Was the Apostle Pl Gay? - Belief

Contents:

• MATTHEW GONG, GAY MORMON, REFLECTS ON HIS JOURNEY OM NER WAR TO NER PEACE
• WERE ANY APOSTL GAY
• J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN
• WAS THE APOSTLE PL GAY?
• GAY BROTHER OF MORMON APOSTLE SHAR HIS SPIRUAL JOURNEY
• THE (POSSIBLY) GAY, ELE APOSTLE WHO BELIEVED RADIL EQUALY FOR ALL'ALL OF THESE ARE ONE'PL THE APOSTLE IS OFTEN BRAND AS A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS. BUT DIG TO HIS LETTERS AND YOU'LL FD AN TENSE VOTN TO ERASG ALL FORMS OF OPPRSN.JAY PARIPUBLISHED APR. 20, 2019 11:22PM EDT PUBLIC DOMADURG THE PAST , IF NOT BEFORE, I’VE BEEN WRTLG WH AN ANGEL: PL THE APOSTLE. I’VE BEEN READG THE LETTERS OF PL TENSELY OM THE TIME I WAS A YOUNG MAN, DRAWN BY HIS WILD AND VISNARY SENSE OF REALY, HIS “VENTN” OF CHRISTIANY, HIS EXAMPLE AS A MAN WHO MOVED THROUGH THE WI SMOPOLAN WORLD OF THE FIRST CENTURY WHOUT THE SLIGHTT FEAR OF NSEQUENC. (IN THIS, HE’S VERY DIFFERENT OM ME AND, I SPECT, MOST OF !) AS EASTER APPROACH, I BEG TO THK ABOUT WHAT PL SAID WHEN HE URGED TO “TAKE ON THE MD OF CHRIST” [PHILIPPIANS 2.5], WHICH HIS THEOLOGY MEANS ENTERG PLETELY TO THIS SMIC SPIR SO THAT THE SPIR SELF BE PART OF . MY OWN SPIRUAL JOURNEY HAS BEEN A TEXTUAL ONE PART, LIVG THE GOSPELS AND LETTERS OF PL AS A REAR, DIGGG TO THE GREEK WORDS THEMSELV TO UNEARTH THEIR FULL MEANG. THIS WORK, MOST RECENTLY, HAS LED TO A SERI OF 21 LECTUR THAT I RERD SOME MONTHS AGO ABOUT J, PL, AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. AND I HAVE JT PUBLISHED THE DAMASC ROAD:  A NOVEL OF SAT PL.   IN THIS NOVEL, I WRE AS PL THE FIRST PERSON, UNTERG OR “RRECTG” HIS NARRATIVE WH THAT OF HIS TRAVELG PANN, LE, WHO WROTE THE GOSPEL OF LE AND, OF URSE, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTL, THE LATTER BEG AN ACUNT OF THEIR MISSNARY JOURNEYS THROUGH THE ROMAN WORLD—A JOURNEY THAT END WH THE MARTYRDOM OF PL ROME AROUND THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 64 A.C.E.  LE’S OL-HEAD VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENG STANDS (AT LEAST MY NOVEL) NTRAST TO PL’S MAD VISNARY RHETORIC, AS EMBODIED HIS LETTERS.  TO WRE THIS, I HAD TO SK TO THE PHYSIL AS WELL AS MENTAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE MEN, TRAVELG TO THE HOLY LANDS (WHAT I LL PALTE THE NOVEL, AS ALL OF THIS REGN WAS LLED ROMAN TIM), TO THE JORDANIAN SERT, TO ASIA MOR OR WHAT IS NOW TURKEY, TO GREECE AND ITALY. I FOLLOWED AS BT I ULD THE FOOTSTEPS OF PL, HOPG TO SUMMON THAT WORLD IMAG, TRYG AT ALL TIM TO REMD MYSELF HOW THE PLAC WOULD HAVE PLAYED ON THE FIVE SENS, WH S TGLG ATMOSPHERE OF HERBS AND SPIC, WILD FLOWERS, SH THE STREETS, YG BODI, BRILLIANT SUNSHE ON THE SEA, AND EVERGREEN FORTS AS EP AS ONE N IMAGE. THIS WAS AN TELLECTUAL JOURNEY AS WELL AS A PHYSIL ONE. LIKE PLATO, PL WAS A FOUNDG THKER THE WT. IN FACT, I BEGAN TO WRE THIS NOVEL AFTER READG AGA THROUGH THE DIALOGU OF PLATO—ALWAYS A TEXT I RETURN TO FOR SPIRATN AND BRACG MENTAL EXERCISE. I REALIZED HOW MANY OF PLATO’S IAS, EVEN PHRAS, HAD SUNK TO PL’S UNNSC.  