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: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Yes the men said they were looking for the visitors. Were they AWARE the visitors were ANGELS? They ask for 2 men (who they intend to rape). Did the human men actually intend to rape celestial beings? Lot offered his 2 daughters but the Sodomites wanted men.

www.bjm-home.com...



The two angels, who had accompanied God to see Abraham in the previous chapter, now to Sodom. Lot recognizes the strength and power of these entities. He bows to the ground to them. Lot asks them to settle into his house for food and comfort. Their feet were again washed, as was the tradition. The angels, at first, said they had to go into the square, the common meeting place within the city. However, Lot does persuade them to stay in his house. He baked unleavened bread and other good food.

Before they were going to bed, the "men of the city" (a way of saying the homosexual men of the city) of Sodom came to Lot's house. They actually surrounded Lot's house. These men were represented in all age groups and parts of the city.

The men of the city called out to Lot. They wanted to know where the men were that came to visit Lot. They wanted the men to have homosexual relations with them. This was essentially going to be a homosexual gang rape. This certainly appears to be a brazen, "I don't care" attitude. Now Lot goes out on the porch and meets the numbers of men. He closes the door behind him. Lot plead with the men to not be wicked. Go home and do not bother them. However, the men would not leave.

It is obvious that the text speaks to the practice of homosexuality in Sodom. The cities in the locale of Sodom nd were known to be evil even at their time. In addition, there are many references to Sodom and Gomorrah and the evil there. We even get the word sodomy from this chapter (Jude 1:7). However, the city was guilty of sins including overbearing pride, oppression of the poor, superior manners toward inferiors, and “abominable things” (Ezek. 16:49-50). Together, Sodom and Gomorrah provided a point of comparison for the sinfulness of Israel and other nations (Deut. 32:32; Isa. 1:10; Jer. 23:14). This evil of Sodom is mentioned elsewhere (2 Pet. 2:6-10) The Holman Bible Dictionary summarizes the Bible position of homosexuality:
"In the Holiness Code of Leviticus, homosexuality is considered an abomination (18:22), and such behavior was to be punished by death (20:13).

In the New Testament the early church also considered homosexuality as sinful behavior. Although Jesus never mentioned such behavior, probably because the problem never arose during His ministry among Jewish people, Paul clearly condemned homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 considers homosexuality to be a sign of God’s wrath upon blind sinfulness. Such behavior is considered a degrading passion, unnatural, an indecent act, and an error, even worthy of death (Rom. 1:32).

Some of the Corinthian Christians apparently had been homosexuals (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Having mentioned homosexuality, Paul stated that “such were some of you” (v. 11). Through faith in Christ they had been “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified” (v. 11). Paul implied here that homosexual behavior is forgivable through the gospel and that any homosexual temptations should be resisted as seriously as those toward fornication or adultery (mentioned in v. 9). Paul also taught that homosexuality was contrary to “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10).

The Bible does not recognize homosexuality as biologically constitutional or hereditary (as a kind of third sex), but sees its roots in the sinful nature of man—a psychosocial, learned behavior, expressing rebellion against God and calling for redemption. Such persons are responsible for their behavior. This is a very complex psychological problem with many possible roots or causes, calling for both Christian compassion on the part of God’s people as well as God’s redemptive power through the gospel. The ministry of the church to homosexuals should include: conversion, counseling, education, and support-group relationships."
This is just a sampling of the references to homosexuality.

Gen. 19:8-11:

Here Lot did something very strange to us. He offered his two virgin daughters to the men instead of the men. He pleads that the men not be harmed. They were his guests; therefore, should be left alone and in peace. One may question how a father could do this. However, one must understand the theology and some hierarchy of sin of the people then. It was more evil (if one can accept that one sin is worse than another - NOT Biblical) to have a homosexual rape than to have a rape of the women. So, Lot was offering the lesser of the two sins to the men. However, they did not want to accept that.

The men now condemn Lot. They say that he came as an "alien", a person who came to live in Sodom but did not belong there. Now since he refused the two men, Lot would also be "taken" by the men. They started pressing very hard against Lot and pushed to his front door and were getting ready to break the door down. Just at that time, the two men inside Lot's house cracked the door open, pulled Lot inside, and closed the door. All of a sudden, the two men struck all the Sodomite men, while in the doorway, with blindness. Now the men could not even find the doorway anymore.

