gae? you are gae!" video.
the 'Q' in LGBTG etc stands for 'Questioning' not Queer.
Was queer way before questioning came around.
Thank you for this well balanced, very informative presentation. I'm following this channel now for quiet some time and every time the presentations, which are very thorough and clearly not biased by a rigid set of believes, help me to form my own opinion about the subject. Very much appreciated.
in minute 49 you talk about I cor 10:10 in regards to Paul's wife, but that verse is "And do not grumble, as some of them did-and were killed by the destroying angel." Do you have the wrong verse or do I?
I also have had a feeling that Paul was gay. How he was against marriage
I can’t believe that you didn’t include Edward II.
"Was the Apostle Paul Gay?" - This thought never occured to me, and you speak about it an hour and a half. :-D
I actually heard this in my conservative church upbringing decades ago, but they would use it as an example of what a gay person should do if they "experience same sex attraction," be celibate or marry the opposite sex anyway and live a "godly life." It's an amazing backflip, I suppose the spouse's feelings about their partner's attractions to them is irrelevant?
@@artemismoonbow2475 given that according to their sick world view """good wives""" are basically supposed to be household slaves, yes, I suppose so.
I'm 30 minutes in and he hasn't spoken of Paul yet. This dude has a lot to say about homosexuality!
@@YaoEspirito yeah ...he's gay! You didn't know? 🙄
@@justmoritz That’s how it was All the way back to caveman Times The man Hunt The woman Cooks 😂😂
"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."
Stalin would have loved that song from comrade Lennon! Stalin also had the same dream...and it only cost the lives of 40 million people.
I think we probably shouldn't be trying to categorize ancient concepts of sexuality into modern, Western concepts.
We're really only stuck on these modern concepts of gay and straight "orientation" due to the influence of Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs. Precisely what we see is that in ancient times and other cultures sexuality is more complex than a simple reaction the binary concept of gay or straight - which is actually going to have an affect on "orientation" especially when and where "orientation" is meaningless to the people because it's not a really a concept.
As in modern Middle Eastern cultures where men will say, "There are no gay people here. All men have sex with boys, but we all have wives."
Or in modern Wester cultures where there are men who have sex with men but will say they are straight because they are the top.
Humans are (pan)sexual. Trying to categorize beyond that is really just a response to the prohibition of homosexuality.
It's like trying to categorize people by whether they like tomatoes or like to eat fish eyes. Humans are omnivorous.
Humans also love to form groups and "other" people who are different - categories help create "others", sure.
All that being said, sure, Paul have struggled with his same-sex attraction in a society where same-sex attraction is prohibited.
And could be very likely that Paul was more than a 1 on the Kinsey scale. And that would be highly problematic in a society where any homosexual activity is unlawful.
Most Humans would be somewhere between a 0 and a 10 on the Kinsey scale - barring social prohibitions against homosexual behavior.
The esoteric teachings of has been taught to be seen from an incorrect point of view. Soon the world will understand that the esoteric teachings are the basis of all the major religions. The spread of humanity is damaging to the ecosystem. We are too many. Being too many is the reasons of wars, death and destruction. The esoteric teachings were about balance with nature, the earth and all the habitants for a perfect functioning ecosystem. Not resisting the craving of sex has led to over population and lack of resources.
Kinsey was about having sex with children and screwing up their mental growth. Funded by jews.
I thinking you might be projecting. I'm completely straight. And handsome men just make me angry, jealous.
Shut the fuc* up with that sh*t!! The guy in the video for one is putting into the context of the times.
You are RLDS? Your topics are great. I wish you were my Bishop when I was young.
not that there's anything wrong with that ...
Yes my friend, just like sodom and gomorrah lived happily ever after 😊
Why!! Why do I live in the US?!! I would love to be part of this community!! ❤️
In the greek world gay casual sex was very common , That's why he talked so much against it. He was a jew remember?
Too many people focus on the "it's all speculation" part.
It is, but it is an important allegory for what's still very much going on today.
Religious and political leaders are still making life of their constituents unreasonably hard because they are personally conflicted.
Why does a gay couple who does not believe in Lawmaker Xs hell (literal and personal) have to not get married, just because Lawmaker X can't sort out the conflict between the homosexuality God made him and the same homosexuality he forbade him.