HE SUALLY QUOT OM THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER THROUGHOUT HIS LETTERS. THE VERY IA OF THE ETERNAL SOUL WAS, OF URSE, ILLUMED BY PLATO, AND PL RAN WH THIS, CREATG A PLATONIC THEOLOGY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO RELL THAT PL WAS A GREEK-SPEAKG JEW, BORN TARS (NOW TURKEY), PRIVATELY TED THERE BY GREEK-FLUENCED TUTORS—THE LATTER IS AN ASSUMPTN, BUT ONE THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE, GIVEN HIS EDN, HIS MAND OF GREEK PROSE, HIS RANGE OF ALLN. HIS STAT AS ONE OF THE ELE IS EVINT THE FACT THAT HE “TRANSFERRED” TO THE AMY N BY GAMALIEL JESALEM AS A YOUNG MAN. ONLY THE CHILD OF A WEALTHY FAY WOULD HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO A FAR-OFF UNTRY TO STUDY UNR A MAJOR SCHOLAR LIKE GAMALIEL, THE GRANDSON OF HILLEL—THE FAMO JEWISH SAGE. BUT WHAT MOSTLY DREW ME TO PL WAS HIS VISN OF EQUALY—NOT WHAT ONE UALLY THKS ABOUT WHEN ONE THKS OF PL.  INED, MANY IENDS WHO HEARD I WAS WRG ABOUT PL RAISED AN EYEBROW OR TWO, SAYG:  WASN’T HE A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS?MY ANSWER, VARIABLY, WAS NO! NO! NO!PL’S CHIEF IA WAS THIS, AS FOUND GALATIANS 3:28: “IN CHRIST THERE IS NEHER JEW NOR GENTILE, NEHER SLAVE NOR EE MAN, NEHER MALE NOR FEMALE. IN CHRIST, ALL OF THE ARE ONE.”  FOR ME, THIS IS THE KEY VERSE THE ENTIRE NEW TTAMENT.BOLDLY, PL ERASED THE MOST CCIAL BARRIERS OF HIS DAY. HIMSELF A JEW, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAM, A PHARISEE BY AFFILIATN, HE TOOK THE GOOD NEWS (AS HE LLED ) TO THE WT, UNRSTANDG THAT IF THE WAY OF J WERE TO PROSPER, WOULD HAVE TO GO BEYOND THIS POWERFUL BOUNDARY. IN THIS, HE FOUGHT AGAST THE CHURCH JESALEM, LED BY JAM, THE BROTHER OF J, WHO WISHED ONLY FOR THE WAY TO REMA A KD OF HYPER-JEWISH SECT VOTED TO THE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF MOS. HAD JAM WON OUT OVER PL, CHRISTIANY WOULD SOON HAVE DWDLED TO A TY GROUP THE HOLY LAND, ONE THAT WOULD SOON BE OVERRIDN, OBLERATED BY TIME AND CIRCUMSTANC.NEEDLS TO SAY, PL CHALLENGED CLASS DIVISNS WHEN HE ERASED THE BOUNDARI BETWEEN SLAVE AND EE MAN. REMEMBER THAT HALF OF THE PEOPLE ONE MET THE ANCIENT WORLD WERE SLAV. PL WOULD HAVE GROWN UP WH A HOEFUL FULL OF SLAV WHO FETCHED WATER, BOUGHT FOOD THE MARKET, OKED AND CLEANED, RAISED THE CHILDREN, AND SO FORTH. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WORKG FOR PL’S FATHER HIS TENT-MAKG BS TARS WOULD HAVE BEEN SLAV.  AND SLAV WERE VISIBLE, NOT REALLY PEOPLE, HARDLY CREATUR POSSSN OF A “SOUL” OR— GREEK—PSYCHE. PL DIDN’T WANT TO SEE DIVISNS AMONG THE CLASS, BELIEVG THAT ENLIGHTENMENT (A WORD I PREFER OVER THE LS TERTG AND MISLEADG TERM “SALVATN”) WOULD E TO EVERYONE THE END, SLAV AS WELL AS EE MEN AND WOMEN.WHICH BRGS , CCIALLY, TO MEN AND WOMEN. PL HAD NO DOUBT THAT WOMEN WERE EQUAL TO MEN THE SIGHT OF GOD, THE MD OF CHRIST. THE WORLD OF EARLY CHRISTIANY WAS LARGELY FANCED AND LED BY WOMEN, CLUDG THE POWERFUL PHOEBE, LYDIA, AND PRISCILLA. PHOEBE IS SCRIBED AS A PRIDG OFFICER THE EARLY MOVEMENT, A AN, A DOMANT FIGURE. SHE ULD EASILY BE SEEN AS THE FIRST POPE, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SUCH