Gen. 19:12-18:

The two men now take a reading on the household. Who is there with Lot except his wife? Lot confirms that Lot, his son-in-law, sons, daughters, and his wife were in the house. The angels tell Lot emphatically to take the family and leave town. The angels are now surely going to destroy Sodom.




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah



Were they AWARE the visitors were ANGELS? They ask for 2 men (who they intend to rape).

I am sure you can "prove" that they wanted to rape them. Even then that have nothing to do with the destruction of Sodom (hint there are verses explaining this).



It was more evil (if one can accept that one sin is worse than another - NOT Biblical) to have a homosexual rape than to have a rape of the women



So, Lot was offering the lesser of the two sins to the men.

And God didn't punish Lot? Rape is rape.

Anyway the story has nothing to do with homosexuality and rape.

Ok answer my last question. (again hint hint let the bible interpret itself).
edit on 9/27/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Milah
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.




originally posted by: Milah

www.bjm-home.com...




Gen. 19:8-11:

Here Lot did something very strange to us. He offered his two virgin daughters to the men instead of the men. He pleads that the men not be harmed. They were his guests; therefore, should be left alone and in peace. One may question how a father could do this. However, one must understand the theology and some hierarchy of sin of the people then. It was more evil (if one can accept that one sin is worse than another - NOT Biblical) to have a homosexual rape than to have a rape of the women. So, Lot was offering the lesser of the two sins to the men. However, they did not want to accept that.

Now since he refused the two men, Lot would also be "taken" by the men. They started pressing very hard against Lot and pushed to his front door and were getting ready to break the door down. Just at that time, the two men inside Lot's house cracked the door open, pulled Lot inside, and closed the door. All of a sudden, the two men struck all the Sodomite men, while in the doorway, with blindness. Now the men could not even find the doorway anymore.

Gen. 19:12-18:

The two men now take a reading on the household. Who is there with Lot except his wife? Lot confirms that Lot, his son-in-law, sons, daughters, and his wife were in the house. The angels tell Lot emphatically to take the family and leave town. The angels are now surely going to destroy Sodom.


dictionary.reference.com...
judgment, decision, or sentence

dictionary.reference.com...
vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah

I guess you won't answer my question. Sodom was already doomed way before those 2 angels went to visit. Read the interaction between God and Abraham.

I'll give you one small verse out of many:


"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 16:49



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   
www.bjm-home.com...



The two angels, who had accompanied God to see Abraham in the previous chapter, now to Sodom. Lot recognizes the strength and power of these entities. He bows to the ground to them. Lot asks them to settle into his house for food and comfort.

-----

The two men now take a reading on the household. Who is there with Lot except his wife? Lot confirms that Lot, his son-in-law, sons, daughters, and his wife were in the house. The angels tell Lot emphatically to take the family and leave town. The angels are *now* surely going to destroy Sodom.




back to Dave & Jon's *relationship*

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 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reposting for the impaired:

DOOM
dictionary.reference.com...
judgment, decision, or sentence

WRATH
dictionary.reference.com...
vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah



Yet God in the Bible does not condemn their relationship. Since God in the Bible condemns homosexual acts, but does not condemn them


Yes I understand your point. If God condemns homosexual relationships so therefore David and Jonathan's relationship was not homosexual. What I am pointing out to you is that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (you claimed they were of homosexuality and rape) were NOT of homosexuality. If you want I can list more verses.


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

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



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Milah



Yet God in the Bible does not condemn their relationship. Since God in the Bible condemns homosexual acts, but does not condemn them


Yes I understand your point. If God condemns homosexual relationships so therefore David and Jonathan's relationship was not homosexual. What I am pointing out to you is that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (you claimed they were of homosexuality and rape) were NOT of homosexuality. If you want I can list more verses.



I cannot lie; I did think the Sin of Sodom (and Gomorrah) was chiefly its modern namesake, SODOMY.

So do appreciate your determination to clarify. Trust they haven't fallen on deaf ears. Thanks and good tidings to you, Alien!

As for Dave & Jon I believe there is a possibility their relationship *may* have been homo-amorous or perhaps even homoromantic but I give them the benefit of the doubt based on the Bible's presentation of their relationship as a Covenant of Love between two men, that it wasn't lustful nor sexual in any way other than their happening to be both of the male sex!