That's all this talk is saying. This type of behavior may have gone back as far as the religion itself. Sure it's all speculation, but it's VERY relevant in our lives, TODAY.
I used to be evangelical and honestly those who point the finger the most are the ones doing it. Or so it's been my experience
When you're as deep into sin as you quite obviously are, excuses are all you have left I suppose
John, if Bald Paul was the second founder of Christianity,
who was the first/original founder?
Certainly not Jesus, he was a Torah Observant Rabbi!!
That would have been bald-headed Sally, but what happened was that she saw Aunt Mary coming and she ducked back in the alley - oh baby!
The lecturer is so talented, i relate totally as an intellectual & above all, a true nerd (I'm a software data engineer not historian or theologian but as a Christian, they have an astonishing gift for exhortation! As this vid Conveyed - the lgbtq+ friendliness & openness made me checkout community of Christ. I'm ashamed to say i was surprised at their beliefs, as typical (tho not rich) wasp background, Mormons were shamefully derided as culty/offrails. Not anymore. I love being wrong!
The idea that Paul was gay ads up to his role. Being an outcast in the eyes of the Christ Jewish clergy and Levitian laws it encouraged him to formulate a new and revolutionary Christendom against the Jacobites since he knew that he has no chance within the Jewish Christendom traditions as a gay former Pharisee. Paul reasons 3 times: god wants him to be so extra in his gay weekness,, as you quotet in your brillant analysis. It makes so much sense! This gavre Paul his determination, there was no way back to the Jacobite Christian-Jewish tradition! Ffnially Judaistic Christians like James and his folks were dispersed by the Romans in 70 BC and Paul´s idea of Christendom remained to be the more compatible and tolerant one! Also everybody saw, that the Jewish (-Christian) beliefs lost everything, so their idea of god and the Messiah failed and they were marginalised, they lost the lead of the true Chritendom ..
1:02:36 funny that in Twi , the Akan language of Ghana, sakora means bald headed haha
Thought I should post this since I shared it with a commenter , this is from a book that shares a lot with the Bible and is very old but has been decided non-canon. It’s called the didache 2 and it has an alternative word than arsenkoita (if you guys have ever heard that , people take it to mean male-bedder but a lot of people think it’s a mistranslation) here’s the quote from Wikipedia about the alternative word in the didache.
“Didache 2 displays a certain commonality
with one another, almost with the same warnings and
words, except for one line: thou shalt not corrupt boys.
Whereas Paul uses the compound word arsenokoitai
(apoEvoKoîTaI), a hapax legomenon literally meaning
male-bedder,”
I think the direct translation is "butt fukker"
This has been disproven as false many times. It still persists and there are better arguments
>"Man I hate bees, they're so noisy and their stings hurt. It's also hard to get rid of them"
>"You only hate bees because you secretly lust for them"
Kinda weird to compare gay people to bees, but then again if someone said to me they hated bees because they’re noisy and their stings hurt my response would be about the same as someone who said they hate gay people, just leave them be (pun intended) and live your life don’t dedicate time and energy to persecuting them. If they said they can’t do that they have a moral obligation to persecute bees I’d also think something deeper was going on there, maybe not lust but why do you think about bees so much, why do you care
@@gelbutethl1934 It's an analogy meant to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument.
I care about the moral status of society and because of that support condemnation of immoral acts. This and they won't leave you alone, just see the pride parades.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF but on what authority are you dictating what is and isn’t immoral? By what right do you think it’s justified for you to impose your own personal moral values on the lives of others? If your only answer is your own religious beliefs I’d have to ask why do you believe that your faith (not knowledge, faith) in a certain worldview is justification enough to condemn others and dictate the moral status of society as a whole? You may hate bees, but that doesn’t give you a right to condemn, persecute, or harm them. Christianity is built upon faith that our lord and savior Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, but I don’t think that my personal faith in Christ is enough justification for me to condemn or hate any of the Lord’s creations, they are as He made them, and the devil has no power other than that afforded by Him. And nobody makes you attend pride parades, you can always just leave
@@gelbutethl1934 Aren't you being a hypocrite here? Your position (that homosexuality is not immoral and even if it is we should just leave them alone) is itself a moral position. There is no "neutral" position on morality. You are dictating what should or should not be tolerated.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF No, because my point has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality. It’s a matter of rights. By what right do you have to dictate the actions of others, just because it’s immoral? There are plenty of immoral things that society and the government at large tolerates, that doesn’t make them any less immoral. Gambling, to name one, cheating, to name another. I may find cheating on one’s partner immoral, but that doesn’t give me the right to persecute someone who has cheated or take action against them. Nor does it, in my opinion, give any government or organization a right to condemn or persecute them. My point is that just because you disagree with something on a moral basis doesn’t give you the right to intercede in the lives of others. PETA argues that it’s morally wrong to kill animals for food, clothing, or scientific research, but nobody thinks that their morals give them a right to harass people for wearing fur or eating meat. I personally find it immoral that bars are allowed to serve patrons that drove there, but I’d get the shit kicked outta me by everyone in the bar if I tried to take their keys or their beers, and I don’t think that’s an unfair response. Your own morals are not justification enough to impose your will or lifestyle upon others.
