The expert on homosexuality is called Willy Mounts? Really?

As a former Christian, I'm happy that Dan McLellan is doing God's work on KZfaq.

I grew up in the interior of Brazil in the 50s and 60s. I heard men bragging about "doing" another. Only the passive partner was considered homosexual and a victim of mistreatment. "Real men" could "do" anyone. Clearly a symbol of domination as you say.

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” People try to make it so complicated. Serve God and help others.

Everyone alters the Bible to suite their cultural norms. I've seen this in my own life.

Rather than outright ignoring some of the texts in The Bible, why aren't the texts taken for what they are and the reader simply concludes that if that's what The Bible is saying, then they are done with The Bible? I get there are good parts in there but if as a whole doesn't hold up, it's not for me - Like the Star Wars saga :)

Dan, I’d like to apologise to you. I once misunderstood your stance in a video of yours and offered a snide comment in this section. Anyway, I’ve subscribed and look forward to watching your content.

These videos are so important, Dan, because you are calling out the abuse inside the same Christian household so to speak. Atheists can be (mis)treated as outsiders who don't understand. You're approach from a deeper understanding is a much harder obstacle for bigots to overcome. I don't have your faith, buddy, but I know people who hold it just as beautifully.

"You can follow Jesus, or not." So you have chosen...not, since Jesus said a whole bunch of stuff but none of it (as I recall) was related to where one decides to insert their genitals at the end of the day. How's that feeding the hungry and caring for the sick coming along?

I wonder if he dies, will his brother marry his wife and support her family. 🧐

How much hatred does a human being need to have in order to rely on bronza age mythologies to justify said hatred? I will never understand their determination to keep hating on others.

I might add that the actual meaning of male-bedder has been lost. We have next to zero data. Your view is an educated guess. Doesn't mean it's incorrect, just that you can't be dogmatic. Also you need to explain why what you describe was so vehemently immoral. It was in their culture an abusiv act as it feminized and thus denigrated the victim. And this was in turn based on the cultural assumption, now considered false, that women were inferior to men in every way. If we want to use the Bible to condemn same-secs acts, then we can only do so by importing that false assumption. Rom 1.26 does not describe female "same-secs" acts. The notion of "same-secs" is a modern category that we should not use in understanding the Bible. Rom 1.26 describes "their [the male idolaters'] females" doing something unnatural. This is vague, but likely about females taking the active role with males. That's why "likewise" males also poked males Rom 1.27. Furthermore, Rom 1.26-27 does not say these acts were sinful. They were merely described as contrary to social norms. Rom 1.26-27 taken literally fails to condemn anything, and in fact is not to be used in this way lest you fall foul of Rom 2.1.

A more important question might be: Who the hell does Paul think he is that he can decide who will "inherit the Kingdom of God" and who "will not"? Such arrogance is unconscionable.

God bless you Dan. This is a much needed message.

One argument that is sometimes offered by Christian advocates of same-sex marriage is that the Apostle Paul was not thinking of loving, monogamous adult relationships, and only intended to condemn Greco/Roman pederasty. That has gotten me thinking in general about Paul’s historical context and, more specifically, about this argument. First, it’s important to acknowledge that relationships between adult men and adolescent boys or young men were the most commonly attested same-sex relationships in the ancient world. There are exceptions-Plato’s Symposium discusses committed, lifelong same-sex relationships-but this is by far the most common kind of relationship. We should therefore acknowledge that the Apostle Paul was likely most familiar with this kind of same-sex sexual activity. It’s worth observing, however, that precisely because this form of same-sex sexuality was so common, there was standard terminology in Greek for talking about these relationships-the older man was the erastes (lover) and the younger man the eromenos (beloved). If these relationships were Paul’s target, it would have been reasonable for him to use these standard Greek terms. Instead, he used an apparently novel term, arsenokoitai, which either he invented or which he took from Helenistic Judaism. The most logical derivation of this new word is from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22, which says that you shall not lie with (koiten) a man (arsenos) as with a woman. In both Greek and English, verbs can be transformed into nouns. Thus, in English, swimmers are people who swim. In Greek, the koitai are men (-ai is a masculine ending) who koiten-that is, “lie with” in a sexual sense. So the arsenokoitai are men who lie with other men in a sexual sense. There is an additional reason for thinking that arsenokoitai is derived from Leviticus 18:22. In 1 Timothy 1:8-11, the Apostle Paul writes, we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. Paul is listing various disobedient groups of people who have been given the Law to tell that their acts are contrary to God’s will. Thus, we would expect the arsenokoitai to correspond to some prohibition in the Law. The obvious candidate prohibition, for reasons given above, is Leviticus 18:22. It’s important not to misunderstand the context of this prohibition. Paul is no harsher in his condemnation of homosexual activity than he is of sexual immorality in general. And just a few verses later, he writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life” (1 Timothy 1:15-16). Anyone who uses these verses either to single out homosexual sin for unique condemnation, or who fails to speak with humility of God’s love for all, is misusing the text. However, it’s also important not to misunderstand the prohibition itself. While pederasty was the most common form of same-sex activity recorded in ancient writings, Paul doesn’t use the common language of pederasty. Instead of condemning age or power differences, he coins a new word which focuses particularly on relationships that involve two men. These kinds of considerations, it seems to me, make the claim that Paul was only condemning pederasty-rather than same-sex sexual activity more generally-much more problematic.

