Does this Bible verse include transexuals?

[KarlMars]

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Matthew 19:12

I personally feel like this applies to me. Discuss please.

[Deborah]

It depends upon how you conceptualize religion.

If you take the modernist, liberal, view that the scriptures may be interpreted to find meaning for the individual doing the reading then sure, it can include transsexuals.

If you take the traditional, conservative, view that scriptures are to be interpreted in their historical and original linguistic context then I do not believe this verse had any relation to transsexuals at all.

I take the second view.  That's why after a considerable amount of academic and personal bible and history study I am no longer a Christian.


Sapere Aude

[KarlMars]

It depends upon how you conceptualize religion.

If you take the modernist, liberal, view that the scriptures may be interpreted to find meaning for the individual doing the reading then sure, it can include transsexuals.

If you take the traditional, conservative, view that scriptures are to be interpreted in their historical and original linguistic context then I do not believe this verse had any relation to transsexuals at all.

I take the second view.  That's why after a considerable amount of academic and personal bible and history study I am no longer a Christian.


Sapere Aude

I like how you can see both sides. I have no experience with bible study, and I was looking at that from an abstract point of view as if it were a riddle and the word eunuch had more than one meaning. Thank you for your input Deborah.

[RobynD]

It may have. sometimes it is good to learn some greek because that is about as far as one can go back in biblical lineage and would theoretically be more accurate to the original authors.

There are many who think fornication from its root greek work meant consorting with temple prostitutes as an example. The warning against the "effeminate" in english likely goes back to a different term that meant something completely different.

The bible is beautiful , but you are also looking at a snap shot into a culture that is very different from our own. To try and take it too literal is a slippery slope into itself and the bottom of the hill, dissatisfaction remains.

[Deborah]

I just happen to have a Greek resource on my phone from back in the days when I was studying to be an Anglican Priest.

This is from the Louw Nida GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT.  It is a reputable resource.

Please draw your own conclusions on what the word meant at the time it was written.  I have a lot more resources if you need more.

9.25 εὐνοῦχοςa, ου m: a castrated male person—'eunuch.' εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινεσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 'there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by people' Mt 19:12b.
In the ancient Middle East eunuchs were frequently in charge of royal harems and sometimes rose to high positions of state. The reference to the eunuch in Ac 8:34 is best interpreted as 'court official' (see 37.85).
Since in many societies castration of human males is not known, any attempt to employ a descriptive explanation within the text might seem unnecessarily crude and even vulgar. A number of translators have therefore preferred to borrow a term for eunuch and then place the explanation of its meaning in a glossary or word list.

9.26 εὐνουχίζωa: (derivative of εὐνοῦχοςa 'eunuch,' 9.25) to cause a person to be a eunuch—'to make a eunuch, to castrate.' οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων 'men who have been castrated by people' Mt 19:12. Sometimes one may render εὐνουχίζω as 'to cause a person not to be able to have marital relations.'
In a number of languages the castration of a man is referred to by a term very different from what is employed in the case of the castration of an animal.

9.27 εὐνουχίζωb (used with a reflexive pronoun): to live without engaging in sexual relations—'to be celibate, to live without marrying.' οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν 'there are men who do not marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven' Mt 19:12.

9.28 εὐνοῦχοςb, ου m: a human male who without being castrated is by nature incapable of sexual intercourse—'impotent male.' εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως 'for there are impotent males who have been so from birth' Mt 19:12a.

9.29 εὐνοῦχοςc, ου m: a male person who abstains from marriage without being necessarily impotent—'celibate.' εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν 'there are men who are celibate who do not marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven' Mt 19:12c.

Sapere Aude

[KarlMars]

It may have. sometimes it is good to learn some greek because that is about as far as one can go back in biblical lineage and would theoretically be more accurate to the original authors.

There are many who think fornication from its root greek work meant consorting with temple prostitutes as an example. The warning against the "effeminate" in english likely goes back to a different term that meant something completely different.

The bible is beautiful , but you are also looking at a snap shot into a culture that is very different from our own. To try and take it too literal is a slippery slope into itself and the bottom of the hill, dissatisfaction remains.

Yes, the modern world has no correlation to the one we live in now. This is why I put my personal relationship with Jesus before the bible. I told my priest the bible didn't make much sense to me and I didn't understand it all and preferred the new testament because it spoke to me more. He said that was fine because we are not slaves. I'll never be too sure about that bible verse, but Jesus speaks to me personally as he does anyone else who asks.

[KarlMars]

I just happen to have a Greek resource on my phone from back in the days when I was studying to be an Anglican Priest.

This is from the Louw Nida GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT.  It is a reputable resource.

Please draw your own conclusions on what the word meant at the time it was written.  I have a lot more resources if you need more.


Sapere Aude

Thank you for the knowledge, Deborah.

[Del]

To start with, hello, I haven't been on here in a while. I'm not transsexual but I would hope that wouldn't cause you to think my answers biased.

