Talk:Homosexuality in the New Testament

Citation Locations
Why are there so many in-text citations? Shouldn't these be footnoted with the "ref" tag and appear in the references section? I think abundance of in-text citations makes the article difficult to read. Bender2k14 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the bulk of the Text comes from the following Link: http://www.christianity-guide.com/christianity/the_bible_and_homosexuality.htm

This text does provide the full citations, but they were not copies over. I will gradually add them (citations) as time permits. ITBlair (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We were wrong as that page comes from our old Wikipedia article from which this was taken. The problem is that the sources aren't cited properly and may not pass our criteria as sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In the 'Arguments against a reference to homosexual behaviour' of the 'Arsenokoitēs' section I've added a bunch of s. I've done my best to locate theses sources but have been unable to. If anyone is able to please update the sources and remove the citation needed stamp. PandaWent (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, NPOV, NPOV!
Folks, we're not preaching a sermon or proselytising; we don't do that here. If that's your schtick, go preach to your own choirs over on Conservapedia or some other such site. We're writing an encyclopædia here, and that means it is grossly inappropriate to disparage legitimate academics by referring to them sneeringly as "gay activists" and pointing out that this one or that one died of AIDS. I have gone through and cleaned up some of the worst of the POV-pushing ugliness, but there is much additional work to be done. I recommend everyone considering contributing to this article first go read NPOV and WP:MPOV at the very least. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 21:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Im not strongly invested in this topic, and obviously we should remain NPOV, however, just as statements from politicians are often cited stating their party, so that you can evaluate their motives, I think in some cases the sexuality of the scholar may be a valid point. A "pro-gay" reading from a gay author vs a straight author will carry different weight in the mind of the reader, all other things being equal. "Only nixon could go to China."Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know how to say this but we need to include disclaimers about the authors bias, their either Priests & clergy or extremely pro-gay professors with an agenda. I cant find a single bit of research by someone without a horse in this race.So i feel that we should just include a little blurb about each writers bias. Worldlysage92 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt normally do this but its a very loaded issue so i think we need to include more info to create NPOV Worldlysage92 (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Biased sources are acceptable under most circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that biased sources should be used to help give the reader a more comprehensive overview of the subject.however i feel that indicating at least where the view is coming from will help to inform those reading it. in other words just include in brackets any causes of potential bias or indication of the sources POV, for example Joe Dallas(noted advocate for conversion therapy) Worldlysage92 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also which side of the debate these people are even arguing is sometimes rather confusing(maybe im just dumb) so the brackets would help to add clarity to a rather messy article. Seriously its kinda confusing as to what the people in the Idolatrous practices section are even arguing for or against,I had to look at the sources to understand it. Worldlysage92 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Philo and arsenokoitai
I took out a line about Philo using the term arsenokoitai because he didn't use it. Anyone who has read Philo in the Greek will attest that he does not use the term. Wickedjacob (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Wood
According to Discovery: Apostle Paul accepted Christian homosexuals, Michael Wood has come across material that pretty much proves that Paul was just fine with homosexual Christians, and that this has even been accepted by rather credited scholars, including a Stanford professor of Greek and Roman classics.

However, the IP editor who added the information plagerized and used a press release as a source. I will be looking for additional sources on this and will try to rephrase it, but welcome others efforts to do so (as I'm currently involved in more projects than crack).

Since we're not making a new article, WP:NOTE isn't an issue, and we should be able to cite Wood's book directly and Dr. Berg's statement from Wood's website. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting, but far from being academic consensus or even widely discussed. It should stay out of the article until there is evidence that it is a significant interpretation and not just one man's fringe theory. Wickedjacob (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Article lack of structure
A. This article is bordering on illegible. It could really do with a vigorous prune and more logical structure. e.g.
 * 1. NT verses (only those directly relevant)
 * 2. Views
 * 2.1 majority/traditional view
 * 2.2 minority/modern view

