David and Jonathan

[RMDY]

1 Samuel 20:14
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David became great.

So you have two men, suspected of being in a consensual, homosexual relationship, weaping, kissing, and getting erections over each other.

Sounds pretty gay to me.

No where does it say there are erections, but keep this in mind:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LXo8X7LK95M

Yasser Arafat is kissing a jewish leader, not because he is gay, but because he is being very affectionate. Although this may come across as being very gay, it shouldn't, considering that both individuals aren't in love (same-sex-wise) and considering that Yasser was a hated enemy of the Jewish people for a while.

Some cultures accept this kind of friend kiss but other cultures would totally reject it. This does not mean both people are homosexually attracted to one another.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No where does it say there are erections, but keep this in mind:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LXo8X7LK95M

Yasser Arafat is kissing a jewish leader, not because he is gay, but because he is being very affectionate. Although this may come across as being very gay, it shouldn't, considering that both individuals aren't in love (same-sex-wise) and considering that Yasser was a hated enemy of the Jewish people for a while.

Some cultures accept this kind of friend kiss but other cultures would totally reject it. This does not mean both people are homosexually attracted to one another.

Indeed. But if they weap over the other's death, proclaim their love for each other as 'surpassing that of a womans', and 'become great' in each other's arms, then that is gay. They are sexually and romantically attracted to each other, and because they are both men (Jonathan & David, and Yasser & the jewish leader), they are both gay.
Of course, Yasser and the Jew did not do the above, they merely kissed as per the custom. Jonathan and David did a great deal more than kiss.

 

[RMDY]

=)
http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-study/jesus-life/most_important_command.htm

 

[RMDY]

Hi friend!
Thank you for your post!
Just a note, but as you saying that if I "weap over the other's death, proclaim their love for each other as 'surpassing that of a womans', and 'become great' in each other's arms, then that is gay" well you are not telling the truth about me =)
I can weap over anyones death, proclaim my love for anyone as surpassing that of a womens', and become 'great' in anyones arms and still not be gay or bi.
It is simply loving someone as I would love myself. The difference between Jonathan/David and myself and others is that in my culture, we do not embrace people with kissing other people of the same gender on the lips as adults. Although I see family members doing it to one another, it depends if its part of your culture or not. But I fully accept it if it does happen.


Did not Jesus teach us to love each other as we would love ourselves? (Matthew 22:39) (Lev. 19:18)

"And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

Jonathan loved David as himself (1 Samuel 18:3) . Note that he gave him everything he had, including his weapons. (1 Samuel 18:4).

KJV: Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
NASB: Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

"MHC: 18:1-5 The friendship of David and Jonathan was the effect of Divine grace, which produces in true believers one heart and one soul, and causes them to love each other. This union of souls is from partaking in the Spirit of Christ. Where God unites hearts, carnal matters are too weak to separate them. Those who love Christ as their own souls, will be willing to join themselves to him in an everlasting covenant. It was certainly a great proof of the power of God's grace in David, that he was able to bear all this respect and honour, without being lifted up above measure."
http://bible.cc/1_samuel/18-3.htm

This isn't the first time someone has loved someone as himself and given their robes to someone. In the story of Joseph and his many coats, having a person of authority give up their robe is a symbol of love, like an investment of putting your faith and trust unto them. We learn this when Jacob gave his coat to Joseph, when during the other two times. Likewise, Jonathan trusted David and put his faith into him by giving him everything: his robe and his weapons and strongly embracing David.
You know, it is possible for a father to love his son more than his wife and embrace him the same way as David was embraced by Jonathan. This wouldn't mean that both the father and son are gay, but share a father-son bond that goes beyond passion for women. Likewise, Jonathan and David shared a friendship that went beyond love for women and loved each other as they would love themselves. But people widely misinterpret 1 Samuel 18 as describing Jonathan and David as being gay lovers. This is just as bad as misinterpreting Genesis 6 as believing that Angels married and sex with women.

"Jesus was saying what we must do. It is our duty to love God and to love other people. We must love very sincerely. This is the most important thing in our life. "
http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-study/jesus-life/most_important_command.htm

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Just a note, but as you saying that if I "weap over the other's death, proclaim their love for each other as 'surpassing that of a womans', and 'become great' in each other's arms, then that is gay" well you are not telling the truth about me =)
I can weap over anyones death, proclaim my love for anyone as surpassing that of a womens', and become 'great' in anyones arms and still not be gay or bi.

