Home / News / Cryptographer says that Apostle Paul acknowledged that homosexuality does not prevent Christians from going to heaven, biblical scholar agrees with him.
Cryptographer says that Apostle Paul acknowledged that homosexuality does not prevent Christians from going to heaven, biblical scholar agrees with him.

Cryptographer says that Apostle Paul acknowledged that homosexuality does not prevent Christians from going to heaven, biblical scholar agrees with him.

Paul on HomosexualityEditor's Note – The videos were updated.

For the last 2,000 years, Christians have been taught to believe that Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality. But a new discovery documents that he deliberately acknowledged that it does not prevent anyone from entering heaven. If accepted, this discovery by internationally acclaimed cryptographer Michael Wood could remove the final barrier to full societal acceptance of gays and lesbians.

"Michael Wood's discovery is remarkable because it solves a colossal paradox regarding Paul's Greek that has baffled scholars for 2,000 years," says Dr. William Berg, who taught Greek and Roman Classics at Stanford University.

Paul's only unequivocal reference to homosexuality is found within Romans 1:18-3:20, a Biblical passage that has mystified scholars for two millennia. "The interpretation of Romans 1:18-3:20 has been notoriously difficult for almost every commentator," Richard Longenecker, the Distinguished New Testament Scholar at Wheaton College, writes in his book Studies in Paul. "Earlier interpreters such as Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and Erasmus wrestled with this issue and it continues to plague commentators today."


{video link}

The passage is riddled with paradoxes. It says that "only the doers of the law will be vindicated by God," and "by the works of the law no one will be vindicated." The passage also mysteriously separates idolatrous, homosexual orgy fests from transgressions worthy of spiritual death. "In finding the definitive solution to Paul's legal paradox, I inadvertently discovered why he separated the idolatrous, same-sex orgies from the things he considered worthy of spiritual death," said Wood.

Dr. Berg has spent many months examining the linguistic and historical basis of what he describes as Wood's "remarkable" discovery. "Michael Wood reveals to the public a well-kept secret, namely that the apostle Paul, like the rest of his contemporaries, divided the commands of the Jewish law into two groups demarcated by Leviticus 19:18 — 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the commandments based on loving your neighbor were 'Justices of the Torah.' Those not based on Leviticus 19:18 were 'Jobs of the Torah,'" Dr. Berg explained.


{video link}

Wood's solution is definitive, elegant, and verifiable. Romans 2:13-26 teaches: Only the doers of the "Justices of the Torah" will be vindicated before God. Romans 3:20 says, "By the 'Jobs of the Torah' no one will be vindicated." Not only is there no contradiction, but the two teachings have always been simple restatements of each other; the "Great Paradox" is no paradox at all!

This legal solution fully explains Paul's treatment of homosexuality. Paul's passage excludes idolatrous, homosexual orgy fests from things which he considered worthy of spiritual death, things such as "bad-mouthing others," "deceiving," and "inflicting pain." Those engaged in idolatrous, homosexual orgies weren't violating the Justices. (They weren't violating the precept "Love your neighbor as yourself.") Therefore, Paul was obliged to separate this from his list of things which did violate the Justices.

The finding is significant because it documents that Paul purposefully separated the same-sex acts; it was a conscious, deliberate decision consistent with the rest of the passage. In fact, it was demanded by the rest of the passage. The resolution of the paradox empirically proves that Paul's view on homosexuality was very different from what Christians had thought for 2,000 years.

Although Romans 1 contains the only unequivocal reference to homosexuality, anti-homosexual statements have been introduced into other passages in newer versions of the English Bible. As for these modern changes to the Biblical text: "Michael Wood has gone the extra mile in being faithful to Paul's Greek," said Dr. Berg. "He shows, time and again, that the words traditionally mistranslated as 'homosexual,' 'effeminate,' 'impure,' and so forth, are really targeting selfish, unloving, unjust activity and have nothing to do with sexual orientation. He shows that once again Paul was condemning those who violate the Justices of the Torah, and nothing more."

 

Editor's Note – The 3rd video of the series will not be available until mid-December.

About D. Beeksma

One of the growing crowd of American "nones" herself, Deborah is a prolific writer who finds religion, spirituality and the impact of belief (and non-belief) on culture inspiring, fascinating and at times, disturbing. She hosts the God Discussion show and handles the site's technical work. Her education and background is in business, ecommerce and law.
  • Pingback: Monumental Cryptography Discovery Reveals Homosexuality Not Forbidden in Bible | Gay Blog | Gay News

  • Edit

    No offense christians, but this is confusing.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      What they are basically saying is that Paul did not say that homosexuality is a sin that sends people to hell. It kind of goes into the "eating shell fish sin" category. Paul's alleged references to homosexuality are the only ones in the New Testament. Coupled with the Old Testament scriptures — as currently translated — that call it an abomination and that homosexuals should be killed, far right Christians have used these verses to justify hate.