Jesus speaks about homosexuals and he is not condemning them - the prophet Isaiah [whom Jesus confirmed as being a good/ true prophet] confirms Jesus by saying:
"For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose [the things] that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off." Isaiah 56:4-5 KJV
Jesus said: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]." Matthew 19:12 KJV
????
@@brannertmorphail2142 "????": ????? (I did one more "?" then you did!)
I was getting ready to correct the “q = queer” comment, [I thought it was questioning] but I looked it up, it’s both. I learn something new every day. And btw, AMAZING lectures. I’ve been binging them for days, now. [bingeing vs. binging, same comment all over again]
How "WE" (the "straights") read them. Alexander's biggest love was male just to pick the first one of your example, also officially labeling him as a bisexual!
He definitely was bisexual.
Most Greek Macedonian men from that time went both ways. That is also a few hundred years different and a completely different culture. The Bible speaks clearly against a man should not lay with another man, or women with women. These modern day Pharisees just make it up as they go along, most likely Jesuit trained Freemason propaganda.
@@HOWBAZARY Bisexuality also is the actual biological default setting in human sexuality, not heterosexuality as the heteronormativity wants you to believe.
Do you want to discuss the bible and its content, what was written, when and by whom? The parts you refer to seem to be OT (or homophobic Paul whom sexual orientation is debatable) and Jesus said these were not just laws. If you are a Christian you should at least be familiar with the words and teachings of the one your faith is named after. He who is without sin .... so stop throwing rocks!
So me a man loving someone like I do my heavenly father is not homophile? Talk about crossed wires and propaganda.
@@schiffelers3944 Wrong! Where do you come up with these bull crap theories? Your very brutish and have no understanding. Your insane if you believe Bisexuality is natural. Two men or two women cannot make a baby. You were born into lies and deception and you don't know your left from your right.
@@HOWBAZARY looks like you didn't pay attention in biology class
I don't know if he was gay, but, he sure as hell hated women.
I do
He was NOT Gay and he did NOT hate anyone.
Hope that helps.
Fascinating topic. We will probably never know for certain but it is still a very important question , why was Paul so much against sex?
He was not against sex. He was against fornication but very much pro marriage. He was (as a pharisee) also against homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9
This is EXACTLY why Gentiles were never given the law. Not one word of Scripture indicates that Paul was homosexual whether in thought or action. He preached repentance and THE LAW
@ecgf but he warned people against getting married because the end times were near. Then changed his message later.
Maybe Paul was sexually touched when he was a child and this experience, if it happened, caused him to repress his sexuality as much as he could.
Paul was okay with sex and marriage, but if he was a sexually repressed and self-loathing gay man, he would have definitely had a difficult life.
It was my immediate impression, while reading Romans 7 in college as a newly converted Christian, that Paul was obviously ashamed of being gay (or at least of having homosexual desires). This is the first time (decades later, long after I left the religion) that I've heard of scholars even considering that idea. It's nice to learn that I am not the only one to hear that expressed in Paul's words.
Just because your homosexual doesn't mean Paul was. Also what is a newly converted Christian? Jesus Christ quickens whom he will, man cannot accept Christ.
This is why not just anyone should be attempting to explain scripture
Honestly, I've just read that chapter and how you get from it that Paul is a repressed homosexual I don't know. Probably from the lines about sin in the flesh versus desire to do good in the inner being. But, you are stretching it, and in fact missing the point he's actually making there.