The scripture in question when viewed from a spiritual sense is about those who have forsaken all to follow the Lord. Like Jesus said those who left wife and son and daughter and houses and lands. As Paul said having wives but living as though having none. Those who forsake sexual relations as well.

To become an eunuch in that sense (there are others) would be to leave everything of this world to follow the Lord. Eunuchs in the natural however are a different story.

It is also written the eunuchs which serve the Lord shall not call themselves a dry tree. Remember how Jesus said if these things be done in a green tree (those people having life in Christ) what shall be done in a dry? (those not saved or having  life in Christ) In other words they shall  not say they are fruitless, or without the fruit of the Spirit or without the word of God.

Have a blessed day.

[stephaniec]

pesonally for me the only point of the New Testament is Christ, son of God, eternal life and the love of the son for the father and the love of the father for all his children.

[MysteyV]

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Matthew 19:12

I personally feel like this applies to me. Discuss please.

Unequivocally and emphatically Yes!

The Eunuch was an esteemed and legally protected class in Roman society.

As to what they were? Identical to the Hijras of India. Castrated males and homosexuals not castrated, which is very inclusive.

Note that Jesus doesn't condemn even though he has the chance. Christ is therefore at minimum neutral toward us if not supportive of eunuch's generally.

I'm a former traditional catholic priest who was Superior General of a Religious order.

Prior to this I was an evangelical minister with seminary diploma in Bible Studies.

So called Christians who condemn us are deleted from the Book of Life for they rewrite God's word per the warning in the Book of Revelation.

Kindnesses
Victoria xx

[Deborah]

It is unbelievable to me that if that's what Jesus meant that it took us 2000 years to figure it out.  There is no evidence that any aspect of LGBT was accepted by those Christians closest to him in time who had a living understanding of both the language and the culture.  There is evidence of the opposite, that the Church reviled LGBT.  I use the word reviled intentionally because that is the tone of their writing; as bad or worse than the most homophobic or transphobic person today.


Sapere Aude

[stephaniec]

I think in my own opinion just accept God"s love, it'e easy if we try

[MysteyV]

It is unbelievable to me that if that's what Jesus meant that it took us 2000 years to figure it out.  There is no evidence that any aspect of LGBT was accepted by those Christians closest to him in time who had a living understanding of both the language and the culture.  There is evidence of the opposite, that the Church reviled LGBT.  I use the word reviled intentionally because that is the tone of their writing; as bad or worse than the most homophobic or transphobic person today.


Sapere Aude

Please retract this cruel uneducated personal opinion  immediately. Because of course your opinion supersedes my years of seminary? Uhm ... good thing that's a no it doesn't.

Uhm, sorry you are 100% wrong.

"The Didache" (circa 65 AD - 170AD)

The earliest extant catechism and Church manual condemns various sexual misconduct eg adultery, pedophelia, temple prostitution, incest.

But nowhere, not once is homosexualuality - the Eunuch - condemned here either.

The Early first generation Church did not understand homosexuality to be condemned.

In fact the "effeminate" men Paul refers to are temple prostitutes and not the Eunuch.

The Orthodox and Catholic Church accept The Didache as authoritative.

Kindnesses
Victoria xx

[Deborah]

The Church also accepts St. Augustine as authoritative and he specifically condemns what we would call transsexuality in the vilest terms in his book, "The City of God".  Similar statements may be found in other writings from the Church Fathers.

I have read the Didache many times.  While I do not have as many seminary years as you, I do have several years graduate level study of theology in an accredited institution so my statements are based on more than, "cruel uneducated personal opinion."


Sapere Aude

[MysteyV]

The Church also accepts St. Augustine as authoritative and he specifically condemns what we would call transsexuality in the vilest terms in his book, "The City of God".  Similar statements may be found in other writings from the Church Fathers.

I have read the Didache many times.  While I do not have as many seminary years as you, I do have several years graduate level study of theology in an accredited institution so my statements are based on more than, "cruel uneducated personal opinion."


Sapere Aude

Authoritative is a misleading choice of term for those who will read this and be unfamiliar with Catholic terminology.

So let's tighten this up shall we.

As you are well aware The Didache was viewed as of far higher rank than the theological musings of Doctors of the Church such as an Augustine or a Teresa of Avila.

In fact the Early Church regarded the Didache as a valuable tool for confirming dogmatic interpretation as follows.

"The Didache is mentioned by Eusebius after the books of Scripture (Church History III.25.4): "Let there be placed among the spuria the writing of the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd and the Apocalypse of Peter, and besides these the Epistle known as that of Barnabas, and what are called the Teachings of the Apostles, and also . . . the Apocalypse of John, if this be thought fit . . ."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm

Later Fathers of the Church were not authoritative sources in themselves hence the Holy Spirit controversy that caused the Great Schism.

However witness documents proximate to the Apostles are worthy testaments to early codes of conduct.

So although homophobia was rife a few centuries after Christ you do an injustice to the established fact that neither Christ nor the 1st generation of Christians were homophobic but in fact inclusive.