      What is significant about it is that for two thousand years, gays have been demonized by the Christian faith based on mistranslations. I'm looking forward to the third video, but hope they don't include the "eye popping" graphics/shrieks in them.

      Deborah

      • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

        I don't know, Deborah, I thought the "eye-popping" graphics/shrieks were funny. Reminded me of how I felt when I was in Xianity. However, I find that learning the origins of it all helps with understanding some of the insanity. This does not mean when I talk to Xians I don't still feel like those graphics. I kind of like them. :lol:

        • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

          Well, I had my speakers up loud, jumped and spilled my coffee. LOL!

          • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

            ROFL! Poor Deborah. If it's not me doing that to you, it's someone else.

      • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

        THE VIDEOS WERE UPDATED with the replacement versions.

  • Luke Adams

    Disclaimers: I'm gay and a Gnostic priest. Now, on to my question. I can see the reasoning behind this since many interpreters of the Torah did the same kind of dividing. In fact, the Church has not uniformly condned homosexuality for 2000 years — that unifOrmoty came about 400 years into the process when the Church began to take on the trappings of the imperial State in the Roman Empire, after Constantine decriminalized Christianity and forced the edicts of the Nicene Council (splintering the Church and driving many elements underground). My question, however, has to do with the Corinthian epistle passage in which Paul lists "arsenokoites" and "katamites" as those who cannot enter Heaven. Most real scholars expect he was referring to pagan temple male prostitutes (katamites) and the men who paid to procure them (arsenokoites). But these terms have been mistranslated as homosexuals and the effeminate. Still, those Greek words remain. How does this new solution address that passage?

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      I can't give an intellectual response to that at all. The videos allude to additional information coming about other scriptural passages, so maybe the answer to your question will be there.

      Deborah

  • Billbb

    If I'm reading this correctly, then Paul was saying that those who bad-mouth lgbt people, those who inflict pain on us, those who don't love us (and I'm not talking "love the sinner/hate the sin" hypocrisy) — are worthy of spiritual death.

    Yes?

    • Pupienus

      Billbb: Yes, precisely.

  • Rhett Oric

    First the descriptive phrase homosexual was coined during the Freudian '40s.2nd and more importantly most biblical references are in Leviticus along with other passages such as women with makeup,etc. being harlots worthy of stoning to death.3rdly it contains references to Nimrod(blacks)as being cast as servants(slaves)unto man.Last and most important.In 2000 yrs of abridgement and general bastardization of any original scriptures by an infinite number of self opinionated monks,just exactly how much of any passage could be considered original.The only really important thing that's pervasive through all religions and their "Bibles",is that we should all love one another.To quote the least judgemental of religions,"Learn the ways to preserve,rather than destroy.Avoid rather than check.Check rather than harm.Harm rather than maim.And maim rather than kill,for all life is precious.Nor can any be replaced."

  • Michael

    Since the two videos have been removed, it's very difficult to understand the argument involved, but I'm interested in hearing more!

    Surely, though, he doesn't mean that same-sex orgies are perfectly fine…? That doesn't ring true to me, compare Romans 13:13, "not in chambering/orgies".

    As a gay Christian, I wish to see the videos and learn more.

    • http://www.paulonhomosexuality.com Michael Wood

      The videos have been re-posted. I have removed the eye popping transitions and ear assaulting screeches. While some found them funny (which was the original goal), many found them off-putting.

      I hope you enjoy the videos and I'll gladly answer any questions you may have.

      • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

        Nice, Michael! I've replaced the videos.

        Deborah

  • Ken

    There are no paradoxes here and no need for cryptography. The Torah only has this-worldly blessings. You have to actually obey the law, not just affirm it, to receive those blessings. On the other hand, since it is this-worldly, you can't use it to buy your way into salvation.

    Paul's discussion in Romans 1 is not about homosexuality. It is about fertility cults that incorporate sex acts in worship, such as the cult of Artemis in Ephesus. A person deteriorates under the influence of a cult, descending into things they otherwise would not have done. Weird sex (something akin to prison homosexuality at worse) is in the middle of this fall. Paul is showing the futility of fertility worship. In Romans 2 he addresses religiosity.

    Many churches today have become fertility cults and latch onto any text they can to confirm their prejudices. Just because there are a lot of stupid people doesn't mean any of them are right.

    See also Ezekiel 16.

    • http://www.paulonhomosexuality.com Michael Wood

      The paradox that has remained unsolved for the last 2,000 years was the seeming discrepancies between Romans 2:13 and 3:20:

      "The doers of the Law will be vindicated."

