Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

My Thesis Proposal on 1 Corinthians 6:9

Started by Annah, November 01, 2011, 10:28:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Annah

1 Corinthians 6:9-20

   First Corinthians was a letter written by Paul to instruct the church how to correct itself from their sinful indulgences and potential false doctrine. It was a relatively new church set within a Greco-Roman city and the church began to experience conflicts in how they can live their lives while practicing what they understood what God wanted for them. The Christians of Corinth requested guidance on how a Christian is "suppose" to act versus how they used to act.

Through Paul's instructions on true wisdom, love, thanksgiving, the Holy Spirit, and immoral practices, we see a formation of what Paul wanted the Church at Corinth to follow and how this type of instruction separates the people of the Church in Corinth to those who still lived a Pagan lifestyle. Throughout these instructions Paul had written to the church, the passage in First Corinthians Chapter six gleans upon Paul's viewpoints of sexuality.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-20, Paul begins to state who is not allowed into the Kingdom of God. Many commentators today uses this passage to devalue, dehumanize, reject, and condemn any form of sexuality other than heterosexuality. My proposal is that Paul had no moral issues with homosexuality and his issues were the sexual exploitations and violence used against another human being. Poor interpretation of key words in this text had muddled the original meaning behind Paul's writings that created the aura of homophobia found today in many churches.

Annotated Bibliography

Hearon, Holly E. The Queer Bible Commentary. 1st and 2nd Corinthians. London: Canterbury Press, 1988. Print.

The Queer Bible Commentary is a commentary in which shows the side of the Bible that many do not want to see or cannot see. It tackles issues such as the arsenokoitai debate and sexuality within First Corinthians. She further explains that sacred prostitution was a man or a woman giving into another (the prostitute). Christians are supposed to have the Holy Spirit dwell in them. And not a Christian dwelling within a prostitute.

Martin, Dale B. Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Print.

Sex and the Single Savior takes historical and cultural purposes of sexuality and brings them to the surface of the Biblical texts and the nature of Jesus. He also tackles many current issues that Christians are faced with when it comes to homosexuality and the New Testament. Dale Martin goes into incredible detail between the two greek words of arsenokoitai and malakoi and explains why he believes these terms are not as Conservative Christians make them out to be.

Ellens, Harold J. Sex in the Bible. Westport: Praeger Press, 2006. Print.

Harold Ellens explains that homosexuality within the New Testament is not in itself a sin, rather, it is the practice of homosexuality outside of God's love and outside of a Christian lifestyle that is the sin. Ellens states that heterosexuality and homosexuality is viewed as common sexual practices under God but can be in danger of falling into an immoral pattern if they resorted back to their Pagan ways.


Sampley, Paul J. The New Interpreter's Bible: Volume X. First Corinthians. Nashville: Abingdon Press,  2002. Print.

Paul Sampley, in his final reflections of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 discusses the fact that no one knows anything of the cultural practices of sexuality as well as the taboos or forbidden acts during Paul's time and it can become very easy for someone to make the assumption that arsenokoitai and malakoi means homosexuality. It is argued that these terms relates to male prostitution in which Paul discusses later in the chapter.

Patai, Raphael. Sex and Family in the Bible in the Middle East. Garden City: Double Day & Company, 1959. Print.

Raphael Patai explores sexuality in regards to the practices and customs of the Middle East and then compares current sexuality in the Middle East to examples that are described within the Bible and the culture of that time. He also cites many historical accounts of the people in the Middle East who practiced various aspects of sexuality and heterosexuality was just one of many forms.


Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek Text. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Print.

Anthony Thiselton explains the "vice passage" of First Corinthians 6:9. He interprets such sexual forbidden practices as male prostitution, sacred male prostitution and "pederastic practices." He continues on by citing Scroggs in stating that Paul did not find homosexuality "morally reprehensible", rather it was male prostitution.
  •  

Julie1957

It sounds like a really interesting study.  I'd love to hear excerpts as you develop it.

Julie
I always wanted to be someone.  Now I am someone.  It just isn't me.
  •  

Annah

thanks. When the paper is complete ill post some excerpts from it :)
  •  

AbraCadabra

Thanks Annah, yes interesting.

I hope in your text the basis of WHERE St. Paul's thoughts were base on will come to light.
We, most of us, know he was a Pharisee (Saul) and had his Epiphany on the road to Damascus, seeing Jesus Christ.

