From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 13:15:19 EST
Bob wrote, in part: "I do not for a minute think that any canonical evidence
regarding the relationship of Christ to his apostles can justifiably support
the assertion of certain homosexual leanings. I think this suggestion that
some gay advocates have put out is nonsense to anyone who carefully reads
the gospels and understands the relationship between teacher and disciples
in Jewish culture."
I almost agree with Bob in the above. I'd just use a stronger word than
"nonsense" Perhaps "balderdash?" Or "deplorably incoherent exegesis?" I'm
sure others on this list can think of other possibilities.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
>To: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>, <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:39:32 -0500
>
>I don't wish to prolong the issue of the morality of homosexual behavior
>and
>relationships, since my reason for posting messages having to do with the
>meaning and interpretation of biblical texts cited to justify the
>contention
>that the Bible condemns homosexuality and homosexual behavior is to clarify
>their meaning and suggest that in some instances they may be popularly
>misunderstood. Lest anyone infer otherwise, let me make it clear that I am
>not acting as an advocate for gay marriages or the gay lifestyle in these
>messages. But let me make one more comment, in response to Moorad's: "[A]
>I
>have often heard and read that the relationship of Christ to His apostles
>may have had certain homosexual leanings. [B] I ask you, if such was the
>case wouldn’t Christ speak explicitly about such type of relationships
>and
>had condoned them and even given His blessings? [C] Sometimes silence
>speaks tons of words! "
>
> I do not for a minute think that any canonical evidence regarding the
>relationship of Christ to his apostles can justifiably support the
>assertion
>of certain homosexual leanings. I think this suggestion that some gay
>advocates have put out is nonsense to anyone who carefully reads the
>gospels
>and understands the relationship between teacher and disciples in Jewish
>culture. Therefore, the rest of Moorad's statement makes no sense to me.
>Of
>his syllogism, A I judge invalid; B the "if" clause isn't the case, and if
>it were, it does not necessarily follow that Christ would speak about it,
>condone etc.; [C] silence in this instance proves nothing.
>
>Grace and peace,
>Bob
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>To: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:35 AM
>Subject: RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>
>
> > One cannot be writing about divorce if one is not considering the notion
>of marriage. Therefore, one certainly has the definition of Christian
>marriage in those verses. I have often heard and read that the
>relationship
>of Christ to His apostles may have had certain homosexual leanings. I ask
>you, if such was the case wouldn’t Christ speak explicitly about such
>type
>of relationships and had condoned them and even given His blessings?
>Sometimes silence speaks tons of words! Moorad
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Schneider [mailto:rjschn39@bellsouth.net]
> > Sent: Wed 1/22/2003 11:00 PM
> > To: Alexanian, Moorad; asa@calvin.edu
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals
> >
> >
> >
> > Moorad writes:
> >
> > > I believe Jesus does address the issue of homosexuality in Mark 10:6-8
> > “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
>FOR
> > THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL
> > BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” Jesus
> > certainly defines what Christian marriage is. So much for homosexual
> > marriages! Also in the epistle to the Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul uses
> > Christian marriage to teach the relationship of Christ to the Church,
>where
> > Paul quotes the above verses, which are actually found in the Old
>Testament.
> > Moorad
> >
> >
> > Bob's reply:
> >
> > Moorad, I think these two quotations are perfect examples of taking
> > verses out of context and then drawing illogical conclusions from them.
>The
> > context of Jesus' allusion to Genesis 2:24 is a discussion on divorce,
>not
> > same-sex relations; Jesus was stating that he deems Moses' permission of
> > divorce was a concession to men's "hardness of heart," and goes on to
>say
>to
> > his disciples later that to remarry after divorce is to commit adultery
>(in
> > Matt. 19:9, Jesus is reported as making an exception for unchastity).
>If
> > you were arguing that therefore Jesus was opposed to divorce, I could
>see
> > your point. But to claim that he was addressing the issue of
>homosexuality
> > is to read into his statement something that is not there. Sorry, but
>this
> > argument is not logical. The same is the case for the statement about
> > marital relations in the household code in Ephesians 5. To conclude
>that
> > this writer was implying a negative judgment about same-sex relations by
>the
> > mere fact that he is making statements about the relations between
>husbands
> > and wives is to draw an erroneous conclusion. This is aside from the
>fact
> > that enduring same-sex relationships as the equivalent to marriage were
>not
> > a feature of the cultures of the Roman Empire of that time, as I stated
>in
> > my note; therefore, it was not a concept that one should expect either
>Jesus
> > or Paul to think about, or that the matter would have ever come up for
> > discussion. I doubt very much it was in their minds when the one spoke
>and
> > the other wrote.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jan 24 2003 - 13:15:28 EST