      "By the works of the Law no one will be vindicated."

      The historical discovery is indeed the first time this paradox was resolved in two millennia.

      It is true that Romans 1 is discussing the fertility cults, and that part has been known for a long time. What has escaped most scholars' attention is the fact that Paul separated the consequences of participation in such cults from his list of transgressions worthy of spiritual death. And the few scholars who did note the separation had been at a loss to explain why he separated it. In solving the Romans 2:13/3:20 paradox, the reason why becomes self-evident.

      I hope this helps.

      Michael

  • Ed from Nigeria

    Homosexuals of the earth, have no fear. Your savior, the Antichrist cometh. He shall rid the world of those pesky christian's and their holier than thou moralizing. He shall put them all to death (the Bible says so: Dan 7:25) He shall preach "free" & "true" love, and lust shall burn between men and boys, and pedophilia shall have its place. There will be "peace", on earth, and i hope you all enjoy it while it lasts. Because THEN, there will be fire …
    But today, God wants your love. He wants to purify you of filth. But YOU MUST CHOOSE to let Him. Its the law. As you once chose death, you must CHOOSE life.

    • http://www.paulonhomosexuality.com Michael Wood

      You are confusing two extremely different issues. Pedophilia has as much to do with homosexuality as the rape of little girls has to do with heterosexuality.

      Also, there is no connection between love and pedophilia either.

      It was Jesus who preached love of neighbor as his sole standard. (Matthew 19:16-19) Certainly he isn't the anti-Christ of whom you speak?!

  • joel

    the one who is vidicated is one called by God not vindicated means no Holy Spirit yet all is well Jessus died for the sins of the world

  • http://www.thetruejesus.org/ Andrew

    What do you think of the information contained on this website? Quite interesting…
    Rome Devises a False Version of Jesus to Perpetuate the Roman Empire

    http://www.thetruejesus.org/rome.htm

    .

  • http://romney4president.us/RomneyGays.html Chet

    Mitt Romney and his part in the radical homosexual agenda!

  • JAC

    The article is a farce, as it says that Romans is the only book in the Bible that says anything about homosexuality.  That is completely inaccurate.  Read the laws of Moses as well as the Levitical laws.

    • Deborah_B

       It doesn't say that at all.  It is specifically about a cryptographer's work in deciphering Paul's statement in Romans, and links to the Jobs and Justices of the Torah (which are in Leviticus), all discussed in the videos. 

      • http://conservatives.forumotion.net/ Chris "Jesdisciple"

        Too bad the videos were removed…

        The last paragraph does state that all other passages in the English Bible which condemn homosexuality are merely mistranslations. This is impossible for me to believe, in particular regarding Sodom. Although Sodom was not blasted for the homosexuality, the citizens obviously engaged in it and it was obviously considered sinful.

        But the crux of this article regards "Justices" versus "Jobs." I cannot find any rationale for this disambiguation in the article; perhaps they were in the videos, now removed?

        • joe paterno

          Perhaps it is the equivalent of obeying the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law.

          • http://conservatives.forumotion.net/ Chris "Jesdisciple"

            If that's all this is, it's old (that is, ancient) news and doesn't mean anything regarding Heaven. That directive only matters for how we treat people, not salvation.

            • Leecappella

              If you walk in the Spirit, you will love your neighbor as yourself, which is basically what the Justices are. Versus the Jobs, which are works that have nothing to do with how you treat your neighbor, but, instead, are things people believe they should do in order to be faithful to God and/or get into heaven. The doers of the Law (Romans 2:13) say all you have to do is love thy neighbor as thyself. This and this alone is the Law and is what one must do to inherit the life of the age to come. This is Jesus' answer when asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

              • http://conservatives.forumotion.net/ Chris "Jesdisciple"

                Do you mean Jesus' answer the the rich young ruler? It was more specific than that and apparently personalized. The ruler needed to sell all that he had and give it to the poor. Surely that is true of many today, but it does not universally indicate the golden rule is the golden ticket.

                • Leecappella

                  Actually, no. Jesus' answer to the lawyer in Matthew 22:35-40. Nonetheless, your reference is similar to this story. The rich young ruler was told the same thing the lawyer was told in Matthew 22. Jesus' response was the same. He referenced the Justices (ie. those commands that only refer to how you treat your fellowman) as being the answer to how one inherits life in the age to come. The young ruler was rich, yes. However, I don't find this reference to be about all rich people needing to give away all of their money. I believe it to be a lesson for the rich ruler. Love thy neighbor as self implies that those who are rich should love others to the degree that helping those in need is not an issue for them. My guess is that the rich ruler's money issues hindered him from helping those in need. Jesus being Jesus would have know this. He had more than he needed while others were in need and he seemingly could not depart from his riches. Keep in mind also Jesus' story of the goats and the sheep in Matthew chapter 25. Why were the sheep the ones Jesus chooses? Why weren't the goats chosen? Love. The Golden Rule. It's the Law.

