Some Albany Episcopal Clergy to Join Anglican Church in North America

There was plenty room for mistakes. If you think about everything at the time was written by hand, not to mention people like Paul had no idea his letters would be scripture.

 

The Oxford Academic article requires payment to access, incidentally.

Let's have a look at Paul's letter to the Romans.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Doesn't Paul write that men lusting for other men and "working that which is unseemly" is a vile affection and an error? And also that women who take physical "affection" by a method other than the "natural use" is likewise in error?

The suggestion is made by some that when the people told Lot they wanted to "know" the angels, they just wanted to get acquainted and find out more about them. How likely is this interpretation, in light of Lot's reaction? Lot replied that they were guests and under his protection; it is readily apparent that "knowing" the strangers was something that would endanger the well-being of a human.

We see a similar usage in Judges:
Jdg 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
Jdg 19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
Jdg 19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
Jdg 19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

As for the reason why God punished of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jude tells us:
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Clearly, the men of Sodom wanted to use the strangers as sex toys. This was adult males pursuing relations with adult males. Not pederasty. They were young men seeking other attractive, young men, but there is no suggestion that the perpetrators were children or that the angels appeared as such.

- - - - -

The idea is advanced that Leviticus is not referring to homosexual acts between adult males, but pederasty. Let's have a look.
Lev 20:13 If a man (iysh) also lie with mankind (zakar), as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind (zakar), as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

A distinction is drawn between 'iysh' and 'zakar', as if they are referring to a man and a boy, respectively. If 'zakar' refers strictly to juvenile males, why does Lev. 18 make a direct link between mankind and womankind? Is womankind referring strictly to juvenile females? It seems more likely that 'iysh' (as well as the man spoken to as "thou" or "you") addresses a singular individual male, while 'zakar' refers to any one of the species that is male no matter their age. And it is, quite clearly, an "abomination" before God to engage in such intimacy. It is said to be in the same moral category as bestiality (v. 23), as both types of sexual activity "defile" the participant. If we are to say that a man may morally and rightly marry another man, then a man should be able to morally and rightly marry a labrador retriever, too.

- - - - -

The early Christians understood that homosexual activity was morally wrong.

"For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure -- who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God." (Athenagoras of Athens)

After Tertullian condemns adultery, he goes on to write: "But all the other frenzies of passions--impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes--beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities."

Eusebius (260-341 AD), bishop of Caesaria, wrote this of the Mosaic Law given by God: "...having forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men."

"...while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, "men with men working that which is unseemly." (Origen, Against Celsus)

Knowledge of science does change over time. But the scientific principles do not. Likewise, God's principles of right and wrong do not change. But man, in his puffed-up arrogance of modern rationality, seeks to overturn God's principles with 'new' knowledge. This false 'knowledge' of modern theological (so-called) scholarship is not based upon God's revelation but rather it springs from man's desire to justify himself by reasoning away his sins and sinful nature.

If homosexual activity were not immoral and reprehensibly sinful, the church would have known so long ago.

 

I have to add, however, that I can understand how some people could have gotten a different impression from reading the early churchmen. The largest portion of mentions of the subject involve very nebulous wording. I think perhaps that the act of sodomy seemed so unspeakably evil to the writers, they simply would not write of it without employing whatever euphemisms were commonly used at the time. Stuff like "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with men" simply doesn't seem plain enough to modern minds which are used to the raunchy, explicit descriptiveness of today's sexual scene. (I wouldn't be surprised if something is being lost in language translation as well.) But we simply are not going to find those genteel early Christians saying the filthy things we are now bombarded with. And so it becomes possible in our society, for the first time in history, for people to read the early fathers' admonitions and claim, "They didn't say specifically that X was considered sinful, did they?"

We also have to remember that advocates of the lifestyle will seek out and selectively quote the writings which most help their cause. Any quotes that center on pedophilia, for example, will be brought to the fore in order to build a case that it, but not consensual adult homosexual activity, was the only real issue all along. Anything in which youthfulness is mentioned becomes valuable to lend credibility to this viewpoint. For example, when considering what Josephus wrote in Antiquities, Book 1, Ch. 11, they might try to center attention of the youthful appearance of the angels:

Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety, and not to offer any thing immodest to the strangers, but to have regard to their lodging in his house; and promised that if their inclinations could not be governed, he would expose his daughters to their lust, instead of these strangers; neither thus were they made ashamed.​

I don't know if this is a question of accuracy in translation or simply of Josephus' choice of words to indicate that the angels didn't look aged. But it would be inappropriate to assign too much meaning to the phrase, "beautiful boys," since (a) Josephus elsewhere calls them "young men," and (b) the Bible doesn't corroborate the notion of an "under-age minor" physical appearance for these angels.