It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

David and Jonathan : more than just holding hands? 1 Sam 20:30 contains sexual verbs and nouns

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
David & Jonathan : So much more than just two adult males holding hands.....

The Bible devotes more chapters to this particularly strange love story (see 1 Samuel chapters 18 and 19, and the end of 2 Samuel chapter 1) than any other human love story in the Bible....the texts speak of Jonathan and David’s physical intimacy, exchanging clothing, embracing, weeping together, hugging and kissing each other --the text says that their souls were 'knitted together, that is, until Jonathan's untimely death.

In a post Kinsey world, is there a Conspiracy of Silence among Christian and Jewish leaders to keep this homosexual love story (with emphgasis on gay male-to-male love attachment) from becoming in some way 'acceptable' to the masses ?

What are your thoughts? Details in the next post


edit on 26-9-2015 by Sigismundus because: Stuttering computer kkkeeeyyboardddd




posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Conspiracy of Silence?

David and Jonathan's homosexual relations with each other have been conveniently glazed over by many fundamentalist bible-believers simply because they don't want to see what they don't want to see - but it's there right in the text of the books of Samuel...

1 Samuel 18:1

"Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the breath (nophesh = throat, soul or breath) of Jonathan became knit to the breath of David, and Jonathan loved David as he loved his own breath. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a pact with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt. So David went out wherever Saul sent him, and prospered; and Saul set him over the men of war..."

then read 2 Samuel chapter 1:23-26 which was a paean to Jonathan attributed to David himself:

Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life,
And in their death they were not parted;
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been a darling to me.
Your love to me was full of wonder
Far surpassing the love of any female !

Things got a little hot under the collar for Jonathan's father who suspected their homosexual relations in his diatribe found in 1 Samuel 20:30 :

"Then Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious female - do you think I am unaware that you have chosen to wed the son of Jesse to your own confusion and to the confusion of your mother's nakedness? If you continue, how can your own dynasty be established ? "

These verses are formed of several sexually charged words "son of a peverse and rebellious female" means a woman adopting the top or dominant position in the bedroom, which was thought to produce a homosexual male or lesbian female child. (Admittedly, the Hebrew word naăvath, rendered 'perverse', is displayed in the text as a feminine adjective, and could also be translated as “Thou son of the perversity of rebellion,” a common Hebraism for “a man of perverse nature")

The phrase 'to the confusion(Heb. Boshet) of your mother's nakedness' is clearly a reference to the homosexual act in this context...and context is everything here...

Any takers?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus
nevermind, not wasting the time.
edit on 26-9-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Sigismundus


Just laughing that you equate "Love" to body parts and sexual actions.


Apparently, Solomon did as well.


Song of Solomon 1
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
For your love is better than wine



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Maybe looking at a different translation can broaden your viewpoint.

Wycliffe:

2 Samuel 1:23-26

23 Saul and Jonathan, amiable, and fair in their life,
were not parted also in their death; they were swifter
than eagles, stronger than lions.
24 Daughters of Israel, weep ye on Saul, that clothed
you with fine red, and in (other) delights, that gave
golden ornaments to your attire.
25 How have strong men fallen down in battle?
Jonathan was slain in the high places.
26 I make sorrow upon thee, my brother Jonathan, full
fair and amiable more than the love of women; as a
mother loveth her only son, so I loved thee.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Yeah. Equating this deviant societies thoughts on the past. Works........... NOT.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
That can't be true because everyone knows there were no gay people in the world until the evil liberals appeared in the '60's!

Good post. Just like with all the polygamy in the old world, including the bible, the idea that nuclear families were always the norm is a joke.



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

One imagines you don't want to look too closely into the mangled Hebrew texts on this subject !

Tell you what - go take a basic paleo-Hebrew class and get back to me...


+10 more 
posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

Well, to clarify things, I'll quote what Jesus said on the subject of homosexual love:

"


















".


edit on 26/9/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I also find it interesting that that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ("Jesus") according to the 4th gospel had 'a disciple whom he loved' (Lazarus?) but does not himself make any pronouncements on the subject overtly.

See (Gk: ὁ μαθητὴς ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ho mathētēs hon ēgapā ho Iēsous) or, in John 20:2, the Beloved Disciple (Greek: ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, hon ephilei ho Iēsous) is used six times in the Gospel of John but not found in the Synoptic Gospels of
Matthew, Luke or Mark...

In the 4th Gospel, the disciple whom "Jesus" loved rested on his breast during the reclining Last Supper (this despite da Vinci etal.) and it is in this position that they share whispers:

see John 13:22-25

"And one of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him; Shimeon Kephah motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means" then he lying on Jesus' breast said to him, my lord, who is it? " etc.

Other references to the 'disciple whom Jesus loved can be found in

John 19:26-27 "When [Jesus] saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” &tc.

see also John 20:2 "Then she ran and came to Shimeon Kephah and to that other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away our lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid his [corpse.]"

see also John 21:7,20

So following an old testament typology based on David and Jonathan, the Son of David (in this case "Jesus" is involved intimately with another John (Yonah or Jonathan or Yohanon or Yohananon however you want to render the Hebrew)

Also it is noteworthy that he also “loved” the family of Mary, Martha and Lazarus of Bethany (11:5), especially Lazarus (John 11:3,36).

Food for thought, and certainly some thing to add to the list of 'non-touchable' subjects that persons who define themselves as 'Christian' sweep cleanly under the carpet...



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Bible is full of men loving men. I would not assume men loving each other or even kissing and holding hands means they have a SEXUAL relationship - except in the West.


