A re-examination of nothing (2)

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,

Sorry but I have already given chapter reference after chapter reference...

Actually, for this you've given no chapter reference. All you've said is:

Jesus says of OT scriptures ‘have you not read what God said’ and then quoted the OT scriptures, how can the words not be God’s word?

As I've said, the only instance I can find of Jesus saying those words to the Pharisees is in Matthew 22, verse 31 IIRC. And yet you steadfastly insist that that's not the verse you're referring to. Well, if it isn't, then what is the verse you're referring to?

But here is a question for you, if Jesus who is God speaks the words of God how can it not be the ‘word of God’? If you say the words of God are not the word of God, whose words are they?

I've already explained the difference between someone's words and someone's word. It's not just a matter of the difference between plural and singular, it's a very important difference of meaning.

I've also explained that the usage of the phrase "the Word of God" in Scripture doesn't accord with your usage of the phrase.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

As I've said, the only instance I can find of Jesus saying those words to the Pharisees is in Matthew 22, verse 31 IIRC. And yet you steadfastly insist that that's not the verse you're referring to. Well, if it isn't, then what is the verse you're referring to?

So yes that’s correct where Jesus Christ says those exact words, and that suffices to prove my point and why you were wrong. But I wasn’t being so legalistic as I was referring to any such passage such as Matt 19 where Jesus says ‘have you not read’ quotes the passage and then pronounces what God meant in those words. But yes you are correct, Matthew 22 is the example where Jesus says this specifically and it proves my point.

I've already explained the difference between someone's words and someone's word. It's not just a matter of the difference between plural and singular, it's a very important difference of meaning.

Firstly let me say I agree, I understand ‘the Word of God’ is Jesus Christ and as such different from the word of God that the Word of God speaks. I also agree that someone’s ‘word’ isn’t exactly the same thing as someone’s words which make up that ‘word’ But even then Jesus says whoever believes His word and whoever keeps His word etc.. John 5, John 12. So I agree with the distinction you are making, but do you agree with the different point I am making that if Jesus who is God speaks the words of God how can it not be the ‘word of God’? as in John 5 and John 12? If you say the words of God are not the word of God, whose words are they?
This is what is mean't by the Bible being the word of God

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear David Brider,
Sorry but I have already given chapter reference after chapter reference, I am still waiting for one from you that countenances same-sex sex. And its now irrelevant as the example you gave makes my point equally well.

But here is a question for you, if Jesus who is God speaks the words of God how can it not be the ‘word of God’? If you say the words of God are not the word of God, whose words are they?

David and Jonathon.

Chapter cited. Disbelieve it all you want, but there it is.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
Ah but the quote of mine you gave was about what Jesus said.
Ok back to David and Jonathan. It says David loved Jonathan spirtually, but it doesnt say he slept with him like it says he slept with women. Also the sins David repented from were adultery and murder which are the sins in Leviticus, no mention of same-sex as in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. How do you account for all that?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
Ah but the quote of mine you gave was about what Jesus said.
Ok back to David and Jonathan. It says David loved Jonathan spirtually, but it doesnt say he slept with him like it says he slept with women. Also the sins David repented from were adultery and murder which are the sins in Leviticus, no mention of same-sex as in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. How do you account for all that?

well what about what Jesus said?

He said love one another, and that judgement was best left to God. You are going against both of these teachings here.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ok back to David and Jonathan. It says David loved Jonathan spirtually, but it doesnt say he slept with him like it says he slept with women. Also the sins David repented from were adultery and murder which are the sins in Leviticus, no mention of same-sex as in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. How do you account for all that?

A. chapter and verse where it says their love was purely "spiritual"?
B. No forgiveness because their relationship was not a sin. Thus no forgiveniss required

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

A. chapter and verse where it says their love was purely "spiritual"?

I have just asked you a question again and you have answered me with a question. The answer to your question is 1 Samuel 18:1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
Furthermore the story repeats that he loved him as himself, which is of course a command of God and something all are required to do, but that means love, not have sex with everyone.
Now please address my questions, you now know where it says David loved Jonathan spirtually, but it doesnt say he slept with him like it says he slept with women. Also the sins David repented from were adultery and murder which are the sins in Leviticus, no mention of same-sex as in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. How do you account for all that?