        • Albert D'Orazio

          Actually, Ezekiel 16:48-49 says otherwise. Besides the sex act that occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah was gang rape; hardly a story of two consensual adults in a loving and committed relationship expressing their mutual love, affection, and intimacy-or having a consensual fling for that matter-and gay people condemn and oppose rape as much as you heterosexuals. 

          • http://conservatives.forumotion.net/ Chris "Jesdisciple"

            I very carefully avoided contradicting Ezekiel 16:48-49; please re-read my post. That Sodom's secondary sin was *only* gang rape is far-fetched in my opinion, given the apparent emphasis of man-on-man, but that issue would be most competently decided by the Talmud – which I haven't ever studied.
            I will state that homosexuality is quite obviously of far less concern to the biblical writers than many other sins. It gets its most attention as a secondary act to idolatry. It is of far more concern to modern society than is warranted in Scripture.

            However, I stand by what I said, that not all supposed condemnations can be convincingly dismissed as mistranslations. Firstly, the theological foundation for such condemnations is as solid as for those against polygamy and unjustified divorce: Matt 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:31. 

            Significantly, any horizontal ethical implications of homosexuality are never railed against in Scripture, and the vertical departure from God's design is only implied. However, "sexual immorality" as a very general sin is condemned frequently. And homosexuality in particular is targeted twice, by Paul, as "arsenokoitēs" (Strong's G733): 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10.

            I'm aware that the precise definition of "arsenokoitēs" is under dispute, but in my opinion it is entirely consistent with the general tone of Scripture.

            That I consider homosexuality a sin doesn't mean anything about how I should treat homosexuals. I consider "gay marriage" a frivolous issue and would prefer to abolish marriage as a governmental institution so neither side can fuss about the other. But I can see no intellectually honest way of maintaining the accuracy of Scripture while denying that homosexuality is sin.

        • Leecappella

          You should get the books, Chris. They are good. I have them all. You would definitely get into them. Whether you believe his findings, I don't know. I, however, agree with Michael Wood. Cleared up some things for me and his conclusions based on his findings make far more sense to me that what traditional Christianity has taught me.

    • Leecappella

      The key word in the article is unequivocal.

  • Sheldon

    A lay-preacher once told me that part of the problem with interpretation is that, for the most part, we tend to ignore the character of the person in favour of focusing completely on the words. For instance, there are people who attribute Christian thinking to James Madison, ignoring the fact that those thoughts and words would have been completely out of character for him, based on what we know through his written work.

    This lay-preacher suggested that too many people forget about, or ignore, the character of biblical Jesus. That what He did and preached… love, acceptance, helping the poor, tending to the ill and infirm, washing of the feet… would have been scoffed at by many of the day as nothing more than woman's work… an effeminate characterization to be sure. In the eyes of the Romans, he certainly would have seemed quite less than manly. When thinking about the things He preached in combination with the acts He performed, it is suggestive that He would never have condemned any group of people who were doing nothing more than love each other. Were Paul faithful to his Master's character and teachings, would he have done any less?

  • Pingback: Jesus: Gays were born that way | God Discussion

  • do not be deceived

    9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
    Footnotes:
    1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

  • do not be deceived

    we bare not justified by the works of the law neither by the justice of the law by our own. But we are only justified through faith in Christ and his atonement. However, a regenerate man will accomplish the works of the law who can be summarized in "love your neighbor as yourselves" as a good tree cannot bear bad fruits. God will judge this generation as he already said that in the last days it will be like the days of Noah.
    Jesus was clearly opposed to Gay union.
    "a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh" (Matthew 19:5).

    Leviticus 20:13 (NASB95)

    13 ‘If there is a
    man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them
    have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.
    Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    Leviticus 18:22 (NASB95)

    22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

    • Diane Yoder

      Jesus Christ never said one word about it and he said he came to give a new law, that we should love one another.

    • Sherry

      You are missing the point Jesus NEVER said anything about homosexuality only mortal men claim such. Also if it is so detestable why was there no reference in 10 Commandments.

    • leecappella

      One result of Michael Wood's findings is that 'believing in Jesus' did not, originally, mean asking Jesus into one's heart and accepting him as one's personal Lord and Savior, resulting in instant 'saved' status. Where does it say that in the bible? Originally, 'believing in Jesus' meant hearing what he had to say about how one inherits life and simply doing what he said. Doing what Jesus said, regarding the Justices, as opposed to doing what the Jewish religious leaders said, regarding the Jobs, was backdrop of the issue of 'believing in Jesus'.

Scroll To Top