@@MidnightIsolde
It's part of the gaymification of alt. history.
YT is the Victorian
"Penny Dreadful" or the earlier subversive Ballad Sheet of our day.
Soon the whole of history will be traans, because looky here, they all wear short skirts and loong dresses.l!
@@MidnightIsoldeHow do u know what was in Paul's mind anymore than the OP does?
Lol ! 😂 I think he was gay too !
The Apostle Paul’s other name was Joecephus Flavius.
No it was Saul
@truth3, you’re looking at an idiot who adopted Atwill’s “Caesar’s Messiah” which has no supporting documentation.
The Apostle Paul’s other name was Joecephus Flavius.: and his camp name was Bigusdickus Flavorfullus
Yes Paul was definitely not one who desired women. Paul also saw an angel of light and also taught lawlessness. Things that make me go hmmmmm.
Yes Paul was definitely not one who desired women. Paul also saw an angel of light and also taught lawlessness. Things that make me go hmmmmm.: Now you're making a cheap gay slur by implying that it's immoral. How dare you (but the seeing an angel of light part was cool) ! Have a good one.
Nowhere in the New Testament is Paul referred to as an "apostle" by anyone other than Paul himself. The only "apostles" in the Book of Acts are the original apostles of Jesus. Therefore, "Paul the Evangelist" would be a much more accurate term.
To refer to Paul as "the Apostle," is to state that you consider Paul to have actually have been considered a true "Apostle" by the original followers of Jesus. But the fact is that he wasn't. In the late 50's CE, he wasn't even considered a proper evangelist by the original apostles.
Jesus disciples were not called apostles either.
Paul explained that he had a direct encounter with Jesus Christ himself while he was on the road to Damascus to kill and persecute Christians. So he did NOT become an apostle by the choice of men. This is all explained in his writings.
@@markanthony3275
Thank you!
Sodomy in male/female relationships are about doing it French and/or Greek style, fellatio (orally) / anally.
Also only missionary position was aloud, (probably jumping the gun again). But this again ties in with the Lilith myth.
Autosexuality and some creation myths, would be so taboo in some religious cultures.
Sodomy also included bestiality, and torture/BDSM, everything not clinical and related to reproduction.
Sex is an obsession in most current religions
@@Gerryjournal Not just religions it's a human thing. Commercials, etc. The majority are sexual beings, and even ace can be social beings wanting intimacy, connections.
Allowed, not aloud. Freudian slip maybe? 😂
@@TisDana Not my first language maybe?
@@schiffelers3944 you managed to spell everything else correctly
'nose-kissing' (aka Hongi in Aoteoroa and elsewhere) is not 'gay', or even sexual, but a highly symbolic act of sharing the breath (or spirit), no less important than sharing a cup of wine to Christians.
The two men “nose touching” is the common heterosexual male fight “bluffing”
It's weird how most sexologists and sociologists have no problem admitting that people who commit voluntary male-on-male sexual acts in prison is a result of their environment and situation and not their "orientation". But outside of prison all voluntary male-on-male sexual acts are suddenly "biologically hardwired". If we can accept that people's sexual behavior in prison isn't "real" or authentic why can't we accept their sexual behavior outside of prison also isn't real or authentic? 🤔
Prison is an all-male/female-free environment. SOME heterosexual males (especially the younger ones) can't imagine spending 20 yrs or more without sex, so they rationalize away their heterosexual nature and engage in male-on-male sex, but only to satisfy their most basic urges. Most of these men engage in "Top" only behavior, so they don't actually pleasure other men... they just receive pleasure.
It has been suggested that Pavlos’ thorn in the flesh was a nagging wife! LoL
He says in Corinthians he's unmarried.
Eyesight was the thorn in the flesh.
If a "straight dude" is homophobic, chances are greater he's hiding something. I think that's common knowledge at this point. For currupt churches to make it seem like Paul was an ideal Christian just drives into the idea more that when people preach "truth" so intensely, they are most definitely that thing they are preaching against. Paul must have been one miserable and angry man. I actually feel sorry for him.
Paul wasn't explicitly homophobic. His teachings on homosexuality were related to idol worship rituals. Men having sex with other men and engaging in mass orgies was practiced in other religions. It wasn't being gay that was an issue but the worship of false God's. Also, his message was about not judging those people because a lot of his followers had done the same at some.