OFFIC AS THE CHURCH WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL BODY BUT A LOOSE AGGREGATN OF GATHERGS WH NO HARD L OR CLEAR THEOLOGY. INED, PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG, AN EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN GATHERG, THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PATRIARCHAL PL WHO SAID WOMEN SHOULDN’T SPEAK CHURCH? THERE ARE TWO MENTNS OF THIS, ONE THE 14TH CHAPTER OF 1 CORTHIANS, ONE 1 TIMOTHY. THE FORMER IS WILY NSIRED A LATER ADDN, AN “TERPOLATN” BY EDORS. IN THIS SE, THE ASSERTN THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT WILDLY TERPTS THE FLOW OF THE PASSAGE, WHICH IS WHOLE WHOUT . AND THE FAMO REMARK IS NOT PRENT SEVERAL EARLY MANCRIPTS OF THIS LETTER. FURTHERMORE, THE JUNCTN NTRADICTS THE MA THST OF THE EPISTLE, WHERE ( 1 CORTHIANS 11:5) PL SAYS THAT WOMEN SHOULD “PROPHY AND PRAY” CHURCH. IT JT MAK NO LOGIL SENSE FOR PL TO FOLLOW WH A MAND FOR THEM TO REMA SILENT: THIS WAS AN EDORIAL HAND AT WORK, MUCH LATER. AND THE MATTER OF 1 TIMOTHY IS EASILY DISRD AS NOT SOMETHG WRTEN BY PL HIMSELF.PL ONLY WROTE SEVEN LETTERS THAT SURVIVE: ROMANS, 1 AND 2 CORTHIANS, GALATIANS, 1 THSALONIANS, PHILIPPIANS, AND PHILEMON. THE REMAG SIX LETTERS ARE “SCHOOL OF PL,” WRTEN MUCH LATER. TO ANYONE WHO READS GREEK, THE DIFFERENCE PROSE STYLE IS OBV—GARRY WILLS BURROWS TO THIS WH MON SENSE WHAT PL MEANT (2006). THE DIFFERENC BETWEEN THE TWO CLUMPS OF LETTERS IS PROFOUND: THEY E OM WILDLY DIFFERENT WORLDS, WH DIFFERENT UNRLYG ASSUMPTNS. A ANTIC EFFORT WAS UNRWAY ON THE PART OF SOME WH THE EVOLVG MOVEMENT TO KEEP THE PATRIARCHAL PRACTIC OF JUDAISM AND THE ROMAN WORLD PLACE. HENCE THE “PASTORAL EPISTL,” 1 AND 2 TIMOTHY, WHICH ARE VERY LATE ED AS ADDNS TO THE NEW TTAMENT NON. “PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT.” THERE IS ALSO THE PLITED MATTER OF PL’S SEXUALY. I TEND TO AGREE WH BISHOP JOHN SHELBY SPONG, A BRILLIANT THEOLOGIAN AND CHURCH LEAR, WHO ARGU THAT PL WAS “A RIGIDLY NTROLLED GAY MALE,” AS HE WR RCUG THE BIBLE OM FUNDAMENTALISM (1991). BE THIS AS MAY, PL WAS CLEARLY AT WAR WH HIS OWN BODY, TORMENTED BY THE IA IF NOT THE REALY OF SEXUAL SIRE, AND EAGER TO WHDRAW TO THE PANY OF HIS MALE PANNS:  LE, TIMOTHY, SILAS, AND OTHERS. HIS NFLICTED FEELGS ABOUT HIS OWN SEXUAL NATURE MAY ACUNT FOR THE “THORN HIS FLH” THAT HE WROTE ABOUT HIS SEND LETTER TO THE CHURCH AT CORTH. (2 CORTHIANS 12:7-9)IN MY VIEW, THE THENTIC PL WAS BATIVE, FIERCELY TELLECTUAL, PROBABLY PRSIVE, BI-SEXUAL OR GAY, A RADIL VISNARY WHO HAD A FIERY IMAGE HIS HEAD OF A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH. HE HAD A VISN OF WHAT MEANT TO TAKE ON THE FULL MD OF CHRIST, AND THIS VOLVED EMPTYG HIMSELF OUT THOROUGHLY, TAKG UP THE CROSS, WHICH FOR HIM MEANT FOLLOWG THE PATH OF SELF-ABANDONMENT, UNG WH THE MD OF CHRIST, WHERE EVERYTHG—MALE AND FEMALE, SLAVE AND EE MAN, JEW AND GENTILE—FDS RENCILIATN UNY WH GOD THE ETERNAL MOMENT OF RURRECTN. JAY PARI
• WAS J GAY? PROBABLY
• KEV MAXEN BE FIRST MALE ACH A US MEN’S PROFSNAL SPORTS LEAGUE TO PUBLICLY E OUT AS GAY