Eusebius witnesses this for us. Take your argument up with him lol

Kindnesses
Victoria xx

[Deborah]

Eusebius also said it was honorable to fabricate history if it served to strengthen faith.  That fact though does not pertain to the Didache. 

I'll agree that the Didache does not mention LGBT.  To then draw the conclusion that the first generation Church was inclusive is a stretch.  It's based on the contention that St. Paul's admonitions referred only to temple prostitution which is an unsupported assumption.

Nevertheless, it didn't take centuries for an anti-LGBT attitude to leave written evidence.  You can find it explicitly in Justin Martyr who is a 2d generation Christian of the 2d Century.

We are not going to agree on this but your conclusions are not as straightforward as the initial reply suggested.

And I don't write any of this in support of institutional homophobia either.  Rather it's some of what I found on my journey that led me to conclude that Christianity was a creation of men and that it has no more exclusive claim to truth than any other philosophy of God that has ever existed.


Sapere Aude

[MysteyV]

Eusebius also said it was honorable to fabricate history if it served to strengthen faith.  That fact though does not pertain to the Didache. 

I'll agree that the Didache does not mention LGBT.  To then draw the conclusion that the first generation Church was inclusive is a stretch.  It's based on the contention that St. Paul's admonitions referred only to temple prostitution which is an unsupported assumption.

Nevertheless, it didn't take centuries for an anti-LGBT attitude to leave written evidence.  You can find it explicitly in Justin Martyr who is a 2d generation Christian of the 2d Century.

We are not going to agree on this but your conclusions are not as straightforward as the initial reply suggested.

And I don't write any of this in support of institutional homophobia either.  Rather it's some of what I found on my journey that led me to conclude that Christianity was a creation of men and that it has no more exclusive claim to truth than any other philosophy of God that has ever existed.


Sapere Aude

Exactly! Thank you. Homophobia's vile seedlings are just "starting" to sprout in the 2nd Century - not the 1st at all when the Apostolic Church existed and gave us the Bible & The Didache etc.

That historical Church of the Bible is the only one we're interested in here, ferreting out her beliefs and practices.

And now we agree: no documents exist to support a view that the first century apostolic Church was anti LGBT. In reality the evidence demonstrates inclusivity.

Homophobia is a 2nd century innovation and has no support in the Gospels nor in that earliest Church Manual "The Didache"

Thank you Deborah.

Kindnesses
Victoria xx

[stephaniec]

sorry if my simplicity approaches ignorance, but the  focus on Christ's teaching as far as my beliefs go are in the words of the New Testament. The words proclaimed to be that of my beloved Lord himself. No more No less. Christianity is Christ and the words we believe he spoke. You may say the gospels are hand me down interpretations of his words , but they are the closest to the epicenter we will ever have unless someone discovers a papyrus signed by the son of God and witnessed by Pilot with a Roman seal.As far as St. Paul being a woman hater or Augustus being whatever or holding whatever personal beliefs these thoughts are totally irrelevant to the spread of Christ's words which are those of love and eternal life.As always these are my personal beliefs and in no way meant to be critical of anyone. Also I remember reading Augustus and all I remember was a lot of talk of love of God, but I also admit to being quite high while reading Augustus.

[MysteyV]

sorry if my simplicity approaches ignorance, but the  focus on Christ's teaching as far as my beliefs go are in the words of the New Testament. The words proclaimed to be that of my beloved Lord himself. No more No less. Christianity is Christ and the words we believe he spoke. You may say the gospels are hand me down interpretations of his words , but they are the closest to the epicenter we will ever have unless someone discovers a papyrus signed by the son of God and witnessed by Pilot with a Roman seal.As far as St. Paul being a woman hater or Augustus being whatever or holding whatever personal beliefs these thoughts are totally irrelevant to the spread of Christ's words which are those of love and eternal life.As always these are my personal beliefs and in no way meant to be critical of anyone. Also I remember reading Augustus and all I remember was a lot of talk of love of God, but I also admit to being quite high while reading Augustus.

Amen!

Perfectly stated. Hence we find an inclusive Christ in the infallibly communicated scripture, an inclusive 1st century Church and then oddball dogmatic philosophising for the next 1900 years or so that sometimes illuminates but often embarrasses with sheer ignorance and too frequently bamboozles well meaning people into cultish behaviour that smacks more of Satan than the all-embracing  love of the sweet Son.

Kindnesses
Victoria xx

[Deborah]

That's not what I said.  St. Paul's epistles certainly contain a condemnation of homosexuality and effeminate males unless you hand wave that away with an unsupported assertion that he was only specifying temple prostitutes in the Temples of Cybele.

I am open to changing my view on this but I have never come across any evidence that supports your contention.  If you know of any actual evidence I would be happy to read it.  But it has always appeared to me to be simply historical revisionism.

It's also worth noting that no other Christian writings from the 1st Century even exist other than the scriptures and possibly the Didache.  That last is not even for certain as it might be dated to the early second century.


Sapere Aude