What is sad about your statement is it not only reflects your lack of understanding Paul but your lack of understanding yourself. Paul taught that every man is capable of sin. Paul taught we all have the temptation or urge to sin but we resist.
Paul taught against lying but was he tempted to lie? Yes!
Paul and the scripture teaches that all forms of wickedness lives in the heart of every man , it is our internal struggle to resist these temptations.
We all resist internally doing the very things we teach against outwardly.
If the majority find it disgusting and repulsive a new word is needed.
Not many of us are afraid of you and definitely not hiding anything.
How do u define homophobic?
@@principlemethods5281 by definition it's listed as irrational.
Some people have a fear of venomous snakes and there's nothing irrational about that.
It's not an irrational fear or aversion when rational people know full well it's a sick perversion some want to justify.
Love and lust are two entirely different things.
Great session. Very informative but I resent being called "unfortunate" @1:15:18. I am a heterosexual male who does not like to hang out with women. Not sure why that is unfortunate but I guess I am part of the "unfortunate" patriarchy.
Paul wrote " in the beginning it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Its in the back of the bible somewhere where nobody gets to it.
Judging by what Paul wrote, he was obviously asexual.
Don’t think so...
He was a single man who did not engage in pre-marital sex...because God said it was an abomination...and he obeyed God.
I was just reading on Paul, for a min I thought he was just homophobic, now it may be him projecting or just redactions and interpolations
49:00 I think that makes no sense, all that is being said is if I tell you dont think about a chair, you probably will think about a chair. So better would be not a law telling you what not to do but a law telling you what to do . at least that is how I read it.
Considering Paul was a False Apostle it makes perfect sense he was gay.
Romans 3:7 - admitted liar
2 Corinthians 12:16 - he admits being a deceiver
Galatians 2:11-14 - insults Peter of calling him a hypocrite
2 Corinthians 3:12,13 -disrespects Moses, "we use great boldness of speech And NOT as Moses...
Galatians 2:6-9 - insults the closest Apostles to Jesus.
2 Corinthians 13:1,2 - Paul makes a mockery of the Law.
1 Corinthians 9:19-22- Imitates a chameleon blending in with his surroundings.
Romans 3:10-18 Paul claims to quote Psalm 14, instead he twists and takes it out of context.
Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:8,9 both contradict Jesus in Matthew 22:35-4
2 Timothy 1:15 - he admits ALL in Asia rejected him.
You're a conspiracy theorist then, correct?
You get all this from your Mosque?
@@METVWETV Mosque?? I follow the teachings of Yahushua (Jesus Christ).
Muhammad is just as bad Paul, yet somehow your sure I'm Muslim.
You get all this from your Church?
@joebran5413
Convinced? Of course Not!
Suspected? Yes.
Though those who insist on using Yashusha are typically Messianic Jews who also insist on holding to their Jewish roots and partices so that too would make sense since Paul taught that this is no longer necessary, that the Law was fulfilled.
So please share, what faith you do subscribe to?
Why don't you unpack where your hatred of Paul comes from or is it his message? How a man who traveled more than 10,000 miles and set up at least 14 Churches during his 14 year Ministry, was beaten, imprisoned and ultimately executed, would be a devil?!
How the Apostles embraced Paul as a Brother?
And how God allowed Paul to write ⅔ of the NT?
Thank you
I'm not straight 🤣 but it's ok I interested in this
Are you Christian ?
Listening to this has softened my heart toward Paul.
Richard I was married to Berengaria of Navarre, but much circumstantial evidence suggests he was probably gay.
ummarised in McLynn, pp. 92-3. Roger of Howden tells of a hermit who warned, "Be thou mindful of the destruction of Sodom, and abstain from what is unlawful", and Richard thus "receiving absolution, took back his wife, whom for a long time he had not known, and putting away all illicit intercourse, he remained constant to his wife and the two become one flesh". Roger of Hoveden,
1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind:…
( Look up to finish reading the Good News, because there is Hope for us all at the end of the verse) 🙏🏽💫✨
Joseph Smith said Paul got away with it so why can't I?