MATTHEW GONG, GAY MORMON, REFLECTS ON HIS JOURNEY OM NER WAR TO NER PEACE

”Though Gong’s relatnship wh his parents got off to a “rocky start” after he me out — not for lack of love or rejectn but for mismunitn — they are now as close as ever and talk almost every isn’t to say father and son agree on all asked 2018 if havg a gay son had affected his views on LGBTQ issu, the apostle replied, “We love each member of our fay.

C., area, where his dad worked at a policy thk the fay moved to Utah, the young Gong found himself a much more homogeneo muny wh a “domant culture, ” he says, where his peers and teachers weren’t exactly sure about his he Mexin? He was lled to London on a Mandar-speakg missn his 21st birthday, at the start of the fal year on his missn, Gong wrote separate emails to each of his brothers and his parents to tell them he was gay. His wrgs nvced historians John Boswell and Brian Patrick McGuire that Aelred was a gay man, albe one who still disuraged any sexual activy outsi the bounds of marriage.

WERE ANY APOSTL GAY

Several relig anizatn, s cludg the Natnal Anglin Catholic Church and Integry the Epispal Church the Uned Stat have regnized Aelred as the patron sat of such gay-iendly groups as the Orr of St. An abbot medieval France, Bernard of Clairvz mataed a lengthy personal relatnship wh the archbishop Malachy, acrdg to gay liberatn theologian Richard Cleaver.

By that terpretatn, such scripture as referenc to the disciple reclg upon the bosom of the Lord have spired homoerotic art pictg the relatnship between Christ and John as romantic. While no tal actually exist providg rmatn about Sebastian's love life or sexual orientatn, the fact so much Renaissance art picts him homoerotic pos monstrat a strong nnectn to LGBT people. For almost the entire 2, 000 years of rerd Christian history, the apostle Pl’s nmnatn of all typ of homosexual practice was nsired an unqutnable fact of biblil teachg.

J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN

”- “Every major dictnary of New Ttament Greek or Classil Greek unrstood Pl’s key vobulary ( particular, the word arsenoko) to refer to men engagg homosexual acts. Furthermore, the historic theologil nsens exprsed no distctn between exploative (prostutn, rape, perasty, promiscuy, sex slav) and nonexploative (nsensual, mted, monogamo) forms of homosexualy.

The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners [malakoi], practicg homosexuals [arsenokoai], thiev, the greedy, dnkards, the verbally abive, and swdlers will not her the kgdom of God. First Timothy 1:8-11 says, “But we know that the law is good if someone legimately, realizg that law is not tend for a righteo person, but for lawls and rebell people, for the ungodly and sners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murrers, sexually immoral people, practicg homosexuals [arsenokoais], kidnappers, liars, perjurers- fact, for any who live ntrary to sound teachg.

WAS THE APOSTLE PL GAY?

The tradnal unrstandg of Pl’s grammatil stcture is also nfirmed by the homosexual-affirmg LGBTQ Onle Encyclopedia, which stat, “And so we have, scribg Oedip, metroko, ‘a man who li wh his mother, ’ douloko, ‘a man who li wh maidservants or female slav, ’ polyko, ‘a man who li wh many, ’ and onoko, ‘a man who li wh donkeys, ’ [slanroly] said of Christians a graffo om Carthage of about 195. Via, the pro-homosexual profsor emer of New Ttament at De Divy School, wr his -thored book Homosexualy and the Bible: Two Views, “The term is a pound of the words for ‘male’ (arsen) and ‘bed’ (koe) and th uld naturally be taken to mean a man who go to bed wh other men. In the Greek versn of the two Levic passag that nmn male homosexualy (Lev 18:22; 20:13) a man is not to lie wh a male as wh a woman each text ntas both the words arsen and koe.