B. Also. As regards sources. Ideally all nonWP:RS pdfs and websites should be removed in favour of print sources with the relevant section briefly copypasted after ISBN and page no.
 * C. As regards WP:TITLE New Testament and homosexuality might be better, since some minority views appear to contend that the subject doesn't appear in the NT. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the article's lack of structure and have attempted to re-structure the text - I hope it's better! I've left the text largely unchanged, but it certainly needs some more editing. Vacarme (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The contents of this article are so out of left field, it should not even be presented. The content of this article appears to have no valid scholarly intent and merely propagandizes extreme views which do not even qualify as a scholarly minority. It would be an astronomical waste of time to attempt to correct the intentionally twisted conclusions line by line. The entire article implies that both Christian and secular theologians do not know Christian theology and scholarship. In several references, it cites activist sources, who after 2000 years of scholarship, have somehow managed only recently to determine that every legitimate scholar before them over two millenia were simply "confused". First and foremost, the article pretends validity by making a personal case against the reality that Christian scripture was written by disciples who pass the teachings directly. The Christian clergy, in this sense are the highest authority on the meanings of any absence or ambiguity in their own scripture which is originally written -- by the Christian clergy. So, direct teaching is ignored in order to focus on disassembling scriptural sources which are not the original source of the material What is the goal in attempting opposing arguments to the directly instructed disciples of the Founder of the faith and the owner/authors of the writings - other than activism ? Secondly, the author tries desperately to get the audience to suspend belief long enough to forget that both Christianity and Muhammedism are sourced and logically follow from the known, clear teachings of Judaism - and their position on the subject. Third, Greek Translation games are also a new phenomena of gay activism which require lay people to accept the notion that two millenia of Greek scholars lacked the author's understanding of the language -- but even more ridiculously ignores other sources of the same material, such as the Bodmer Papyri and Dead Sea Scrolls which cross validate the Greek texts in other languages, and pagan sources of the era who describe the beliefs of Christians. To this end, the article only cites John Boswell, who Wikipedia itself cites as a homosexual activist focused on denying church teachings on the matter. This does not even qualify as a minority scholar view on the matter - but merely a fringe activist view - of one. The author appears to have a total logic breakdown in debating himself on whether Jesus may have supported homosexual marriage while disdaining its core ingredient - homosexuality. Activism...worse, silly activism.... The author cites the Church of England (?) and Brooten from 1998 regarding presumed genetic components to the behavior which, as of 2012, have all been tested false. So much so, the American Psychological Association was forced to re-write its statement regarding the behavior to admit "there is no consensus to a cause". Regardless, the latest science has been painfully clear....

The 'Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior' published a paper exploring the idea that certain alleles increase the likelihood of homosexuality by blocking the effect of androgens during fetal development seeking a biological justification for homosexuality. It was proven invalid. January 2009 Department of Psychology, Center of Excellence in Behavior Genetics, Åbo Akademi University

New Genetics Study Further Disproves Gay Gene Theory Journal of Human Genetics Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D. & Durwood Ray, Ph.D February 9, 2005

"Lacking any real correlation for the gay gene hypothesis, Mustanski resorted to floating the idea that many genes are somehow interrelated in determining sexual orientation. However, his own data doesn’t support that either.  In his conclusion, he says: “We were unable to calculate empirically derived significance levels for this project.”        In English that means a full genome scan of human beings and their sexuality came up with nothing. " 2-1-2005 MassNews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverendozanich (talk • contribs) 07:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that you referred to Islam as Muhammedism tells me most of your reading is over a century old, which means you probably do not bother much with what we consider reliable sources. That you can't tell the difference between your own interpretation and a source text, and cannot acknowledge that a text can mean different things to different people tells me you are not here to maintain a neutral point of view, which gives due weight to different views as presented in reliable sources.  No true Scotsman arguments towards sources is only going to prove that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. This is one of the most sensible criticisms of the pro-homosexuality agenda on Wikipedia I have ever seen, and this article is perhaps the most desperate of all at attempting to dismiss what is plainly obvious in both Scripture and Nature, which is that homosexual behavior is a grave disorder and sinful without exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.126 (talk • contribs)