Thank you for sharing this with us 🙋🏻‍♂️

So...God hates bottoms? I find it absurd. Also, any book written by people that didn't bathe and wiped with their bare hands, not a bunch of folks I take my cues from.

The thing is that, at that time and place, the man taking the insertive role, would most often be an older man, and the receiving role would most often be taken by a teenager or little boy. Meaning that it is likely what Paul was condemning was not gay sex, but rather, pedophilia.

Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman have done some good work in this space. Dale in his book Sex and The Single Saviour, and Bart on his blog. The big problem with this word is that we have only a very small number of examples of its usage, so figuring out what it means is very difficult. Trying to use the linguistic equivalent of simple arithmetic is not really a good method. Just adding "male" + "bedders" = homosexuals is not right. By that logic the meaning of the constituent words in compound words like "understand" and "motherf#$%er" should also reveal their meaning, and we know that's not right. We simply don't know what it means. Dale Martin has looked at all the known examples of its usage, and has concluded the best guess is something to do with money and male sex.

Where did you come from?? That was absolutely perfect and would have taken me 3 hours to say without the impact.

Male on male homosexuality is SPECIFICALLY condemned in this verse. Female on famale isn't mentioned as often perhaps because the male on male act is a bigger abomination and feminizing a male. From their veiwpoint male on male sex was far worse from a hygenic standpoint.

The problem is when someone says "the Bible tells us how to live"...No, the Bible tells YOU how to live YOUR life...after that it's you trying to tell others how to live their lives not the Bible.

Malakoi was also used for men who were overly interested in sex with women! In this case it meant “soft” as in “self-indulgent”. Also because of the Greek belief that men shouldn’t associate with women because the femininity would rub off on the men, so even having heterosexual sex more than necessary for reproduction was overly feminine. It could also be used to mean “luxurious” or “comfort seeking” so it didn’t necessarily imply “effeminate” the same way that we think of the word, and certainly not necessarily homosexual

Amen brother

There's one thing I'd really appreciate getting people's honest thoughts on. I don't know what to make of testimonies where people claim that they have somehow been ‘delivered’ from homosexuality? Coming from an evangelical background, I’ve come across testimonies of people who say that after repenting from their former ‘lifestyles’ and accepting Jesus, they have been 'delivered' from same-sex attraction. These stories don’t seem to resemble what we would associate with ‘conversion therapy’ in a traditional sense, but rather a personal experience that involves some purported supernatural intervention. Some even describe being released from ‘demonic oppression’ and will sometimes talk about various physiological and psychological changes in the body as part of their experience. I genuinely don’t know what to make of any of this. And it's especially vexing to be told that this is what you should expect to experience as well if you 'surrender' your sexuality to God. It’s absolutely clear that a lot of people have experienced their lives improving after finally coming to terms with their sexuality - no longer repressing an important part of who they are. But in some evangelical communities, you will similarly get people saying that their lives are radically different after turning away from homosexuality and accepting Jesus. I genuinely don’t know what to make of this discrepancy between people who find liberation when embracing their sexuality, and those who find the same so called ‘freedom’ rejecting it. What do you make of this? Quick disclaimer, I don’t mean to suggest that I understand or support any of this. I am genuinely curious as to how we might interpret these types of anecdotes. I don’t want to rely solely on explanations from evangelicals echo-chambers. I also don't want to deny anyone's experience. Anyone's honest thoughts on this would be most appreciated. Many thanks :)

Nailed it.