Likewise, the ancient rabbis utilized the Hebrew phrase miskab zakur (lyg wh a male), which is taken om the Masoretic text (a Hebrew translatn of the Old Ttament) of Levic 20:13, to note the s of homosexual sex.

” Aga, Loar affirms, “It is also hard to image that Pl would approach [issu of homosexual practice] whout awarens of the prohibn of same-sex relatns Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which had e to be applied to both men and women. When readg the apostle Pl’s words about homosexualy, morn “gay apologists” assert eher ambiguy or alternative meangs for the origal Greek word found the biblil text.

GAY BROTHER OF MORMON APOSTLE SHAR HIS SPIRUAL JOURNEY

Instead of arsenoko (plural, arsenokoai), they claim that a much better and clearer Greek term was available for Pl’s age if he had actually tend to nmn nonexploative, monogamo homosexual relatnships. Arrenoman and maiandros are also lerally terpreted as “mad after mal/men, ” and each uld actually be argued to have the more specific meang of sex-crazed, promiscuo homosexuals. In fact, the great mds of the Gre-Roman world posed several hypoth, each of which argued for a ngenal, blogil or other unchosen basis for homosexual attractn.

THE (POSSIBLY) GAY, ELE APOSTLE WHO BELIEVED RADIL EQUALY FOR ALL'ALL OF THESE ARE ONE'PL THE APOSTLE IS OFTEN BRAND AS A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS. BUT DIG TO HIS LETTERS AND YOU'LL FD AN TENSE VOTN TO ERASG ALL FORMS OF OPPRSN.JAY PARIPUBLISHED APR. 20, 2019 11:22PM EDT PUBLIC DOMADURG THE PAST , IF NOT BEFORE, I’VE BEEN WRTLG WH AN ANGEL: PL THE APOSTLE. I’VE BEEN READG THE LETTERS OF PL TENSELY OM THE TIME I WAS A YOUNG MAN, DRAWN BY HIS WILD AND VISNARY SENSE OF REALY, HIS “VENTN” OF CHRISTIANY, HIS EXAMPLE AS A MAN WHO MOVED THROUGH THE WI SMOPOLAN WORLD OF THE FIRST CENTURY WHOUT THE SLIGHTT FEAR OF NSEQUENC. (IN THIS, HE’S VERY DIFFERENT OM ME AND, I SPECT, MOST OF !) AS EASTER APPROACH, I BEG TO THK ABOUT WHAT PL SAID WHEN HE URGED TO “TAKE ON THE MD OF CHRIST” [PHILIPPIANS 2.5], WHICH HIS THEOLOGY MEANS ENTERG PLETELY TO THIS SMIC SPIR SO THAT THE SPIR SELF BE PART OF . MY OWN SPIRUAL JOURNEY HAS BEEN A TEXTUAL ONE PART, LIVG THE GOSPELS AND LETTERS OF PL AS A REAR, DIGGG TO THE GREEK WORDS THEMSELV TO UNEARTH THEIR FULL MEANG. THIS WORK, MOST RECENTLY, HAS LED TO A SERI OF 21 LECTUR THAT I RERD SOME MONTHS AGO ABOUT J, PL, AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. AND I HAVE JT PUBLISHED THE DAMASC ROAD:  A NOVEL OF SAT PL.   IN THIS NOVEL, I WRE AS PL THE FIRST PERSON, UNTERG OR “RRECTG” HIS NARRATIVE WH THAT OF HIS TRAVELG PANN, LE, WHO WROTE THE GOSPEL OF LE AND, OF URSE, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTL, THE LATTER BEG AN ACUNT OF THEIR MISSNARY JOURNEYS THROUGH THE ROMAN WORLD—A JOURNEY THAT END WH THE MARTYRDOM OF PL ROME AROUND THE TIME OF THE GREAT FIRE OF 64 A.C.E.  LE’S OL-HEAD VIEW OF WHAT WAS HAPPENG STANDS (AT LEAST MY NOVEL) NTRAST TO PL’S MAD VISNARY RHETORIC, AS EMBODIED HIS LETTERS.  