Nazareth, Bethlehem, Damascus, Palestine, etc are all located on Asia and in asian culture, men have boyfriends the same way girls have girlfriends without necessarily being homosexual or engaging in homo'sexual' activity.

here in the west, guys can't refer to their buddies as boyfriends as girls refer to their girlfriends because of the straight agenda.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah

Point taken, however one must consider the rant and rage of 1 Samuel 20:30 where Saul the king states emphatically that his son was the result of 'a perverse and rebellious female' and that he 'has chosen to wed rthe son of Jesse to the confusion of [his] mother's nakedness..." which strongly hints that something homosexual was afoot, even if it was only in the mind of Saul...in other words, Saul believed that Jonathan was wasting his royal seed where he could not sire children...after all his only son was 'lame in the feet' and not fit to fight battles or rule a clan territory etc.




edit on 27-9-2015 by Sigismundus because: stuttttttering commpputtter keyyyyboard



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   
In the Bible, doesn't God KILL a man for simply spilling his seed?



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

Have you never had a best friend that you were in love with? Someone that you would be willing to risk your life for? Someone who's death would devastate you? Someone who you enjoyed spending time with like a brother?

Intimate love between best friends has nothing to do with sexuality. For your sake I hope that you have experienced this type of friendship, if not hopefully some day you will.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Milah
In the Bible, doesn't God KILL a man for simply spilling his seed?


No.

He was intentionally not impregnating his dead brothers widow because the child would be heir to his dead brothers fortune.

At the time it was a legal requirement for a brother to marry a deceased brothers widow if they had failed to have a child. It was necessary that each male lineage was carried on.

So he was directly disobeying the law. He agreed to marry her and have sex with her but refused to impregnate her. He was selfish and disobedient.
edit on 27-9-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   
God in the Bible made plenty exceptions for fornication sex, incest sex, rape-then-marry sex, but never homosexual sex.

Ie, Lot offered his daughters to men of Sodom when they demanded sexual relations with Lot's Sons and Son-In-Laws. God later cast his wrath upon Sodom and killed Lot's wife for looking back when instructed not to.

Lot's 2 daughters' husbands AND sons appear to have all been killed to? For the Bible says the 2 daughters had no one around to impregnate them, so they got their father drunk and made him impregnant them both.

Anyways, the Bible is clear that David loved Jonathan more than women, and indeed Saul used sexual language to describe his disappointment with their love in his eyes due to the marriage/heir prospects discussed by the OP.

Yet God in the Bible does not condemn their relationship. Since God in the Bible condemns homosexual acts, but does not condemn them (Jonathan dies in battle as does his father Saul), this is evidence that they did not have a sodomy relationship. David was clearly 'in love' with Jonathan and possibly vice versa. Either or both of them may have been homosexual however the message in the Bible is clear: they had a bond that they vowed each other would be held by God even for generations to come and sure enough David adopted Jonathan's only son as his own.

Whether bromance or same-sex love - what's wrong with it in God's eyes, per this Biblical account of Jonathan's & David's covenant? Apparently nothing because the did not have a relationship involving sodomy, apparently.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah



Ie, Lot offered his daughters to men of Sodom when they demanded sexual relations with Lot's Sons and Son-In-Laws. God later cast his wrath upon Sodom and killed Lot's wife for looking back when instructed not to.


Um excuse me Sodom was already doomed. And no they didn't demand that with his sons and sons in law. All they wanted was to get to know who the angels were.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Milah



Ie, Lot offered his daughters to men of Sodom when they demanded sexual relations with Lot's Sons and Son-In-Laws. God later cast his wrath upon Sodom and killed Lot's wife for looking back when instructed not to.


Um excuse me Sodom was already doomed. And no they didn't demand that with his sons and sons in law. All they wanted was to get to know who the angels were.


^Cool story, bro. Source?

biblehub.com...




New International Version
Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

New Living Translation
Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection."

English Standard Version
Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

New American Standard Bible
"Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

King James Bible
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Look, I've got two daughters who haven't had sexual relations with a man. I'll bring them out to you, and you can do whatever you want to them. However, don't do anything to these men, because they have come under the protection of my roof.""

International Standard Version
Look here, I have two daughters who are virgins. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them whatever you wish, only don't do anything to these men, because they're here under my protection."

NET Bible
Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please. Only don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Look, I have two daughters who have never had sex. Why don't you let me bring them out to you? Do whatever you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, since I'm responsible for them."

JPS Tanakh 1917
Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

New American Standard 1977
“Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”

Jubilee Bible 2000
Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing, for they have come under the shadow of my roof.

King James 2000 Bible
Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do you to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

American King James Version
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out to you, and do you to them as is good in your eyes: only to these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

American Standard Version
Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing, forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I have two daughters who as yet have not known man : I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.

Darby Bible Translation
Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known a man: let me now bring them out to you; and do to them as is good in your sight: only, to these men do nothing; for therefore have they come under the shadow of my roof.

English Revised Version
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.

Webster's Bible Translation
Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out to you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only to these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

World English Bible
See now, I have two virgin daughters. Please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them what seems good to you. Only don't do anything to these men, because they have come under the shadow of my roof."

Young's Literal Translation
lo, I pray you, I have two daughters, who have not known any one; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do to them as is good in your eyes; only to these men do not anything, for therefore have they come in within the shadow of my roof.'



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah

Yes he was offering them his daughters instead of the angels.

You claimed that they demanded him of his sons and son-in-laws.


edit on 9/27/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah

A challenge question for you (It requires that you re-read it):

Was Sodom doomed before or after?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join