So the expectation, having seen Jesus would be, that ALL his preaching be based on what Jesus had to say about things, - matters of life.

In my understanding he certainly went well beyond that, at least beyond what was revealed in the 4 gospels. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

It appears to more folks then just me, that Paul still had a strong basis in Jewish moral thinking --- and so if it could not be derived back to Jesus' sayings and teachings, the difference ALWAYS, and with ever Christian splinter group, or sect, is then explained by - induction of the holy spirit.

I'm sure this was the case long before even St. Augustine... and all the other Church fathers that 'structured' doctrine until this day.

Having been myself part (Exorcist) of 'The Mission Church of Christ' (doing deliverance) that turned sect in the 80s, I learned my fair share of what all is being said and done in the "telling of the Holy Spirit".

So, in any case let's see what your findings will tell us. Interesting it should be.

Thank you,
Axelle
Some say: "Free sex ruins everything..."
  •  

SarahM777

Annah,

Just a quick thought if you don't mind. I am not 100% sure on this but at times I think Paul does two things in his writings.
(This is just something i have thought about recently)
One is that in a lot of ways they seems to be kind of short mini sermons and those sections need to be taken as a whole.
We need to remember that Paul was writing to the gentiles so many were coming from a Greek philosophical mind set so it appears to me at times Paul uses that style to make his point. (I think he for uses it in Romans where he starts down a path and then near the end he turns it in such a way to make his point IE Romans chapter1 into chapter 2 which i believe his point is don't judge unless you want God to judge you)

I am not sure that you see this or if i am off base.
Answers are easy. It's asking the right questions which is hard.

Be positive in the fact that there is always one person in a worse situation then you.

The Fourth Doctor
  •  

mixie

+Went for my second Masters at Union Theological Seminary at Columbia University in the M Div program.  But I dropped out.  I have several facebook friends that are in the  gender and queer studies there that may have resources that you might find useful. One of my goodfriends is being ordained (not by Union, they don't ordain) as a queer minister.  I'm sure you and he/she will have tons to talk about so shoot me a PM and I'll give you my info and hers/his on facebook.

My first thesis was on biblical exegesis on Abraham, Sarah and Hagar from a female perspective so pm me.  I might have some resources.

I also recommend using questia.com as a great sourcing device for a thesis.  It was a godsend to me (excuse the pun)

also if you don't mind

QuoteThroughout these instructions Paul had written to the church, the passage in First Corinthians Chapter six gleans upon Paul's viewpoints of sexuality.


This sentence is gramatically awkward.  I think it might have a dangling modifier but I'm too frickin' tired to sort it  out.  Have someone sort it out for you that is an expert. :)
  •  

Annah

Quote from: SarahM777 on November 10, 2011, 08:08:05 PM
Annah,

Just a quick thought if you don't mind. I am not 100% sure on this but at times I think Paul does two things in his writings.
(This is just something i have thought about recently)
One is that in a lot of ways they seems to be kind of short mini sermons and those sections need to be taken as a whole.
We need to remember that Paul was writing to the gentiles so many were coming from a Greek philosophical mind set so it appears to me at times Paul uses that style to make his point. (I think he for uses it in Romans where he starts down a path and then near the end he turns it in such a way to make his point IE Romans chapter1 into chapter 2 which i believe his point is don't judge unless you want God to judge you)

I am not sure that you see this or if i am off base.

a crazy thing happened to me this semester; before I took "Paul and the Early Church" I believed that Paul was a pompous arrogant misogynist and homophobic person (with a slight hint of narcissism).

Now that I am almost done with this class, my viewpoints have changed (well, for the exception of the arrogance....because he was arrogant lol....he had to be arrogant to use his literary form of Rhetoric....so I will let it slide!).

But yes, I agree with you. He sometimes uses a style of language that does that. In First Corinthians 6:9 I see it more as a mistranslation error than anything else. The more I have delved into this passage by reading a lot of books on the culture of that time in regards to sex, exploitation, etc., I am utterly convinced that the arsenokoitai does not mean homosexuality. It means the action in which someone violently subjugates another person into male prostitution (a sex slave if you will). It is not addressing the prostitute himself, rather those who forced him into it....which makes more sense when compared to the other vice list such as slanderers, thiefs, etc etc
  •  

Annah

Quote from: mixie on November 10, 2011, 08:14:11 PM
+Went for my second Masters at Union Theological Seminary at Columbia University in the M Div program.  But I dropped out.  I have several facebook friends that are in the  gender and queer studies there that may have resources that you might find useful. One of my goodfriends is being ordained (not by Union, they don't ordain) as a queer minister.  I'm sure you and he/she will have tons to talk about so shoot me a PM and I'll give you my info and hers/his on facebook.