Mr. McClellan, you have such a solid way of explaining your meaning I can't fail to be impressed.

Powerful one Dan. And very much needed today. But, I still like the other Dan better!!

If what Gods wants for people is to find a partner, marry them and start a family it shouldn't matter what sexual orientation you are. Christians could have tought this but instead want to ignore the fact that no one chooses their orientation. God made people the way they are. But instead they want to demonize minorities of people who are all one in Christ Jesus.

Here's what I have to say: we all turned the frogs gay.

Thank you for this videos. A friend of mine is Muslima, Another friend is atheist, but grew up in the Dutch Bible Belt, so experienced some of that tradition. I was Dutch reformed, but now I’m not believing anymore. They are both informed about what I learned since I last saw them. We have such interesting conversations. And discussions.

Because of Dan's erudite evaluation, I believe he's right. My position is more along how I regard divine thinking. In short, I find it impossible to believe that God, understanding human nature as He does, would ever say or inspire any sentiment that would lead to bigotry, marginalizing, and persecution of individuals who want nothing more than to live in accordance with their orientation.

Amen !!! to this analysis. Thank you very much for your thoughtful efforts.

As usualyou're absolutely wrong dan. It doesn't describe a male taking the insertive role. That's found nowhere in Scripture. That's some you invented. It is most definitely speaking about the act itself, regardless of the intentions behind the act "The compound Greek word arsenokoitai (arsen-o-koi-tai; plural of singular arsenokoitēs) is formed from the Greek words for “lying” (verb keimai; stem kei- adjusted to koi- before the “t” or letter tau) and “male” (arsēn). The word is a neologism created from terms used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions of men “lying with a male” (18:22; 20:13). (Note that the word for “lying” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Levitical prohibitions is the noun koitē, also meaning “bed,” which is formed from the verb keimai. The masculine -tēs suffix of the sg. noun arsenokoitēs denotes continuing agency or occupation, roughly equivalent to English -er attached to a noun; hence, “(male) liers with a male.”) That the connection to the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse is self-evident from the following points: (a) The rabbis used the corresponding Hebrew abstract expression mishkav zākûr, “lying of/with a male,” drawn from the Hebrew texts of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, to denote male-male intercourse in the broadest sense. (b) The term or its cognates does not appear in any non-Jewish, non-Christian text prior to the sixth century A.D. This way of talking about male homosexuality is a distinctly Jewish and Christian formulation. It was undoubtedly used as a way of distinguishing their absolute opposition to homosexual practice, rooted in the Torah of Moses, from more accepting views in the Greco-Roman milieu. (c) The appearance of arsenokoitai in 1 Tim 1:10 makes the link to the Mosaic law explicit, since the list of vices of which arsenokoitai is a part are said to be derived from “the law” (1:9). While it is true that the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts, in this instance it clearly does. (2) The implications of the context in early Judaism.That Jews of the period construed the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse absolutely and against a backdrop of a male-female requirement is beyond dispute. For example, Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199). There are no limitations placed on the prohibition as regards age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money. The only limitation is the sex of the participants. According to b. Sanh. 54a (viz., tractate Sanhedrin from the Babylonian Talmud), the male with whom a man lies in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 may be “an adult or minor,” meaning that the prohibition of male-male unions is not limited to pederasty. Indeed, there is no evidence in ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, or rabbinic Judaism that any limitation was placed on the prohibition of male-male intercourse. (3) The choice of word. Had a more limited meaning been intended-for example, pederasts-the terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen. (4) (4) The meaning of arsenokoitai and cognates in extant usage. The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes (see specifics in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 317-23). For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd-3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] … a man who … is derided as an arsenokoitēs… will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.” (5) Implications of the parallel in Rom 1:24-27. It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27 (“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire. Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23-27 to Gen 1:26-27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism in Rom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents). The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view. (6) Implications from the context of 1 Cor 5-7. This absolute and inclusive sense is further confirmed by the broader context of 1 Cor 5-7: the parallel case of incest in ch. 5 (which gives no exceptions for committed, loving unions and echoes both Levitical and Deuteronomic law); the vice list in 6:9-11 (where sexual offenders are distinguished from idolaters, consent is presumed, and a warning is given to believers not to engage in such behavior any longer); the analogy to sex with a prostitute in 6:12-20 (where Gen 2:24 is cited as the absolute norm and the Christian identity of the offender is presumed); and the issue of marriage in ch. 7 (which presumes throughout that sex is confined to male-female marriage). (7) The relevance of 1 Cor 11:2-16.If inappropriate hairstyles or head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another man to bed be a shameful act, lying with another male “as though lying with a woman”? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God’s kingdom, but he did with same-sex intercourse. (8) Implications of 1 Tim 1:9-10 corresponding to the Decalogue. At least the last half of the vice list in 1 Tim 1:8-10 (and possibly the whole of it) corresponds to the Decalogue. Why is that important? In early Judaism and Christianity, the Ten Commandments often served as summary headings for the full range of laws in the Old Testament. The seventh commandment against adultery, which was aimed at guarding the institution of marriage, served as a summary of all biblical sex laws, including the prohibition of male-male intercourse. The vice of kidnapping, which follows arsenokoitaiin 1 Tim 1:10, is typically classified under the eighth commandment against stealing (so Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, the rabbis, and the Didache; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 335-36). This makes highly improbable the attempt by some to pair arsenokoitai with the following term andrapodistai(kidnappers, men-stealers), as a way of limiting its reference to exploitative acts of male-male intercourse (so Robin Scroggs), rather than with the inclusive sexual term pornoi (the sexually immoral) that precedes it. (9) The implication of the meaning of malakoi. If the term malakoi is not limited in its usage to boys or to men who are exploited by other men (and it is not so limited; see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12), then arsenokoitai certainly cannot be limited to men who have sex with boys or slaves. (10) Sex with adult males as worse than sex with adolescent boys. In the Greco-Roman world homosexual intercourse between an adult male and a male youth was regarded as a less exploitative form of same-sex eros than intercourse between two adult males. The key problem with homosexual intercourse-behaving toward the passive male partner as if the latter were female-was exacerbated when the intercourse was aimed at adult males who had outgrown the “softness” of immature adolescence. Consequently, even if arsenokoitai primarily had in mind man-boy love (and from all that we have said above, there is no evidence that it does), then, a fortiori, it would surely also take in man-man love."

Dan, what do you kean about ignoring th eating of blood? Black pudding isn't that popular... and rare steak isnt actually bloody

Thank You, Dan ✨️🩷

Thx Dan as always! ❤

Thank you Dan for your this video. Your well invesntigated videos mean a lot for many people.

Great vídeo, but saying that the NT doesnt say anything about monogamy/poligamy is a bit much no? Jesus and Paul clearly defend monogamy

If our feelings and lack of action make sin okay, where are the people endorsing covetousness? With the Bible often saying "man" to refer to humans, a lesbian is a homosexual "man." And Jesus said we didn't have to engage in sexual activity in order to commit adultery in our heart.

Thank you Dan. This was a tour de force presentation from yourself. Keep up the great work.

Thanks for the great video Dan. 🙏🏿

What Dan is doing is responding to another creator particularly pertaining to a single subject. He's addressing the texts as they are written by Paul. He's not causing division. Its people's failure to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sex acts that causes division because of presuppositions and and the negotiation one does with the texts. There's no such thing as homosexual sin. Between Leviticus and Paul both describe the acts, not orientation. One's notion of orientation didn't exist in either the 8th century BCE or the 1st century CE. Just because some choose to be arrogant and ignorant, that's their problem. Its their pride that would marginalize and dehumanize another. Its their pride that would think they're superior unto another. It's their pride that upholds the narratives and the bigotry of others. It's the pride that is truly the deadliest sin of all.

it's also pretty neat that Dan comes out (ahem) swinging for the fact that the Bible clearly denounces proactive 'insertive' sodomy

It's insane how so many people care about what the Bible says. The whole book is a minefield and everyone thinks their interpretation is the correct path through. Everyone should just avoid it like the plague.