B. No forgiveness because their relationship was not a sin.

That’s true but there relationship was love not sex, there is no evidence that they had sex, so there is no forgiveness needed for loving someone. the text says there was no same sex sex and no sin of sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

I have just asked you a question again and you have answered me with a question. The answer to your question is 1 Samuel 18:1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
Furthermore the story repeats that he loved him as himself, which is of course a command of God and something all are required to do, but that means love, not have sex with everyone.
Now please address my questions, you now know where it says David loved Jonathan spirtually, but it doesnt say he slept with him like it says he slept with women. Also the sins David repented from were adultery and murder which are the sins in Leviticus, no mention of same-sex as in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. How do you account for all that?

That’s true but there relationship was love not sex, there is no evidence that they had sex, so there is no forgiveness needed for loving someone. the text says there was no same sex sex and no sin of sex.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the evidence does not change the FACT it is there.

David and Jonathon being homosexual lovers fits all available evidence better than any other explanation.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII
If youafrent prepared to address my questions to you like I am with your questions there isnt much point in debating with you.
Your claim is baseless and therefore fact but fiction. David was attracted to women and slept with them, there is no mention of his sexual attraction to Jonathan whom it does say he loved.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
If youafrent prepared to address my questions to you like I am with your questions there isnt much point in debating with you.
Your claim is baseless and therefore fact but fiction. David was attracted to women and slept with them, there is no mention of his sexual attraction to Jonathan whom it does say he loved.

You don't think its possible that the overtly sexual part of the narative may have been edited by later transmitters?

Jonathon and David's sexual relationship is the best explanation for the tension with Saul.

Yes, David was attracted to women. Many, many bisexual men are. That doesn't mean that a bisexual man can't have a committed, purely homosexual relationship.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

You don't think its possible that the overtly sexual part of the narative may have been edited by later transmitters?

So you don’t believe the Bible again?

Jonathon and David's sexual relationship is the best explanation for the tension with Saul.

the sexual relationship is fiction, David loved Jonathan as himself just as the Biblical command Jesus taught and lived out with his disciples, unless you are suggesting love ones neighbour as oneself means having sex with them. Your idea that their relationship was sexual is fiction.

Yes, David was attracted to women. Many, many bisexual men are.

Bu it doesn’t say David was sexually attracted to Jonathan so he want bisexual. You are assuming he is and its fiction.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So you don’t believe the Bible again?

Can you try to get over this? I believe PARTS of the Bible are more or less accurate... I have no bizare belief that the Bible is somehow the only work of literature on the planet that is not subject to editing, mistranslation, or bias.

the sexual relationship is fiction, David loved Jonathan as himself just as the Biblical command Jesus taught and lived out with his disciples, unless you are suggesting love ones neighbour as oneself means having sex with them. Your idea that their relationship was sexual is fiction.

Jonathon and David didn't love each other like their neighbour... they loved each other greater than any woman. But I guess that bit doesn't suit your version, huh?

Bu it doesn’t say David was sexually attracted to Jonathan so he want bisexual. You are assuming he is and its fiction.

The most likely explanation is fiction? If that gets you through the night, fine.

God loves me, and blesses my partnership. Believe what you want.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

You don't think its possible that the overtly sexual part of the narative may have been edited by later transmitters?

No, if this were the case then why not just edit the entire story out?

Jonathon and David's sexual relationship is the best explanation for the tension with Saul.

if you throw out the fact that david was God's anointed while Saul was God's appointed. Also throw out that jonathan was the successor to the throne. And furthermore throw out that saul knew that david would succeed him over his own flesh and blood.

Yes, David was attracted to women. Many, many bisexual men are. That doesn't mean that a bisexual man can't have a committed, purely homosexual relationship.

To even try to encapsulate their relationship as some sort of sexual engagement is a total injustice to the story and to the people involved.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, if this were the case then why not just edit the entire story out?

Because David was an important Jewish historical figure and it was necesary to explain his rise to power?

if you throw out the fact that david was God's anointed while Saul was God's appointed. Also throw out that jonathan was the successor to the throne. And furthermore throw out that saul knew that david would succeed him over his own flesh and blood.