On the contrary, in that scenario, you are sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. This is the definition of homosexuality.

It is simply loving someone as I would love myself. The difference between Jonathan/David and myself and others is that in my culture, we do not embrace people with kissing other people of the same gender on the lips as adults. Although I see family members doing it to one another, it depends if its part of your culture or not. But I fully accept it if it does happen.

The kissing is not the problem (but the frequency and passion with which they kiss raises my eyebrow). It is the erection, among other things, that points to a sexual relationship.

Did not Jesus teach us to love each other as we would love ourselves? (Matthew 22:39) (Lev. 19:18)

Love for oneself is not the same as love for one's sexual partner.

You know, it is possible for a father to love his son more than his wife and embrace him the same way as David was embraced by Jonathan. This wouldn't mean that both the father and son are gay, but share a father-son bond that goes beyond passion for women.

Not if they were sexually aroused by each other.

Likewise, Jonathan and David shared a friendship that went beyond love for women and loved each other as they would love themselves. But people widely misinterpret 1 Samuel 18 as describing Jonathan and David as being gay lovers. This is just as bad as misinterpreting Genesis 6 as believing that Angels married and sex with women.

You presume that your interpretation is correct? Or, at the very least, that you can catagorically identify an incorrect interpretation?

 

[RMDY]

My brother in Christ!
I posted my post based on what I believed to be correct with some examples to boot. I find it very interesting that you say Jonathan and David were sexually aroused and had erections with one another. Am I missing something here? I don't recall Scripture teaching us this. Do you have examples of this. I am very skeptical of Scripture telling us David and Jonathan had erections for one another.

On the contrary, in that scenario, you are sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. This is the definition of homosexuality.

Alright, friend. I understand you believe Jonathan and David were homosexuals because they had erections and sexual relations with one another.

The kissing is not the problem (but the frequency and passion with which they kiss raises my eyebrow). It is the erection, among other things, that points to a sexual relationship.

frequency and passion? Passion, is not a problem, Jonathan loves him deeply as a friend/brother, whatever you want to call it, since he loves him with all his soul. But where does it say there is an erection?

Not if they were sexually aroused by each other.

Where does Scripture say this? Where does it say there was an erection.

To my current knowledge, Scripture tells us that Jonathan loved David with all his soul, kissed him, wept for him, and gave him everything: his weapons, robe, and everything else.
Usually it is an honor to receive belongings from a man in authority, especially the son of a King! =)

God bless,

Rob =)

 

[RMDY]

I would like to point out something. When Jesus was tempted in the desert, Satan threw everything he could at Jesus to throw him off his mojo.

He even twisted scripture. So one day, not too long ago, I decided to read the passage Satan used against Jesus concerning jumping off a high place concerning that Angels would save him from his fall:

"The devil even starts quoting scripture now. He quoted from Psalm 91, "For He shall give His angels charge over you to keep you in all your ways. In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone."




Now, Satan was basically saying "Jump off this place to prove your the Son because if you do, your Angels will save you." But if you read the actual psalm, its different than how Satan interprets it:

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. 2 I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust."
3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare
and from the deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
5 You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
7 A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
8 You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.
9 If you make the Most High your dwelling—
even the LORD, who is my refuge-
10 then no harm will befall you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.
14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life will I satisfy him
and show him my salvation."

Now, the actual psalm is talking about trusting in the Lord and being delivered from evil and trouble and that if you call upon the Lord, he will be your refuge.

Keep this in mind, that Scripture isn't always interpreted correctly.

 

[GwynApNudd]

Alright, friend. I understand you believe Jonathan and David were homosexuals because they had erections and sexual relations with one another.

Where does Scripture say this? Where does it say there was an erection.

In 1 Samuel 20:14, the final phrase, usually translated as "until David exceeded," or "but David's grief was greater" or similarly can also be interpreted as referring to sexual arousal, or even [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. By the way, the first time David was with Saul, in the verse where David comforted Saul by playing his lyre, the final phrase there can also be interpreted as David exposing himself ("standing" erect) to Saul.