'Ello
Just would like to applaud the writers of this article on their ability to keep the text neutral on a subject that is so often opinionated. It helped me in my research to develop my own opinion on the subject. So yeah, thanks. 66.109.162.218 (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Revelation 22:15?
Is it worth having a section on Revelation 22:15 in this article? It says "Outside are the dogs" (NIV) and many scholars take that to be a reference to homosexuality - especially male cultic prostitutes.. The Complete Jewish Bible (for what its worth) actually renders it "homosexuals". StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Complete Jewish Bible would seem to be in error, given that the concept of homosexuality is quite a modern one. Ancient peoples (and medieval peoples and even early modern ones for that matter) thought in terms of sex acts, not sexual persons.PiCo (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that heterosexuality is equally modern - even more recent a coinage than homosexuality. PiCo (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Revelation 22:15 is definitely worth mentioning in this article, as is Revelation 21:8, which this link asserts references homosexuality as well. PiCo's arguments are flawed; Wikipedia does have articles about pre-modern homosexuality. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has articles about all sorts of things that don't exist.PiCo (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * DeYoung is hardly a mainstream thinker on these issues. The idea that the standard Greek word for dog (Rev. 22:15) is some technical term or slang for some sort of ancient male-male sex is patently absurd. The word was, as the English equivalent now still is, a general pejorative. See its entry in the LSJ. Equally preposterous is that any of the well attested terms in 21:8 could be any technical term or slang for any ancient male-male sex. These are fringe theories. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true. The point is that just because the word "homosexuality" was coined relatively recently does not mean that Wikipedia should lack articles about homosexual activity that occurred prior to the word's existence and the attitudes that surrounded gays prior to the time that the word was coined. Frankenstein was written before the term "science fiction" existed; that does not mean that its Wikipedia article shouldn't list it as a science fiction novel. As such, this article should mention both Revelation 21:8 and Revelation 22:15.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on this? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're very confused. You are largely conflating "homosexual activity," more properly called same-sex sex, with "homosexuality" as a sexual orientation. The overwhelming scholarly consensus among the most relevant experts is that sexual orientation was not an ancient phenomenon, whether homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, and hence no "gays" or "straights" in ancient times, but that same- and different- sex sex have always been with us. Clear? Antinoos69 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I used improper terminology. What I'm trying to say is that there is reason to believe that Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 mention same-sex sex and that they should be discussed in this article, which is really about references to same-sex sex in the New Testament, but is called "Homosexuality in the New Testament' simply because the word "homosexuality" is far more widely used than the term "same-sex sex". MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 21:8 should be included as well. We don't need unanimity among scholars that it's talking about homosexuality - just a significant portion will do. And obviously "homosexuality" includes both activity and orientation: as our article puts it, "Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender." StAnselm (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is "obvious" to you and what is obvious to experts of the history of sexuality are apparently two very different things. The notion that "homosexuality" is "obviously . . . both activity and orientation" is precisely what so often causes confusion and sloppy thinking. It is virtually impossible to use "homosexuality" of ancient sex without all sorts of notions regarding sexual orientation creeping into the discussion and analysis. We should rework the terminology of the article. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a discussion about both verses. Along with the references at the top of this section, I think that is enough basis to create a section. It certainly isn't a "fringe theory". StAnselm (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, Horner is considered very outdated. Also fyi, this talk of "dogs" in the Old Testament is actually generally about what has traditionally been called "male cult prostitutes." Leaving aside what ancient "male cult prostitutes" could possibly have to do with modern LGBTs, a quite fascinating if bewildering topic, or even with ancient male-male sex in general, one must note that the notion that there even were "male cult prostitutes" in the Ancient Near East, let alone in ancient Israel, is highly controversial. The best scholarship rejects the notion, though I tend to disagree with it. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality in the New Testament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130701040943/http://www.jmmsweb.org/issues/volume4/number2/pp66-81 to http://www.jmmsweb.org/issues/volume4/number2/pp66-81