*snort* you relly don't know much of "literary righteousness" do you? If you ever research anything OTHER than the Bible, you will find an amazing number of usurpers have an amazing back story to "prove" they are the annointed of hostory, come to take power and right all wrongs... from Oedipus through Arthur, Romulus, Perseus, Charlemagne, right up to Washington

To even try to encapsulate their relationship as some sort of sexual engagement is a total injustice to the story and to the people involved.

Again, the evidence is there, if you refuse to look at it, I can't help that.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

Can you try to get over this?

No as it is the heart of the disagreement, if you accept this we can agree to differ. I have no intention of showing you what the Bible says chapter and verse for you to object to it and then immediately claim you believe other bits of it..

Jonathon and David didn't love each other like their neighbour..

David loved Jonathan as himself, it doesn’t say he had sex with Jonathan or had sex with himself. The command is to love ones neighbour as oneself.

But I guess that bit doesn't suit your version, huh?

Its not my version, what the Bible says I didn’t write. I guess you don’t believe the Bible huh? Show me a Bible translation where it says David slept with Jonathan like it says David slept with the woman Bathsheba.

God loves me, and blesses my partnership. Believe what you want.

I believe God’s word, it says God so loved us that Jesus died for us, John 3, and it says your same-sex relationships are error, Romans 1, if that is your relationship God doesn’t bless it or you are thinking of a different god, the Biblical evidence shows you your ideas are not form the God of the Bible.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Because David was an important Jewish historical figure and it was necesary to explain his rise to power?

his relationship with jonathan was not necessary in his rise to power, as God had long before anointed him as future king. It was nice to of them to fill in the story, though.

*snort* you relly don't know much of "literary righteousness" do you? If you ever research anything OTHER than the Bible, you will find an amazing number of usurpers have an amazing back story to "prove" they are the annointed of hostory, come to take power and right all wrongs... from Oedipus through Arthur, Romulus, Perseus, Charlemagne, right up to Washington

Thanks for telling me what I've read. Now you imply that king david was an usurper? How can you make a claim about the bible when you obviously have so many issues believing it yourself?

Again, the evidence is there, if you refuse to look at it, I can't help that.

There once was a time when two men could have a close relationship without people throwing the 'gay' flag up. It is unfortunate too, because it takes the focus off of the God-given importance of this story.

The straws of this argument are thin really, you are the one that is lacking evidence.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

his relationship with jonathan was not necessary in his rise to power, as God had long before anointed him as future king. It was nice to of them to fill in the story, though.

Again, your knowledge of general history seems a little flat... there are many usurpers and power brokers from history who managed to enter the coridors of power through being the lovers of the rulers of the day.

Thanks for telling me what I've read. Now you imply that king david was an usurper? How can you make a claim about the bible when you obviously have so many issues believing it yourself?

By any definition of usurper, how do you determine that David wasn't one?

There once was a time when two men could have a close relationship without people throwing the 'gay' flag up. It is unfortunate too, because it takes the focus off of the God-given importance of this story.

The straws of this argument are thin really, you are the one that is lacking evidence.

Two men most certainly can have a non sexual relationship.

It doesnt look like David and Jonathon's though.

seriously, if anyone told you about "two guys" using the david/Jonathon story, without names, you'd assume they were sexually intimate.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Jet_A_Jockey,

There once was a time when two men could have a close relationship without people throwing the 'gay' flag up.

Still today men in the middle east walk around holding hands, and even in the west Christians embrace each other in fellowship, the gay and lesbian position is merely about sex in disguise.
Yes it takes the focus off God’s intended revelation.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear Jet_A_Jockey,
Still today men in the middle east walk around holding hands, and even in the west Christians embrace each other in fellowship, the gay and lesbian position is merely about sex in disguise.
Yes it takes the focus off God’s intended revelation.

men can hold each other's hands till the cows come home... its the sneaking around each other's tents, kissing each other on their mouths, comparing their love for each other to that of their love for women, and one of their father's wanting to kill them that is the giveaway

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

men can hold each other's hands till the cows come home... its the sneaking around each other's tents, kissing each other on their mouths, comparing their love for each other to that of their love for women, and one of their father's wanting to kill them that is the giveaway

Only if one thinks it implies sex, it doesn’t say it is sexual! It also doesn’t say David kissed Jonathan on the mouth, your thinking is fiction. Even in this chapter where they kiss their relationship is affirmed as in spirit.