I'm trans, pansexual, and polyamorous, so yay Paul! As to the question, what if you're Judean and Gay? Easy: you're a Heblew! 😂🤣😆😅🥲😉😊😇
Paul was tormented enough to exclaim "O wretched man that I am!" (in his epistle to the Romans). If he just had a same-sex attraction, but didn't act on it, he'd have had little reason to regard himself as "wretched." Jude didn't assail Paul for an orientation; he attacked him for licentious behavior.
All of us are such.
Wrong, he knows without fail all men are wretched, this is what the Bible teaches
Of course he was tormented. He had spent years slaughtering Christians. I have no idea why you think sexuality had any part in why he considered himself wretched.
Circumcised Timothy, kind of kinky you think?
You might have the wrong reference with regard to apostles traveling with their wives. 1 Cor 10:10 isn't about that at all.
I like your approach to gay issues. Most people who talk about it get way too political. I agree with that one questioner about all the letters, and older peoples' aversion to the word "queer". I thought you handled that question very well.
I wish you had discussed Paul's unique use of the word "arsenkoites" in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Nobody knows what that word actually means.
Also interesting is that Paul circumcised Timothy, despite preaching that it was unnecessary.
You mentioned the feud between the Jacobite church and the Pauline church. They don't mention each other specifically, or as you said, the writings wouldn't have been in the New Testament. But, how do we know there wasn't a third group going around that both the Jacobites and the Pauline were criticizing?
Hey I hope you see this. I was just reading about the old texts that have been decided non-canonical to the Bible . There’s one called the didache 2 that has the same paragraph with arsenkotai in it but it uses a different word. I’ll just copy paste the quote from Wikipedia
“Didache 2 displays a certain commonality
with one another, almost with the same warnings and
words, except for one line: thou shalt not corrupt boys.
Whereas Paul uses the compound word arsenokoitai
(apoEvoKoîTaI), a hapax legomenon literally meaning
male-bedder,”
There does seem to be a compelling argument but it is impossible to know. I would say it doesn't matter except that people have suffered because of some passages. We shouldn't take Scripture literally , nor automatically adopt the opinions of ancient great men and women without question. Otherwise, more harm than good can result.
to imply or assert particular orientation to historical fivures of antiquity is highly anachronistic and an erroneous evaluation through a very skewed modern lense.
I love the comment from Bishop Spong---where Theodore McCarrick (Catholic Archbishop of Newark) was not only shocked but thought Paul being gay was one of the craziest things he had ever heard. Of course we all now know that Theodore McCarrick was more than gay and was laicized for his gay behaviours!!!!
It is Jude verse 11 that mentions Cain, Balaam and Korah. The parallel passage in 2 Peter only mentions Balaam. Interestingly, in 2 Peter, Paul is described as "our dear brother Paul" and his writings are commended. Therefore there does not seem to be the conflict between "Jacobin" and "Pauline" Christianity that you assert.
Peter wrote ZERO letters
Of some interest but rather long winded. The last slide summed it up
. This could have been a 10 min lecture.
Peter and James (John's brother) were the first church leaders, until James was killed and Peter had gone to implant churches which pretty much than the others apostles.
This is the reason why James the just became the leader of Jerusalem!
Except Peter didnt. He remained in Jerusalem
Lot's of bitching and in fighting. All seem like a pretty vile bunch
Why does it even matter?
It doesn't.
Many of the Jewish Christian leaders including some of the OG apostles at first considered Paul a blasphemer - that is until they saw the bags and bags of shekels that Paul was bringing back from gentiles who wanted to be part of Christianity but didn't want to be bothered with following the strict laws of Moses . Then , as is now , money has a funny way of influencing things .
49:20
I was looking up the verse 1 Cor 10:10 and it doesnt say anything about why Paul is traveling with other men.
Because it was dangerous to go alone 🤡
Brilliiant lecture that uncovers plenty of evidence backing up Bishop Spongs original idea. On the balance of the evidence I think the answer is yes. The next question is - what does it matter ? It helps when you read Paul's writings and have context when Paul starts handing out advice on how to live your life. Like everything in the bible, you need to think about it, evaluate it, and decide if you agree. If Paul was gay it doesnt invalidate any of his teachings but it does mean we have some explanation on why he is so passionate about sexual behaviour, contrasting with Jesus who didnt seem to worry about it so much.
"Many" evidence where? The Apostle Paul had wife. He was a strict Pharisee, a first century Jew. He would never be a gay. The only reason why you bend over backwards in arguing that biblical characters are the same as you, gay, is because you want to feel good about yourselves and want to argue that homosexuality should be ok within Christianity and Judaism. That will never happen. Paul had a wife.