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Revertied unsourced edit by 2001:8003:5219:1f00:f978:3333:62bd:90b4
I noticed while reading the introduction that one sentence in particular did not flow naturally. Upon examination, User:2001:8003:5219:1f00:f978:3333:62bd:90b4 had edited the page at 12:26 on June 12th, 2018, by swapping a few words around in order to completely invert the meaning of said sentence. No justification was offered. I have reverted the edit. 79.70.190.155 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the recent edit because the assertion that Jesus "defines marriage as exclusively heterosexual" was anachronistic, and inferior to the previous wording. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You can propose changes to the Bible
Uh. No, you can't. It has been around for thousands of years, and societies have been built and thrived from it. Don't be so self important that you think you've invented a new way of interpreting the Bible that hasn't already been thought of. I read this a gobbledygook. Nonsense. Unsupportable interpretations of a text by people who don't believe in he text. If that's your schtick, fine. Go publish is on Liberalopeoida. But I'm going to fix this over time, and, by "I'm" I mean I AM and by "over time" I mean over yours and your offsprings lifetimes. Happy day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.112.245 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * See Arkell vs. Pressdram. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Where are the Hebrew references to sodomy?
The Old testament (which the new references) uses the term Sodomy (translated from Hebrew) when describing what is considered an abomination (chiefly in Leviticus 18:22-23 but also in other scriptures). Sodomy according to definition of the time meant any intercourse that was not capable of producing offspring.

Therefore, any sexual act that did not transmit semen to egg would have been considered sin.

shalom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazinjira (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Book of Revelation
This section currently only references primary sources and uses language like "whose principle sin seems to have been sexual immorality", which are not encyclopedic in tone (WP:WEASEL). It should be made clear what commentators are being referenced with secondary sources to establish the notability of the commentary. Thus I've added and  to the section. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the section doesn't actually address the topic of the article directly. It seems to provide a reading of some texts and imply a connection to the topic.  Secondary sources would help establish this properly. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the section should probably be deleted if not somehow fixed up. Crossroads -talk- 04:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sex and Gender in Early Christianities
— Assignment last updated by Ctschroeder (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Structural Revision
This page is hard to follow and appears to include overlong and potentially irrelevant sections. It appears to have become a dumping ground for single sentences inserted without consideration for the flow of the entire article. The page could use a major structural overhaul. My proposed restructure would be:

Top; Social Context (a section on the frequency and legality of pederasty, temple prostitution, marriage, etc); Romans 1:26-27 (including the "female homosexuality" section currently downpage); Words with Ambiguous Meaning; Other New Testament Passages (here would go eunuchs, the Centurion's servant, and Jesus's teaching on divorce); History of Reception; Modern Stances by Church Bodies.

I will leave this post here and wait a while, since I am proposing a major change, to see if anybody has feedback before I make the changes.

(Also there are some deletions for encyclopedic relevance that need to take place, but I would do these separately from the structural edit to allow others more opportunity to reverse those changes.) RDavid27 (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Today I made these structural changes.
 * I will wait for a time to make changes to the article's substance.
 * A few of those changes I plan to make include: Adding content to the social context section (no ancient sexual orientation; prostitution; pederasty; sex at the temple; and same-sex marriage); removing or making into a footnote the sentence that Rom 1 is considered inauthentic; many of the references to secondary sources from the 1990s; merging the "arguments for and against" subsections into more synthetic writing; removing the unnecessary reference to 1 Timothy not being Pauline; expanding the Jude 1:7 section with more discussion and citations; including the results of Zeichmann's recent study on the Centurion's Servant; expanding the history of reception section and/or adding a separate section on modern church bodies' stances on these passages. Also, some sections can be cleaned up for concision and clarity without making substance changes. RDavid27 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)