My first thesis was on biblical exegesis on Abraham, Sarah and Hagar from a female perspective so pm me.  I might have some resources.

I also recommend using questia.com as a great sourcing device for a thesis.  It was a godsend to me (excuse the pun)

also if you don't mind


This sentence is gramatically awkward.  I think it might have a dangling modifier but I'm too frickin' tired to sort it  out.  Have someone sort it out for you that is an expert. :)

Yeah, I have re edited some of the language I used. I see you went go to the Seminary of one of my favorite theologians, Diederick Bonhoeffer. Loved that guy.

If you have any friends who can point me out to more books on Queer studies of the New Testament that would be wonderful....also, be sure to tell them about "Sex and the Single Savior." That book is incredible.
  •  

Dana_H

I also would be interested in reading whatever portions you would be willing to post.  I have no formal religious training whatsoever, but I've always been fascinated by analysis of parallels between religions so I have read 1 Corinthians a number of times along with the rest of the Bible and the Apocrypha.  I'd be curious to see how my intuited understanding of the material compares to a more rigorous analysis.

I find that my interpretations of selected books, chapters, and verses frequently do not match what I was taught growing up in a "Born-Again" Christian family.
Call me Dana. Call me Cait. Call me Kat. Just don't call me late for dinner.
  •  

cynthialee

When I was a Christian (Jehovas Witness and Pentacostal) I was firmly of the opinion that Paul was a heretic.
Much of what he said is very divisive in the guise of unification.
He was an insidious man if you ask me.
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
Sun Tsu 'The art of War'
  •  

Annah

Quote from: cynthialee on November 10, 2011, 10:47:51 PM
When I was a Christian (Jehovas Witness and Pentacostal) I was firmly of the opinion that Paul was a heretic.

Can you give me some examples in Paul's writings where you found him to be heretical? I never really saw that.

Orthodox and Gnostics alike all agree with him.
  •  

AbraCadabra

Annah,
I tend to agree with you here.
Wasn't "heretic" which was NOT according to Paul in the first place?

Axelle
Some say: "Free sex ruins everything..."
  •  

cynthialee

This guy makes a good point for Paul being a heretic. Far better than I could as I haven't set foot in a church or cracked a bible in over 15 years...

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_02.htm
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
Sun Tsu 'The art of War'
  •  

AbraCadabra

Hm, if it wasn't for Paul I should think there was not a Christian Church. Not then and not today. YMMV

He sure had his own interpretations of things taught by Jesus, - having been a Pharisee.

Does that make him a Heretic? I don't think so, since he ~ "started the Church" - with Jesus' message to be sure, but still.

Also, isn't a heretic a person that disregards established dogma?

I think Paul created his own dogma. I'm not aware of Jesus' message being dogma as such.

This my thoughts may all sound pretty silly and ever so un-learned to the learned bible scientists of hermeneutics... yet those are my thoughts on the subject.

Axelle


Some say: "Free sex ruins everything..."
  •  

Annah

Quote from: cynthialee on November 11, 2011, 08:29:09 AM
This guy makes a good point for Paul being a heretic. Far better than I could as I haven't set foot in a church or cracked a bible in over 15 years...

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_02.htm

I read that article four times.....very carefully. I have to disagree with everything that author made except for one exception: I do agree that Paul was an egotist. Many Greek and Roman based Orators were. It was part of their oral delivery.

Most of his (the author) argument are based on surface level conjectures and his own interpretation of the verses he listed as his sources.

I did not find the article to be even remotely convincing. If he wanted to try to see Paul as a Heretic or convince others who studies Paul, he better do a better job than that.

The author's credibility even sank lower when he suggested Paul may have been gay. I read the New Testament so many times in it's original Koine Greek as well as other translations and nowhere does it ever state, hint, or allude to the fact that Paul is Gay. If one takes Paul's "thorn in his side" argument as being gay, then they dropped the ball.

Paul was never against homosexuality. Therefore, it would have never been a "thorn in his side" and same gender loving people were not regarded as immoral people. It was how they executed their sexual desires that made them immoral (prostitution in pagan temples, forcing boys into sex slavery ...arsenokoitai, etc). The "thorn in his side" could mean ANYTHING under the sun and to assume he was gay from it is just poor scholarly work.