Are you saying the text says is wrong for a man to be the receptive role but its ok to be the insertive role?

So basically what your saying is that homosexuality is permissible in the bible as long as you're not being gay about it? (Also I want to note that I am joking here. In all seriousness you are doing great work Dan, keep it up.)

Hey Dan, I'd be interested in hearing you offer your opinion on matters of what *should* guide our negotiation of the text, especially since it seems that the answers of "the text itself" or "a textually- informed tradition" would allow bias to shape interpretation. Using this video as an example, you correct the stitched creator's reading with a more precise one, but you don't offer guidance on what to do with that more precise reading, especially as it still seems to condemn certain behavior - you only go on to reiterate the general case that the the Bible's meaning is shaped as much by its own social contexts as our own. The options with the more precise reading seem to be to discard it or downplay it, or to obey it. You don't seem to advocate the latter, so what direction do we have for the authority or basis of wisdom or tradition or mindset to guide the former?

À la cart, Christianity… That’s what you call these people who cherry pick which part of the text to ignore which part to enforce

Thank you Dan.

I'm an agnostic so my opinions are going to be FAR different from the people that believe that the bible is an inspired work from an omnimoral and omniscient GOD. People who base their lives and in many cases financial livings peddling the philosophies of this book. I just have to say that this book is WAY too morally and ethically inconsistent to quite frankly, deserve the moral pedestal that it's often placed on. Based on 1 Cor. 6:9, Romans 1:26 and Leviticus 20:13, I think you ACTUALLY can safely infer that GOD condemns homosexuality (As difficult as it is to hear). But I'm going to need a list of scriptures and philosophies that are ACTUALLY inspired by GOD to differentiate from the ones that aren't. Because while the bible does condemn this it simultaneously condones and in some cases GLORIFIES topics like violence, mass murder and genocide (of which Hitler is famous for), human sacrifice and the killing of infants, Slavery (Including sexual slavery)... The overall domination of women. Rape under certain circumstances. It condemns inter-tribal marriage and by extension inter-racial marriage often with deadly consequences (Which you can easily associate with the philosophies of the Nazis and the KKK concerning modern Eugenics). It forbids wearing clothing woven from two different kinds of specifically suggested threads or fabrics. And despite everyone's fixation on homosexuality, it doesn't condemn or even mention pedophilia and the abuse of children. Curious omission given Jesus' affinity for them... And then a split second later philosophically speaking, it encourages that we should all love our neighbors as ourselves... Now does that kind of GROSS ethical inconsistency suggest omnimoral guidance to you 🤨. Put inconsistent ethical standards on a pedestal and that's EXACTLY what it's going to perpetuate... Ethical and moral inconsistentcy. Like baking "unleavened" bread in a dented pan.. CLEARLY the bible isn't perfect because if the values of mass murdering Nazis can be scripturally glorified alongside Pacifists then condemning JUST homosexuality (As opposed to everything else) is the least of it's problems... And because the bible is so ethically inconsistent, for people who observe the bible it's a CONSTANT doctrinal negotiation as you try to derive moral consistency from a book that is systemically inconsistent... So much so that I can use scripture to simultaneously condemn and condone scripture (Along with everything else) Good luck with that👍🏼. My personal belief is that as long as you're not a harm to yourself or the people around you... Don't get too bent out of shape, because the bible is the ONLY book that I've EVER read that places more positive moral emphasis on murder and genocide narratively (And doctrinally) than it does sexuality... Hilarious 🙄 Sidenote: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d694ndKFlp-8oHk.htmlsi=Y2njzgNFewgpZB9t (Question... Which abomination comes first? Anachronistic #$%!@)

A contemporary English slang term might be "Top" or "Pitcher" Of course, then the preachers might just start condemning baseball players and spinning toys.

The chapter is clearly talking about man-ing the courts 🧑‍⚖ of the *KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.* So whatever it says, it only has to do with the rulers of the kingdom, not everyone who makes it. Christians ✝ really have completely forgotten the *entire point* of the New Testament. 🙄

Here's The Thing...