We are all entitle to our viewpoints and would love to see yours' and others if this thread stays alive at least thru the weekend, have a good one!




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah



I cannot lie; I did think the Sin of Sodom (and Gomorrah) was chiefly its modern namesake, SODOMY.


Yes that's a big mistake. An invention that was invented way later.



As for Dave & Jon I believe there is a possibility their relationship *may* have been homo-amorous or perhaps even homoromantic but I give them the benefit of the doubt based on the Bible's presentation of their relationship as a Covenant of Love between two men, that it wasn't lustful nor sexual in any way other than their happening to be both of the male sex!


They did have a great love for each other. BTW homosexual relationships don't have to involve "sodomy". Nothing lustful about it.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

OP, I think you are reading far too much into this and your theory that David and Jonathon were sexual partners really is based on scantily clad semantics and an imaginatively tightly squeezed few droplets of inference from a text of beauty and brotherly love. You appear to want it to mean something more than is good for objective intellectual analysis.

For example I have a male friend who I hug every time we part and some people have even called us gay in public for our behaviour with one another.

You fail to adjust your focus culturally and historically to gain any feel for those ancient cultures and the way people behaved and expressed themselves. It is the same with Jesus and his beloved Disciple. It is meant to inform us of the depths and beauty of brotherly love and friendship.

"No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for one of his friends". This reveals how central spiritually the bond is between friends and that it can become as intimate as being brothers and kin. Do you not see that? Can men not bee close to each other without being labelled as gay?

Open your mind to love beyond sexuality. It exists I assure you.


edit on 27-9-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah

I do believe that it was destroyed because of it's iniquities. And well, Lot was bargaining with the angels I believe before the mob arrived to warn him to get his family and himself out of the city. He was whittling down the number of righteous men that would justify saving the city. And then the mob came asking for the angels. It was not really clear as to why they wanted the angels, but it is evident that lot believed they weren't intending to play nice with them. So, well what does he do. Why he offers them his daughters instead. Ya know, the daughters that God put in his care to love and protect. Well, I imagine that those angels were more than capable of defending themselves. I highly doubt if those daughters were as capable.
Well the angels ended their negotiation, and told them to flee the city and not to look back. And if I remember the story right, it seems as though the timetable to destruction was moved up by something that just happened. Could it be that the angels found that the one righteous person that they thought they had in the city wasn't so righteous after all and instead of giving them time to safely exit the city, they were force to run for their lives?






An iniquity is a really unfair or really immoral act. If you're a journalist, you may uncover a terrible iniquity that forces a famous politician to step down.

Iniquity comes from Latin, combining the prefix in-, which means “not,” and aequus, which means “equal” or “just.” So iniquity literally means “not just.” Iniquity can also be used to say that something lacks moral or spiritual principles. Some would call Las Vegas a “den of iniquity,” implying that sinful or wicked behavior occurs there. Others would just call it a vacation.
www.vocabulary.com...

There is more than one meaning to the word "iniquity"
it was just as unfair and immoral for Lot to willingly hand over his daughters to this mob probably as was any other sin that was going on in the city. And if the one "righteous" man in the city couldn't see his daughters as more than just a commodity to be bartered with, then well, I imagine the rest of the city had the same problem. Especially since, well like I said, the angels were probably more than capable of protecting themselves from a small mob of men.

Much of the rhetoric that is being spewed out of what is referred to as the christian right is submerged in iniquity. They've worked harder, went to school longer, studied harder, planned better, than that unemployed man and therefore he deserves to be homeless, his children deserve to go hungry. They still believe that women are less than men and are hell bent on proving it by cutting off their access to birth control every chance they get because they know that reproductive rights are equal to productive rights and women who are bogged down reproducing have no time to be anything more than mothers. And, they think that they can use those "religious freedoms" to discriminate illegally and not be held accountable because their law is above the law of our nation. And if they get this, it will not just be held to gay marriage, or birth control, it will extend out into many other areas and others will feel the pain also. And when other religious groups see what is happening and try the same thing, they will scream bloody murder because they don't see the rights of those other groups as being equal to theirs either.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Milah




Yet God in the Bible does not condemn their relationship.