TO WRE THIS, I HAD TO SK TO THE PHYSIL AS WELL AS MENTAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE MEN, TRAVELG TO THE HOLY LANDS (WHAT I LL PALTE THE NOVEL, AS ALL OF THIS REGN WAS LLED ROMAN TIM), TO THE JORDANIAN SERT, TO ASIA MOR OR WHAT IS NOW TURKEY, TO GREECE AND ITALY. I FOLLOWED AS BT I ULD THE FOOTSTEPS OF PL, HOPG TO SUMMON THAT WORLD IMAG, TRYG AT ALL TIM TO REMD MYSELF HOW THE PLAC WOULD HAVE PLAYED ON THE FIVE SENS, WH S TGLG ATMOSPHERE OF HERBS AND SPIC, WILD FLOWERS, SH THE STREETS, YG BODI, BRILLIANT SUNSHE ON THE SEA, AND EVERGREEN FORTS AS EP AS ONE N IMAGE. THIS WAS AN TELLECTUAL JOURNEY AS WELL AS A PHYSIL ONE. LIKE PLATO, PL WAS A FOUNDG THKER THE WT. IN FACT, I BEGAN TO WRE THIS NOVEL AFTER READG AGA THROUGH THE DIALOGU OF PLATO—ALWAYS A TEXT I RETURN TO FOR SPIRATN AND BRACG MENTAL EXERCISE. I REALIZED HOW MANY OF PLATO’S IAS, EVEN PHRAS, HAD SUNK TO PL’S UNNSC.  HE SUALLY QUOT OM THE GREAT PHILOSOPHER THROUGHOUT HIS LETTERS. THE VERY IA OF THE ETERNAL SOUL WAS, OF URSE, ILLUMED BY PLATO, AND PL RAN WH THIS, CREATG A PLATONIC THEOLOGY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO RELL THAT PL WAS A GREEK-SPEAKG JEW, BORN TARS (NOW TURKEY), PRIVATELY TED THERE BY GREEK-FLUENCED TUTORS—THE LATTER IS AN ASSUMPTN, BUT ONE THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE, GIVEN HIS EDN, HIS MAND OF GREEK PROSE, HIS RANGE OF ALLN. HIS STAT AS ONE OF THE ELE IS EVINT THE FACT THAT HE “TRANSFERRED” TO THE AMY N BY GAMALIEL JESALEM AS A YOUNG MAN. ONLY THE CHILD OF A WEALTHY FAY WOULD HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO A FAR-OFF UNTRY TO STUDY UNR A MAJOR SCHOLAR LIKE GAMALIEL, THE GRANDSON OF HILLEL—THE FAMO JEWISH SAGE. BUT WHAT MOSTLY DREW ME TO PL WAS HIS VISN OF EQUALY—NOT WHAT ONE UALLY THKS ABOUT WHEN ONE THKS OF PL.  INED, MANY IENDS WHO HEARD I WAS WRG ABOUT PL RAISED AN EYEBROW OR TWO, SAYG:  WASN’T HE A PATRIARCHAL MISOGYNIST WHO HATED ALL GAYS?MY ANSWER, VARIABLY, WAS NO! NO! NO!PL’S CHIEF IA WAS THIS, AS FOUND GALATIANS 3:28: “IN CHRIST THERE IS NEHER JEW NOR GENTILE, NEHER SLAVE NOR EE MAN, NEHER MALE NOR FEMALE. IN CHRIST, ALL OF THE ARE ONE.”  FOR ME, THIS IS THE KEY VERSE THE ENTIRE NEW TTAMENT.BOLDLY, PL ERASED THE MOST CCIAL BARRIERS OF HIS DAY. HIMSELF A JEW, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAM, A PHARISEE BY AFFILIATN, HE TOOK THE GOOD NEWS (AS HE LLED ) TO THE WT, UNRSTANDG THAT IF THE WAY OF J WERE TO PROSPER, WOULD HAVE TO GO BEYOND THIS POWERFUL BOUNDARY. IN THIS, HE FOUGHT AGAST THE CHURCH JESALEM, LED BY JAM, THE BROTHER OF J, WHO WISHED ONLY FOR THE WAY TO REMA A KD OF HYPER-JEWISH SECT VOTED TO THE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF MOS. HAD JAM WON OUT OVER PL, CHRISTIANY WOULD SOON HAVE DWDLED TO A TY GROUP THE HOLY LAND, ONE THAT WOULD SOON BE OVERRIDN, OBLERATED BY TIME AND CIRCUMSTANC.NEEDLS TO SAY, PL CHALLENGED CLASS DIVISNS WHEN HE ERASED THE BOUNDARI BETWEEN SLAVE AND EE MAN. REMEMBER THAT HALF OF THE PEOPLE ONE MET THE ANCIENT WORLD WERE SLAV. PL WOULD HAVE GROWN UP WH A HOEFUL FULL OF SLAV WHO FETCHED WATER, BOUGHT FOOD THE MARKET, OKED AND CLEANED, RAISED THE CHILDREN, AND SO FORTH. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WORKG FOR PL’S FATHER HIS TENT-MAKG BS TARS WOULD HAVE BEEN SLAV.  