If we can't interpret the bible without adapting it to our own cultural norms, then can we ever definitively say what any given passage within the bible means? If we can never definitively say what any given passage means, then how can we say that its wrong to translate arsenokoitai as "homosexuals"?

Is Romans 1:26 actually talking about female homosexuality or is it just talking about females leaving what is natural for them, because Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not condemn females for same sex sexual activity. From a legalistic stand point, it would have to be made illegal in "The Law of Moses" for it to be unnatural for females. The law of Moses did not condemn females for same sex sex. In the Talmud there are Rabbis that say it is perfectly ok and others that say, while it is not illegal, women should not do it. If its not in the Law of Moses, then it is not wrong.

Dan, what exactly makes scholars think that Romans 1:26 refers to female homosexuality? The text only mentions female sexual deviancy, not same-sex activity.

I've always been interested in this topic. Thanks for some further clarification. My overall way of thinking about consensual adult sex is that it's none of my business what other humans do in bed.

God bless you!!!

LOVE that fit!

Thank you for rolling back the subtitle font. Much easier to parse.

the "PERIOD" AT 3:34, that was a serve

The hubris -- to think that they know more than biblical/ religious scholars, like Dan. Smh..

EVERY sentiment expressed in the bible is just what you would expect to hear coming from a man living in that time and place. On EVERY topic - slavery, warfare, women, family relations, sexual mores, etc. 30,000 verses and not a single one betrays a mind any more advanced than the first decade CE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins. There are some interpreters today who object to lumping homosexuals in with the other sinners listed in this passage. The wording “men who have sex with men” is unclear, they say, and should not be construed as a condemnation of all same-sex activity. In an attempt to make homosexual behavior compatible with Christianity, they attempt to redefine the Greek word. The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships. Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”-that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9. As in English, the Greek word for “bed” can have both sexual and non-sexual meanings. The statement “I bought a new bed” has no sexual connotation; however, “I went to bed with her” does. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, koitai connotes an illicit sexual connotation-the apostle is clearly speaking of “wrongdoers” here. The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai refers to homosexuals-men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity. It is interesting to note that arsenokoitai was not a common word in the Greek language to refer to homosexuality. Some have even claimed that the apostle Paul invented the word. This is not the case. In the Septuagint Greek translation of the two verses in the Mosaic Law that refer to homosexuality both contain forms of arseno and koitai (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). This likely indicates that Paul had Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, making it abundantly clear what Paul meant by the word arsenokoitai. The notion that some homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis. Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be. Just two verses later, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you *were.* But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). This statement negates the idea of “homosexual Christianity” being acceptable to God. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that practices such as homosexuality were evidences of their former life before Christ. Now they have been born again, and they have a new nature and new desires. The old nature remains, and the temptations continue, but child of God has been called to fight against sin, not live in it any longer. By the life-changing grace of God, the Corinthians’ new life stands in opposition to the way they used to live.

flatly is my new favorite word. thank you dan

You: arsenokoitai Me: *giggles*

In the KJV the word is translated as "effeminate". I wonder how the KJV only crowd navigates this one. I have a mild suspicion the content creator in question is normally a KJV guy, but makes an exception with this verse

I was literally about to bring up the slavery thing too lol

Well said, sir!!!!

He needs to turn his gaze inward,or a po piso,eyes forward 👀

"everyone alters what the Bible says to shit their cultural norms" this includes Dan there's a reason Dan targets Evangelical fundies and avoids Catholic scholarship (bonus: his claim that scriptural authors never intended to write for future readers is as 'blithe' as it is disingenuous, for the Scriptures repeatedly cast their words upon future and unknown hearers, just as Dan makes these videos assuming they will be relevant to unknown and future viewers) Dan is a postmodern sophist

Dan says, Leviticus 20:13 is "... describing ONE man taking the insertive role in an act of male same sex intercourse ...." So what difference does Dan think this actually proves? Leviticus goes on to declare, "... BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death; THEIR blood shall be upon THEM." On top or on the bottom, makes no difference, they are BOTH equally dead as a result of their actions. I wonder why Dan didn't mention this tiny detail?

well how else are you gonna have a homosexual act without one of them being the receiver The Bible was clearly against two men having sex .. the end.. You can pick a part some antics if you want to because of your political perspective but we all know what to text means

He’s right. The Bible doesn’t force you to do anything. *A dude on tiktok is lecturing you on morality.* Sorry mate. You’ll have to show something better than “trust me bro, the god of the universe agrees with me”.