And if you haven't cracked a Bible open in 15 years, then I can definitely see you agreeing with this author because he writes convincingly to someone who doesn't study the Bible...because those who study the Bible just see's his argument as very lacking.
  •  

Annah

Quote from: Axélle on November 11, 2011, 12:11:20 PM

Also, isn't a heretic a person that disregards established dogma?

Absolutely. The only way you can be a heretic is by believing in a doctrine or orthodoxy that goes against the teachings of the Church. Since there were no doctrine or orthodoxy, it would have been impossible to label him as a heretic. Orthodoxy wasn't established until 350 through 450 CE...and it varies between the western and eastern church as well as the Coptic church.

And if we go on the prior argument of heresy, then Peter could have been labeled as a heretic since he believed that Gentile Christians should observe Judaic law. Today, if a Pastor or Priest said you cannot go to heaven unless you are circumcise, then you teach heresy since orthodoxy teachings states (As Paul stated), it is Grace...not the Law that counts.
  •  

mixie


Wweeeeellllll,   Matthew 5:18 takes issue with throwing away the law because of the concept of Grace.   So it's definitely not definitive unless you are only interested in reading the Bible as a Christian document. 
  •  

AbraCadabra

Quote from: mixie on November 11, 2011, 03:42:49 PM
Wweeeeellllll,   Matthew 5:18 takes issue with throwing away the law because of the concept of Grace.   So it's definitely not definitive unless you are only interested in reading the Bible as a Christian document.

OK, I think Annah will be good to answer this one.

My humble take:
It is not "throwing away the law" vs "grace" it is GRACE that 'saves' you in the end and NOT the LAW.
As Jesus and most every other sane person knew/knows - you will NEVER be able to ALWAYS live in the LAW. So it still is GRACE that saves you once all is said and done.

NOBODY will EVER be perfect in the LAW. A lot of bigoted folks would wish they were, and therefore feel in their  right to "throw the first stone".
Even the most pious of Pharisees would have to agree it was not possible to completely live in the law.
It was one of Jesus' main arguments against the Jewish religious view/teachings, and pissed of the bigots BIG TIME.
It still seems do so... :-)

So WHY Matthew 5:18 would support the notion of Paul being a heretic (the OP)?
Beats me.

Axelle
Some say: "Free sex ruins everything..."
  •  

Cindy

Annah,

I do not mean this in any confrontational way. Just for information. I'm a professional scientist just to explain a bit.

I thought or presumed that there are few if any original texts of the person called Jesus. Paul came along a lot later? Are the texts that he wrote available or are you using forensic methods  to understand his publications?

I see you are trying to be unbiased in your research, which must be very difficult in a non-science area. How do you remove your own opinion?
  •  

Annah

Quote from: Cindy James on November 12, 2011, 02:10:06 AM
Annah,

I do not mean this in any confrontational way. Just for information. I'm a professional scientist just to explain a bit.

I thought or presumed that there are few if any original texts of the person called Jesus. Paul came along a lot later? Are the texts that he wrote available or are you using forensic methods  to understand his publications?

I see you are trying to be unbiased in your research, which must be very difficult in a non-science area. How do you remove your own opinion?

"technically" the earliest manuscripts are about 60-90 CE; between 30 to 60 years after Jesus. There really isn't any concrete proof that the actual Apostles had written the Gospel stories. Many scholars will argue that there is a much older Gospel or text that Matthew, Mark, and Luke borrowed from and that is what we call the "Q" document. The Q document is a theoretical document that the Gospels shard from and then Mark shared from Matthew...but the sources all point to one original document that was lost....which, more than likely, was written by an Apostle.

The letters of Paul...well...most of them are undisputed works of his. Colossians, Ephesians, and 1st Timothy are books that someone may have used Paul's name as the author but was written by another.

Prior to the Canonization of the New Testament, there were 23 Gospels, but 4 were chosen (mainly because the head Bishop were particularly fond of them). The Pauline Epistles were embraced by both the Gnostic and the "Orthodoxy" church so many of Paul's letters are not questioned in terms of when they were written.

Also Paul can be dated about 30 years after Christ. The cross reference between the historical imperial Roman Empire, the fledgling Church that referred to Paul's writings as far back as 120 CE by various writers as a primary source proves that the letters were not written after 100 CE but prior.
  •