AND SLAV WERE VISIBLE, NOT REALLY PEOPLE, HARDLY CREATUR POSSSN OF A “SOUL” OR— GREEK—PSYCHE. PL DIDN’T WANT TO SEE DIVISNS AMONG THE CLASS, BELIEVG THAT ENLIGHTENMENT (A WORD I PREFER OVER THE LS TERTG AND MISLEADG TERM “SALVATN”) WOULD E TO EVERYONE THE END, SLAV AS WELL AS EE MEN AND WOMEN.WHICH BRGS , CCIALLY, TO MEN AND WOMEN. PL HAD NO DOUBT THAT WOMEN WERE EQUAL TO MEN THE SIGHT OF GOD, THE MD OF CHRIST. THE WORLD OF EARLY CHRISTIANY WAS LARGELY FANCED AND LED BY WOMEN, CLUDG THE POWERFUL PHOEBE, LYDIA, AND PRISCILLA. PHOEBE IS SCRIBED AS A PRIDG OFFICER THE EARLY MOVEMENT, A AN, A DOMANT FIGURE. SHE ULD EASILY BE SEEN AS THE FIRST POPE, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SUCH OFFIC AS THE CHURCH WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL BODY BUT A LOOSE AGGREGATN OF GATHERGS WH NO HARD L OR CLEAR THEOLOGY. INED, PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG, AN EPISTLE TO THE ROMAN GATHERG, THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PATRIARCHAL PL WHO SAID WOMEN SHOULDN’T SPEAK CHURCH? THERE ARE TWO MENTNS OF THIS, ONE THE 14TH CHAPTER OF 1 CORTHIANS, ONE 1 TIMOTHY. THE FORMER IS WILY NSIRED A LATER ADDN, AN “TERPOLATN” BY EDORS. IN THIS SE, THE ASSERTN THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT WILDLY TERPTS THE FLOW OF THE PASSAGE, WHICH IS WHOLE WHOUT . AND THE FAMO REMARK IS NOT PRENT SEVERAL EARLY MANCRIPTS OF THIS LETTER. FURTHERMORE, THE JUNCTN NTRADICTS THE MA THST OF THE EPISTLE, WHERE ( 1 CORTHIANS 11:5) PL SAYS THAT WOMEN SHOULD “PROPHY AND PRAY” CHURCH. IT JT MAK NO LOGIL SENSE FOR PL TO FOLLOW WH A MAND FOR THEM TO REMA SILENT: THIS WAS AN EDORIAL HAND AT WORK, MUCH LATER. AND THE MATTER OF 1 TIMOTHY IS EASILY DISRD AS NOT SOMETHG WRTEN BY PL HIMSELF.PL ONLY WROTE SEVEN LETTERS THAT SURVIVE: ROMANS, 1 AND 2 CORTHIANS, GALATIANS, 1 THSALONIANS, PHILIPPIANS, AND PHILEMON. THE REMAG SIX LETTERS ARE “SCHOOL OF PL,” WRTEN MUCH LATER. TO ANYONE WHO READS GREEK, THE DIFFERENCE PROSE STYLE IS OBV—GARRY WILLS BURROWS TO THIS WH MON SENSE WHAT PL MEANT (2006). THE DIFFERENC BETWEEN THE TWO CLUMPS OF LETTERS IS PROFOUND: THEY E OM WILDLY DIFFERENT WORLDS, WH DIFFERENT UNRLYG ASSUMPTNS. A ANTIC EFFORT WAS UNRWAY ON THE PART OF SOME WH THE EVOLVG MOVEMENT TO KEEP THE PATRIARCHAL PRACTIC OF JUDAISM AND THE ROMAN WORLD PLACE. HENCE THE “PASTORAL EPISTL,” 1 AND 2 TIMOTHY, WHICH ARE VERY LATE ED AS ADDNS TO THE NEW TTAMENT NON. “PL SENT HIS MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRG THE POSSSN OF PHOEBE, THIS SPIRED WOMAN OF THE WORLD WHO TRAVELED WILY AND KNEW EVERY LEAR THE EARLY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT.” THERE IS ALSO THE PLITED MATTER OF PL’S SEXUALY. I TEND TO AGREE WH BISHOP JOHN SHELBY SPONG, A BRILLIANT THEOLOGIAN AND CHURCH LEAR, WHO ARGU THAT PL WAS “A RIGIDLY NTROLLED GAY MALE,” AS HE WR RCUG THE BIBLE OM FUNDAMENTALISM (1991). BE THIS AS MAY, PL WAS CLEARLY AT WAR WH HIS OWN BODY, TORMENTED BY THE IA IF NOT THE REALY OF SEXUAL SIRE, AND EAGER TO WHDRAW TO THE PANY OF HIS MALE PANNS:  LE, TIMOTHY, SILAS, AND OTHERS. HIS NFLICTED FEELGS ABOUT HIS OWN SEXUAL NATURE MAY ACUNT FOR THE “THORN HIS FLH” THAT HE WROTE ABOUT HIS SEND LETTER TO THE CHURCH AT CORTH. (2 CORTHIANS 12:7-9)IN MY VIEW, THE THENTIC PL WAS BATIVE, FIERCELY TELLECTUAL, PROBABLY PRSIVE, BI-SEXUAL OR GAY, A RADIL VISNARY WHO HAD A FIERY IMAGE HIS HEAD OF A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH. HE HAD A VISN OF WHAT MEANT TO TAKE ON THE FULL MD OF CHRIST, AND THIS VOLVED EMPTYG HIMSELF OUT THOROUGHLY, TAKG UP THE CROSS, WHICH FOR HIM MEANT FOLLOWG THE PATH OF SELF-ABANDONMENT, UNG WH THE MD OF CHRIST, WHERE EVERYTHG—MALE AND FEMALE, SLAVE AND EE MAN, JEW AND GENTILE—FDS RENCILIATN UNY WH GOD THE ETERNAL MOMENT OF RURRECTN. JAY PARI

