The (Gay) Roman Centurn and His Lover | queerchristians

Contents:

• DID THE CENTURN AND HIS SERVANT HAVE A GAY RELATNSHIP?
• WAS THE CENTURN REALLY GAY AND IF SO, WHY DID PL SPEAK AGAST HOMOSEXUALY?
• GAY CENTURN HERY
• J AFFIRMED A GAY UPLE.
• WOULD YOU LOVE A GAY AFFIRMG CHURCH?
• POPE FRANCIS LLS FOR END TO ANTI-GAY LAWS AND LGBTQ+ WELE OM CHURCH
• DID J AFFIRM A GAY COUPLE?

DID THE CENTURN AND HIS SERVANT HAVE A GAY RELATNSHIP?

While is possible this centurn is the gay centurn om Matthew 8:5, the events happened two thoand years ago and there is no way to prove one way or the apostle Peter had the privilege of leadg another centurn to savg fah Christ, Acts apostle Pl teracted wh three centurns, Acts 22:25, 24:23 and 27:1 but there is nothg scripture to dite that the centurns were the same dividual as the centurn Matthew Pl speak agast homosexualy? Here are some of the lks where I al wh that Context of Romans 1Romans 1 and HomosexualyWhat did arsenoko mean to Pl?

To answer your qutn then, nothg the Bible dit that Pl me ntact wh the gay centurn of Matthew 8:5 and Pl did not speak agast homosexualy.

WAS THE CENTURN REALLY GAY AND IF SO, WHY DID PL SPEAK AGAST HOMOSEXUALY?

Th, his ncln was that by dog this, J sentially affirmed and ndoned, rather than nmned, homosexual sexual relatnships. As Prton Sprkle explas his excellent book, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexualy is Not Jt an Issue, was mon the Gre-Roman culture of J’ day for homosexual sex to be part of the power differential a relatnship, but only as long as the domant partner was olr, of higher social standg, and the peratg role.

Furthermore, Sprkle go on to expla that such relatnships the ancient world were not at all like our morn nceptn of a gay uple a lovg, nsensual, -equal relatnship.

For example, the peratg partner such relatnships was not necsarily nsired “gay” or “same-sex attracted, ” rather this was an act of subjugatg the passive partner and was about assertg power.

GAY CENTURN HERY

Furthermore, sce any such relatnship would have been abive nature, to say that this is an example of J ndong or affirmg a homosexual relatnship is far-fetched and misguid; certaly no one would argue that J, by healg this servant, was affirmg or ndong of the sexual abe of a mor by an olr man posn of power.

Although is very unlikely that this passage is speakg about the healg of a centurn’s same-sex partner, the qutn remas: Would J have healed a gay person? I highly remend the above mentned book, Prton Sprkle’s People to Be Loved: Why Homosexualy is Not Jt an Issue. Dpe the clary of the Christian church’s stance towards homosexualy, there are a number of stori throughout the Bible which, on closer examatn, reveal a potentially homoerotic unrcurrent.

J AFFIRMED A GAY UPLE.

Levic’ Law on Homosexualy The nmnatn of homosexualy Christiany and Judaism is ultimately rooted this teachg om Levic, the third book of the Old Ttament and the Torah: “Do not have sexual relatns wh a man as one do wh a woman; that is ttable. 12, NIV Although this appears to be a nclive nmnatn of homosexualy, there is some evince to suggt that the Book of Levic was posed over time by a multu of wrers, as is te of many ancient texts; if this was the se, there may have been a versn of the book which stayed silent on the issue of homosexualy, as some scholars argue. In light of this possibily, I will now nsir a story om the New Ttament, which J appears to allow, and even endorse, a homosexual relatnship.

A Homoerotic Interpretatn Many scholars have highlighted the nnotatn of the Greek noun pais, which the centurn to scribe his ill servant. Instead, many have suggted a readg of the pais as his male lover, due to lerary evince of homosexualy the Roman ary. If we accept the theory that the nnectn of the centurn and his servant is homoerotic, then J’ amazement at the centurn’s fah be highly signifint the discsn of relign and sexualy.

WOULD YOU LOVE A GAY AFFIRMG CHURCH?

Rather than remendg the ath sentence that is prcribed for male homosexualy Levic 20, J prais the man’s fah, tellg the crowd that he has never seen anythg like , and heals the pais.

POPE FRANCIS LLS FOR END TO ANTI-GAY LAWS AND LGBTQ+ WELE OM CHURCH

John is a nsummate orator, and he begs wh a story om his teenager years, when his vir refers to the qutn of homosexualy of 'that filthy bs. ' In this way he builds a powerful, emotive se, that J clus the exclud, and that if you oppose this you are unreasonable and prejudiced--and that gay people are amongst this exclud-now-clud group. ' The rhetoril move here, via the story Le 7, is that, far om the tradnal readg of the NT where same-sex relatns are rejected as patible wh the kgdom, gay people don't simply bee acceptable the kgdom; they bee the archetypal members, much the same way that J holds children before the discipl as archetyp of kgdom membership.

He healed him--and the thought didn't occur to him that later someone might thk of appealg to him support of the view that homosexualy is permissible. That parallel works if beg gay is like beg a woman ( effect argug that God ma four sex and not two) and that engagg same-sex sexual activy is like menstatg-- is somethg that you jt nnot help, and is an evable part of who you are, an argument that has s own problems. In addn to J' silence on homosexualy general (he never mentns same-sex timacy, not once, spe s prevalence his social ntext), speaks volum that he did not hate to heal a Roman's likely same-sex lover.

Christopher Zeichmann go further than this, and intifi such homonormative readgs wh neo-liberalist arism, where all alternative views are unacceptable and should be elimated. The isolatn of polil issu ntemporary LGBT activism (and amic productn attendg to the ncerns) often rults mpaigns for what is "good for gays" that overlook their normalisatn of neoliberal is not a uniquely (or even pecially) queer shortg, but rather a cultural logic which we are all implited. In a recent posted I wrote entled “Did J Enunter A Gay Couple”, I discsed the book ‘What the Bible Really Says About Homosexualy’ by Daniel Hemiak where Mr.

DID J AFFIRM A GAY COUPLE?

The gay revisnist terpretatn of the stori of the Centurns is of urse unfound the biblil text for numero reasons. (1) Though Plato and some others (among them Thucydis, Eupolis, Ach, Callimanch, and Plutarch) secular history may have ed the term pais on a "few ocsns" to refer to "beloved or same sex lover" (note that their do not "all" dite a homosexual e) what is at stake here is how the Bible the term pais.

Of the 24 of pais the Greek New Ttament, unls the closely related stori are the exceptn, is never ed of a homosexual relatnship! (3) Though related to # 1 above, we need to re-emphasize that there is no possible way pais uld mean a homosexual : Matthew 2:16; 12:18; 14:2; 17:18; 21:16; Le 1:69; 8:51, 54, 9:42; John 4:51; and Acts 3:13, etc.