To my current knowledge, Scripture tells us that Jonathan loved David with all his soul, kissed him, wept for him, and gave him everything: his weapons, robe, and everything else.

Usually it is an honor to receive belongings from a man in authority, especially the son of a King! =)

Yes, to receive one special item from the king or his heir is simply a great honor. But for the prince to strip himself naked and give you everything he is wearing, including his ephod (his underwear) is much more intense and intimate. It sounds more like the conclusion of a private bonding ritual than a public honor.

Gwyn ap Nudd, playing devil's advocate.

(I can understand and explain these interpretations of 1 Samuel. I am not sure to what extent they are plausible, or to be preferred over more traditional translations.)

 

[RMDY]

In 1 Samuel 20:14, the final phrase, usually translated as "until David exceeded," or "but David's grief was greater" or similarly can also be interpreted as referring to sexual arousal, or even [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. By the way, the first time David was with Saul, in the verse where David comforted Saul by playing his lyre, the final phrase there can also be interpreted as David exposing himself ("standing" erect) to Saul.



Yes, to receive one special item from the king or his heir is simply a great honor. But for the prince to strip himself naked and give you everything he is wearing, including his ephod (his underwear) is much more intense and intimate. It sounds more like the conclusion of a private bonding ritual than a public honor.

Gwyn ap Nudd, playing devil's advocate.

(I can understand and explain these interpretations of 1 Samuel. I am not sure to what extent they are plausible, or to be preferred over more traditional translations.)

Concerning 1samuel 20:14:
http://bible.cc/1_samuel/20-14.htm
Most, if not all, the translations, including KJV, give a different interpretation: KJV: And thou shalt not only while yet I live show me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not.

Moreover: GWT: But as long as I live, promise me that you will show me kindness because of the LORD. And even when I die.

I see no indication that this meant an erection.
Furthermore:
"15 and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family—not even when the LORD has cut off every one of David's enemies from the face of the earth." 16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies to account." 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself."

By the way, the first time David was with Saul, in the verse where David comforted Saul by playing his lyre, the final phrase there can also be interpreted as David exposing himself ("standing" erect) to Saul.

I see nothing to support this. In 1 Samuel 20. Perhaps I am looking at the wrong chapter? Can you give the correct chapter your looking at if I am wrong.


I am curious what perverse means, so I looked it up:



The Imp of the Perverse is a metaphor for the common tendency, particularly among children and miscreants, to do exactly the wrong thing in a given situation. The conceit is that the misbehavior is due to an imp (a small demon) leading an otherwise decent person into mischief.
http://wikipedia.com

The sex-related meanings of words tend to drive out all other meanings. Most people think of both “perverse” and “perverted” only in contexts having to do with desire; but “perverse” properly has the function of signifying “stubborn,” “wrong-headed.” Nothing erotic is suggested by this sort of thing: “Josh perversely insisted on carving wooden replacement parts for his 1958 Ford’s engine.”
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/perverse.html


1 a : turned away from what is right or good : [SIZE=-1]CORRUPT[/SIZE] b : [SIZE=-1]IMPROPER[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]INCORRECT[/SIZE] c : contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law <perverse verdict>
2 a : obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable, or accepted : [SIZE=-1]WRONGHEADED[/SIZE] b : arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy
3 : marked by peevishness or petulance : [SIZE=-1]CRANKY[/SIZE]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/perverse

In 1 Samuel 20, Jonathan perversed his father by not doing what he was told(maybe not honoring him?).

By the way, the first time David was with Saul, in the verse where David comforted Saul by playing his lyre, the final phrase there can also be interpreted as David exposing himself ("standing" erect) to Saul.

Can you give me chapter and verse for this. Thank you =)

Now, I also wonder what the word "expose" means, so I looked it up:

1 a : to deprive of shelter, protection, or care : subject to risk from a harmful action or condition <expose troops needlessly> <has not yet been exposed to measles> b : to submit or make accessible to a particular action or influence <expose children to good books>; especially : to subject (a sensitive photographic film, plate, or paper) to radiant energy c : to abandon (an infant) especially by leaving in the open
2 a : to make known : bring to light (as something shameful) b : to disclose the faults or crimes of <expose a murderer>
3 : to cause to be visible or open to view :
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/expose

So it would be to my knowledge, according to this definition, and according to my beliefs beforehand, that David exposed himself from trying to hide from Saul by making himself be in the presence of someone who had/was/is trying to harm him, or had the potential to try to. David exposed himself to the dangers of Saul.