Fally, the sequential e of the two Greek terms malakoi(s) and arsenokoai() 1 Corthians 6:9 provis addnal nfirmatn for the tradnal unrstandg of Pl’s negative viewpot on homosexualy. In The New Ttament on Sexualy, pro-gay William Loar remds that the apostle Pl “ the two terms wh reference to men who engage same-sex behavr, wh the first [malakoi] referrg to the willg passive partner, whether by private nsent or as a male prostute, ‘those who subm to sexual peratn by other men, ’ and the send [arsenokoai] referrg to ‘those who engage sexual peratn of other men, ’ which would have a broar reference and clu, but not be limed to, exploatn, also by force. As the gay-iendly LGBTQ Onle Encyclopedia specifi, “The bad news om the Christian Bible is that nmns same-sex sire and same-sex acts whout qualifitn of age, genr, role, stat, nsent, or membership an ethnic muny.

This explas why many liberal revisnist theologians and “gay apologists” have gone to great lengths to sow nfn and unrme the pla meang of key portns of this crilly important book.

WAS J GAY? PROBABLY

Niell wre “The Same Sex Controversy”that “this prentatn is one that nfirms, beyond qutn, the sential rrectns of the view Christians have held om the begng: that Pl sgl out homosexualy Romans 1:26-27 as an illtratn of the judgment of God upon those who refe to acknowledge His lordship over their liv. In Christiany, Social Tolerance and Homosexualy, the late “gay” Yale Universy profsor John Boswell ntends that “the persons Pl nmns are maniftly not homosexual; what he rogat are homosexual acts mted by apparently heterosexual persons.

More recently, “gay” apologist Matthew V explaed his viral vio, “Those who are naturally heterosexual should not be wh those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientatn toward the same sex should not be wh those of the oppose sex.

Whe and Neill astutely intify this homosexual terpretatn as an unwarranted “extra-ntextual assertn” and the straed imposn of an “anachronistic fn” to the text.

KEV MAXEN BE FIRST MALE ACH A US MEN’S PROFSNAL SPORTS LEAGUE TO PUBLICLY E OUT AS GAY

Through the nflatg of attractns wh actns and the apparent nial of ee will, this theory addnally perpetuat the patently false assertn that homosexuals have no choice when to their sexual activy.

Furthermore, the entire premise of this objectn is basilly based upon the ridiculo notn that naturally-occurrg urg, as is argued the se of homosexual impuls, do not need to be rtraed bee they simply nstute a morally ntral, nate characteristic of one’s God-given inty.