Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite

Have you made a study about what the restriction actually says in the original Hebrew? The term in the original Hebrew that mentions 'laying with a man' (which, by some interpretations, is either male prostitution as in some competing religions ceremonies) means 'ritualistically unclean'.Now, while I personally doubt the existence of an early christian gay marriage rite, to talk about 'abomination' and claim that means it is BAD is hypocritical, unless you don't wear mixed fibers, don't have cheeseburgers, and don't eat shellfish.I really don't see gays trying to enter the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, mainly because it doesn't exist anymore.

Well, as a matter of fact, those people who study Hebrew say that it originally meant that. However, that is not relevant to the web sites that you are using as a diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with arguments.It actually doesn't matter what the Hebrew originally meant. What is important is HOW was it interpreted by the early Christians. If you look at the groups that it is believed that Christianity developed from, there was a very strong obsession with purity. The Qumran group of Essenes as well as others followed strict ritual purity and cleanliness. While there is no direct evidence that those groups would see same sex acts as 'unclean', it would probably fall under the category of 'sexual licentiousness'.I would think that with the translations of the OT into other languages (the Septuagint was highly used by the Hellenized Jews, as well as the early Christians) that the phrase would be interpreted as no man on man sex. The letters of Paul (specifically Romans) can be argued pretty closely that the words didn't actually refer to man on man sex... since the term he used that is translated as 'homosexual' is more accurately translated as 'pedophile', referring to the greek tradition of men taking young boys as lovers to teach them the ways of sex. However, it can also be pointed out that Paul was very concerned with sexual behavior in general. He didn't even like the idea of people getting married , although he accepted it.So, although the words of the Bible itself can be vague when doing a direct prohibition against homosexuality, there is a thrust about sexual morality in general.To me, that would indicate people looking for early christian gay marriage rites are doing wishful thinking. While there might have been some 'gay marriages' that were performed it would not have been promoted or accepted by the various Churches.

The problem from Strongs is that he is using the Christian interpretation of the scriptures, rather than what is originally meant.It would be much more accurate to say that 'tovah' was ritualistically unclean. It specifically was talking about conditions needed to enter the temple. The same word was used for "laying with a man as with a woman" as eating shrimp, or mixing wool and linen, or eating milk and meat together, or pork.Now, if you want to equate homosexual behavior with eating pork, and to condem it, I certainly hope you never had a BLT>

That is a different issue. However, the specific discussion was what 'Tovah' meant. I was pointing out that using Leviticus for the prohibition against homosexuality for Christians is 'cherry picking'.Now, if you wanted to dissect the New Testaments passages, and make a case for that, well, that is debatable too. That is a different case, and the passage in Romans would have to be dissected from a historical viewpoint also to see if it would preclude the 'supposed earl christian gay marriage rite'. The ancient interpretation of those passages would have to be understood, not the modern interpretations.

The word that the KJV of the bible abomination is toevah, as was mentioned. Other activities that were called 'Toevah' in Leviticus was eating pork, wearing fibers of mixed linen and wool, and menstruating women.Now, much of this was how the Ancient Jews chose to keep their temple 'clean'. If someone does something that is 'Toevah', they had to go through a specific purification rite (immersion in water, or Mikveh) at the temple.Now, Christians love to quote leviticus as a prohibition against homosexuality. It is a toevah. They ignore what Toevah actually means, and how it is handled to 'cure' something. It specifically was talking about temple behavior.If you look at many of the items that are 'ritualistically unclean', it is referring to ceremonies taken from competing God's rituals in the area.That being said, there is a general attitude through out the offical restrictions against sexual licentiousness that it is perfectly acceptable to consider those restriction a warning against homosexual behavior, and the orthodox Jews do indeed have that attitude.Look up to'evah , that is the most common transliteration .And for a discussion about To'evah from a site that is not specifically for homosexuals is Spark of the Week 5754-27Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

The problem with your web site is that it takes it's definition from Strong, whose translations were influenced by the theology and the attitudes of the Christian religion.YOu really need to ask a Rabbi, not a Christian interpretation.

I don't see where that web site talked about the meaning of Toevah at all

You know.. I find it amusing that the 'translation' that you are using that you claim is from Maimonides uses a word that didn't exist when he was alive.Don't you think that is a bit .. dishonest? Yes, he pointed to that phrase as one of the laws.. but.. what did he actually say it means?Where does he discuss the meaning of Toevah?