Again, I looked up ephod "(his underwear)"
[SIZE=-2][/SIZE]
1 a linen apron worn in ancient Hebrew rites; especially : a vestment for the high priest
2 : an ancient Hebrew instrument of priestly divination

Apron
1 : a garment usually of cloth, plastic, or leather usually tied around the waist and used to protect clothing or adorn a costume

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ephod
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apron

This is defiantly not underwear, but a loincloth tied around the waist. To wear an honorable man's gear: everything in it, is an honor.



=)

God bless,

Rob

 

[DMagoh]

On the contrary, in that scenario, you are sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. This is the definition of homosexuality.

The kissing is not the problem (but the frequency and passion with which they kiss raises my eyebrow). It is the erection, among other things, that points to a sexual relationship.


Love for oneself is not the same as love for one's sexual partner.


Not if they were sexually aroused by each other.


You presume that your interpretation is correct? Or, at the very least, that you can catagorically identify an incorrect interpretation?

You are a self-professed pagan. An atheist's or pagan's opinion about my faith is irrelevant to me. God and his Holy scripture guide me. I would also seek advice from other Christians I respect. However, I doubt very seriously that God would want Christians to follow an atheist’s or pagan's interpretation of scripture or advice on how to live. I wouldn't expect a Muslim to value my opinion on Muhammad.

However, I do find it amusing that you like discussing non-existant erections on fictional characters (since you dont even believe they exist.) Do you discuss Bugs Bunny's erections too?

 

[david_x]

On the contrary, in that scenario, you are sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. This is the definition of homosexuality.

This is the flaw of our time. People think that all love is sexual. Any friends that are girls must be wanting you. It is a lie. Men can be very good friends with other men, sex is a perversion of a healthy male relationship.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are a self-professed pagan. An atheist's or pagan's opinion about my faith is irrelevant to me. God and his Holy scripture guide me. I would also seek advice from other Christians I respect. However, I doubt very seriously that God would want Christians to follow an atheist’s or pagan's interpretation of scripture or advice on how to live. I wouldn't expect a Muslim to value my opinion on Muhammad.

Wow, you've know said this to me four times. Anyone else keeping count?
DMagoh, I am not talking to you. Quite frankly, I do not care what my opinion means to you. What possible purpose does this post hold?

However, I do find it amusing that you like discussing non-existant erections on fictional characters (since you dont even believe they exist.) Do you discuss Bugs Bunny's erections too?

While I do not believe that the Bible contains truth (mentions of Egypt, etc, aside), other people do. There are those people who believe that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible, and duely condemn it as well.
While I do not believe in the Bible, it's teachings still determentally affect me.
Forgive me, then, for defending myself and my right to love whom I wish.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is the flaw of our time. People think that all love is sexual. Any friends that are girls must be wanting you. It is a lie. Men can be very good friends with other men, sex is a perversion of a healthy male relationship.

I am aware of the different types of love. I love my friends differently to how I love my mother, for example.
But my point was that Jonathan and David were sexually attracted to each other. This is the definition of homosexuality: sexual attraction to one's own sex.
That they romantically loved each other is another point altogether.

 

[david_x]

I am aware of the different types of love. I love my friends differently to how I love my mother, for example.
But my point was that Jonathan and David were sexually attracted to each other. This is the definition of homosexuality: sexual attraction to one's own sex.
That they romantically loved each other is another point altogether.

Is it normal for you to be attracted to a brother? I do believe that is how it is described, love like that of a brother. There is no way that they were sexually attracted. They respected each other, how is that sexual?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it normal for you to be attracted to a brother? I do believe that is how it is described, love like that of a brother. There is no way that they were sexually attracted. They respected each other, how is that sexual?

While the traditional English translations create confusion with the multiple meanings of 'love', the Hebrew word used (&#1488;&#1492;&#1489;&#1492;, or 'ahavah) is only ever used in the Bible to mean romantic, sexual love (Genesis 29:20; 2 Samuel 13:15; Proverbs 5:19; Song-of-songs 2:4-7, 3:5-10, 5:8; etc).
The word used to describe their love is the same word used to describe sexual, romantic love elsewhere in the Bible. Thus, their love is of the sexual, romantic variety.
The love for one's family, for one's companions, and for one's god(s), is not referred to here. In the Hebrew, it is explicitly romantic.