So what was Paul’s wife’s name? Why did he not travel w her?
Ebionites held that Paul was circumcised and adopted Judaism ✡️. Also held Paul tried to marry Caiaphas’ daughter and was rejected. Sounds like Gay guy trying to get married to coverup that he’s gay. Did you miss “Brokeback Mountain”?
Crickets…. Lol.. because, he had NO wife. People will literally say anything.
So what was her name??
@@Coolguyallthetime2kSaul/Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees.
An unmarried Pharisees is as unlikely as a married Catholic Priest.
Surely, rather than 'rescuing the bible from fundamentalism', we should be returning to the fundamentalism of the pronoucement of Jesus that the fundamentals are : Thou shalt love the Lord your god with all your heart, and Love thy neighbour as yourself, and nothing is greater than these (fundamentals). Obviously the command to love one's neighbour is not a command to sex of any kind, but to Respect and Caring love, not sex.
Right. We're all born with predominant traits. Believing to be born of whatever utmost finite persuasion is pretty much as believing one is born circumcised... We learned about genetics but then came epigenetics. That we may hopefully reach a further understanding. I'm not holding my breath tho..
Funny how the debate over sexual divergence and terminology amongst thise within this categorization takes on the same religious ferver and semantic ridiculousness as most schisms in the Christian church do.
I would say I find the case that Paul may have been gay to be moderately persuasive without being altogether convincing, and I say that just due to lack of information. In Centre Place's defense, it will always be the case when we are looking at ancient sources that we aren’t certain about things, and that lack of certitude shouldn’t stop us from asking inspective questions.
Paul kinda smart tho, a lot of gay ppl would say being told not to be kinda encouraged them to be
If he lied about it, how could you take him seriously in other matters he is preaching? Possibly his teachings may have changed after his death,
He is not married, like a gay aro ace maybe?
Let humanity not forget the early Popes desire for younger men. Probably most Pope's we're gay. Then there are the Nuns...
I stopped watching these lectures. (sermons?) At first they seemed very comprehensive and unbiased. Later it became clear that the lecturer repeats *any* academic opinion as long as it degrades the authority of the original text. The topic eventually will then settle on homosexuality, which is of course no longer forbidden, as the texts are all invalidated. Apologies if this comment hurts the feelings of any homosexuals.
In Sodom and Gomorra people didnt worship the Elohim of the Israelites anymore and the two guests sent there were checking men under their tunic to recognise by their circumcised organs who was the believer of their Lord Yhvh.
Since Jesus never is found to condemn homosexuality....why would his brothers (James & Jude) be inclined to do it?
Wow. You took this topic and made it completely boring, and then ended up by saying "We don't know."
I could have said that would be the conclusion without watching it. lol
When you talked of the warrior couples my first thought was the second strongest argument aginst women In combat is romantic feeling getting the way of Profesional thinking which degrades combat effectiveness
Wasn't the original version of New Testament written by Q? Hmmm.
So maybe the anti-woman thing was partly because he needed to make up reasons not to get married? And maybe his celibacy promotion was about the same thing? People do really say and do some weird things to make excuses for themselves. I wish he'd come up with something else to say instead because his words were used to justify oppressing women for a loooooooooong time and even now.
No, he was part of a Patriarchal culture where women were below men. Had nothing to do with his sexuality.
Got dumped by a daughter of Caiaphas according to Ebionites in Epiphanius “Panarion”
What about the author of The Gospel of John? The character of the favourite apostle of Jesus, the rinsing of feet (euphemism for sex in ancient literature). I was often thinking of the early Christianity, even Jesus himself and the apostles as of sexually inactive/repressed gay fraternity. It's easier to be an ascetic prophet if you're gay in a culture where it is abhorred or forbidden.
I think: Paul was a Jew and later found out that he is gay. But he never could practice it or have a coming out because of the law of Moses and couldnt get over the fact that he is seen as a sinner by the law. Thats why he hated the law so much and constantly preached against it and Judaism. That also explains his theology= salvation by faith alone= basically, do what ever you want, as long as you accept Jesus=you will be saved. And his preaching against gays is only the result of his complex, that he not openly can live out his wishes.