Dan does a really good job sounding like an expert while simultaneously being wrong in almost everything he says.

Get em Dan

So, it is not condemned the homoeexuality, but the insertive role. That doesn't make any difference. We support gay people but not when they engage in gay sex. That doesn't make any sense at all

I'd also love to see Dan engage the actual (hostile) Greco-Roman attitudes/policies towards what we now call "homosexual culture" (spoiler alert: they did not like it)

My understanding of the Bible talking about this subject was changed in a such a way when I was reading up a bit on Norse society and seiðr. "Ergi" was a word used toward men who practiced seiðr. It was thought to be something women did. When I had read that a man lying with a man as one would with a woman, I also thought about how women were treated as second-class citizens. So for a man to take the role of what was expected to be a role women took, was to emasculate oneself, as it were. Since these are different times from the past, I find the idea that the Bible can provide us with a cohesive set of ethics to be nonsensical.

Hi Dan! Great video as always. Could you possibly address whether the NRSVue’s translation of arsenokoitai and malakoi is more accurate than the previous NRSV? I’ve seen some arguments by apologists but I don’t know what scholars think about it.

Is Dan Mormon?

Thank you Dr Dan. I wonder if the divorce question is negotiated to allow it. "Fornication" etc. I was surprised to hear my good christian friend say that he had a biblical excuse to divorce his wife.

truth

Well said Dan

Did Paul ever coin any other words using the Septuagint? Which words? If he didn't coin any other words this way, why would we assume he did just this one time? What did arsenkoitai mean when used in texts outside the Bible? Did any ancient author use it to mean someone born with a homosexual orientation? In what other ancient text does malakoi refer to a same-sex act? Were not the men described in Romans innately heterosexual to begin with who then performed acts unnatural to them? Does Romans describe men who were born innately homosexual? Weren't the women described in Romans performing oral sex and anal sex with men? Where does it specify it was females having sex with each other?

I don't think ben grimm would take a receptive role.

Dan, what about 1 Timothy 3:12? I can see it’s about ´deacons’ and not the general population. I know some who say this is anti-polygamie but have only been able to reply that I’m not sure about that - maybe it’s about having time for the church because they aren’t busy with their four wives, but I really don’t know. Can you shed any light on this one?

Beginning of the video claims to be a Bible scholar, spends the rest of the video proving that statement 100% false.

What people miss from the Bible: Laws of Moses was for the Jewish people only.

Arse! No coitus!!

I heard this addressed on the podcast not long ago, and I found it interesting and somewhat compelling. I would, however, like to hear a deeper explanation and/or citations for the reasons behind interpreting it as the insertive and receptive roles. Thanks.

Your point of the specificities of the words and its uses still doesn't take away the condemnation of the act and contributing acts described in later in biblical texts. The fact is that the activity itself is an abomination according to the texts. And saying that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong by arguing the modern idea of homosexuality as an orientation doesn't fit the condemnation of the act of homosexual intercourse is a half truth. You're using an argument of semantics to call others wrong. Now the commenters you're arguing may get some important linguistic aspects wrong but in this instance he seems to understand meaning better than you, a scholar rationalizing his own moral views onto the meaning of biblical text. You appear to use your academic achievements to attack small inaccuracies to take the audience away from the overall meaning. Are you a Christian or do you think it's all just a story?

Thanks Dan. Keep helping us understand what the Bible says and just what some people’s want it to say

No, not in my opinion. The term is used to describe the relationship between a pubescent boy and a grown man. The boy was a victim of a pedophile.

🔥🔥🔥

Good font choice for the captions. It's fitting for the fits.

Hi Dan, would you be willing to deconstruct the Quran in the future?

Not to mention that arsenkoitai is a word coined only in the new testament/xtianity.

This was a particularly savage response--not wrong, just a good "mic drop" moment. Good job as always!