The use of 'brother' is just an example of the Bible's euphamatic dealing with sex. Indeed, Saul accuses Jonathan of "confusing the nakedness of his mother" with David; the nakedness of one's parents is a common Biblical sexual allusion (Leviticus 18:6-19, 20:11, 20:17-21; Ezekiel 16:36-37, 23:10; Habakkuk, 2:15; etc).

Need I say more?

 

[david_x]

While the traditional English translations create confusion with the multiple meanings of 'love', the Hebrew word used (&#1488;&#1492;&#1489;&#1492;, or 'ahavah) is only ever used in the Bible to mean romantic, sexual love (Genesis 29:20; 2 Samuel 13:15; Proverbs 5:19; Song-of-songs 2:4-7, 3:5-10, 5:8; etc).
The word used to describe their love is the same word used to describe sexual, romantic love elsewhere in the Bible. Thus, their love is of the sexual, romantic variety.
The love for one's family, for one's companions, and for one's god(s), is not referred to here. In the Hebrew, it is explicitly romantic.

Love is not sexual though. Why do you assume that. Romantic, sexual whatever. The fact is that that is not love. It is sexual attraction.

The use of 'brother' is just an example of the Bible's euphamatic dealing with sex. Indeed, Saul accuses Jonathan of "confusing the nakedness of his mother" with David; the nakedness of one's parents is a common Biblical sexual allusion (Leviticus 18:6-19, 20:11, 20:17-21; Ezekiel 16:36-37, 23:10; Habakkuk, 2:15; etc).

What do the jews believe on the subject. Obviously they did not act or there would have been hell to pay just like the time with bathsheba.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Love is not sexual though. Why do you assume that. Romantic, sexual whatever. The fact is that that is not love. It is sexual attraction.

Wow, did you even read my post?
1) In the English, David and Jonathan 'loved' each other.
2) In the Hebrew, David and Jonathan '&#1488;&#1492;&#1489;&#1492;-ed' each other.
3) '&#1488;&#1492;&#1489;&#1492;' is only used in the Bible to describe what we in the anglosphere call romantic love.
4) Therefore, David and Jonathan romantically loved each other.

I.e., David and Jonathan were bi/gay.

What do the jews believe on the subject.

Go ask one; I have no idea. Is it pertinant?

Obviously they did not act or there would have been hell to pay just like the time with bathsheba.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The people of Saul's kingdom celebrated David, to the point where Saul's jealousy caused him to make several attempts on David's life. I'm not sure if this answers your point; could you rephrase?

 

[david_x]

Go ask one; I have no idea. Is it pertinant?

Well, if even the hebrews don't understand it that way, why in the world would we.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The people of Saul's kingdom celebrated David, to the point where Saul's jealousy caused him to make several attempts on David's life. I'm not sure if this answers your point; could you rephrase?

Well, look what happened when David killed bathshebas husband. Nathan came to David. There was punishment. If God had punished him once there should have been concequences for this sin.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, if even the hebrews don't understand it that way, why in the world would we.

Now you're changing the question. Before, it was a modern-day Jew. Now, it's an ancient Hebrew. Which?

Well, look what happened when David killed bathshebas husband. Nathan came to David. There was punishment. If God had punished him once there should have been concequences for this sin.

I don't see how David's affair with Bathsheba, and subsequent murder of Uriah, is synonymous with the loving* relationship between David and Jonathan. The former is rife with sin, while the latter is a touching love* story.

*By 'love', I mean 'romantic love', as a person loves their spouse.

 

[david_x]

Now you're changing the question. Before, it was a modern-day Jew. Now, it's an ancient Hebrew. Which?

One in the same. Not to mean that they believe all the same things, but on this issue specifically.

I don't see how David's affair with Bathsheba, and subsequent murder of Uriah, is synonymous with the loving* relationship between David and Jonathan. The former is rife with sin, while the latter is a touching love* story.

It was (there is no debate about that) a sin.

Sexual things are not really even related to love.

Besides, it is between to men. That cannot possibly be romantic. Just sexual. Not to say that they were.