No, "God" doesn't condemn their love. But David was a sexual sinner, big time, that "God" forgives again and again. David " Was a man after God's own heart. "God" condemns Saul and he and his son, Jonathan, are killed. God takes Absalom from David as a punishment for sexual crimes. Loving Jonathan physically was not a sexual crime.


1 Samuel 13
“You have done a foolish thing,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. 14 But now your kingdom will not endure; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the Lord’s command.”


And. you are wrong about Sodom. Deaf Alien is right. Sodom was condemned BEFORE their lust went unsatisfied by Lot's visitors. Sodom's perversions had nothing to do with homosexuality.


Ezekiel 16
Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. 47 You not only followed their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did.


Do you think Israel was having homosexual orgies and raping "angels" too?

This informative video below explain why Sodom was destroyed.......NOT!



edit on 27-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Milah
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.





There is nothing in the Bible to say that God disapproves of homosexual sex. If you want to quote Leviticus 20:13 go ahead:
"If a man also lie with mankind, 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." Two words are used for the male gender, "man" and "mankind" denoting a difference. We know that '"mankind" lieth with a woman' so "man" does not. The verse is a condemnation of a) mixing gay and straight and b) the practice of male prostitution for religious reasons.

Now when it comes to Sodom, the people who gathered outside Lot's door were of mixed gender. There is nothing to say that they were all male. They wanted to "know" the strangers and as we learn later were "lustful of strange flesh". The people of Sodom practised exo-cannibalism, that is the eating of other humans from outside the community to absorb their knowledge, power and spirit. The Arabic texts describe how the Sodomites laid their guests on beds and cut their limbs off. It was so they could cook them. Lot knew his daughters would be safe as they were members of the community and therefore taboo. Their "purity" is mentioned because it was an attractive quality in a meal.

God's punishment was fitting. He created a massive barbecue as a reprisal for all the victims of the people of Sodom. And of Lot's wife? She became a pillar of salt: a condiment for the occasion. It all fits.

Jonathan and David's love for each other was sexual in nature and permitted by God because God has no qualms with it. That's why Jesus never mentions it and gladly assists the centurion whose servant "whom he loved very much" had died. Being gay is morally and spiritually OK as the Bible shows.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sigismundus
David & Jonathan

One of the greatest Love stories of all time!



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Interesting viewpoints. I don't see evidence of a physically sexual relationship per the bible. My mind does consider the likelihood that David & Jon were physically intimate, not just emotionally homoromantically, but I do not see any evidence of it (physical relations) so I wouldnt assume it.

People assume I am in a sexual relationship with my hubby just because we are lovers for the past 6 years, but we never had any sexual relationship not even a kiss on the mouth or any kind of intercourse and we sleep together every night (I stay up late on ATS).

It is offensive to be asked 'what?! if you don't have physical relations, how can you even love one another'? I understand this is a sexual world, but we are not part of it. To each their own.

We've agreed we'd only try having sex when we are certain we are ready to try to have kids.

Back to Dave & Jon's love dimensions. What is SODOMY then? And does God condemn it?


edit on 27-9-2015 by Milah because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Milah

I hope that you understand that your relationship with your "hubby" is rare, very rare. Most people are carnal.




What is SODOMY then?


Oral and/or anal sexual activity.


And does God condemn it?


No, not specifically. It is described quite erotically in the Song of Solomon.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Actually sodomy was defined later to mean anal sex which has no Biblical basis.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

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


No, Onan's sin was that he didn't give his dead brother a son, which he was obliged to do according to the Law, which says in Deuteronomy 25:5 “If brothers dwell together [of the same house/father], and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Sigismundus

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

"


















".



Well, apparently they censored it. Go look for a fragment called Secret Mark. Jesus and Lazarus sleeps together naked. Though, this isn't anything about homosexuality really, Lazarus was very cold, he'd visited the outer courts of Hades, but it was because of fear that Jesus should be seen as gay that they left it out. It's a cute story. And of course having a gay lover in the Roman empire was common, it wasn't counted as extra-marital.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sigismundus
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.


As far as I know the mysterious disciple whom Jesus loved, might have been subtly revealed in the same book of John it is used:

John 13:23
One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side,

John 11:1-3
Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”

I always believed Jesus loved Mary and Martha and Lazarus since he was married to one of them or had a sexual relationship with one of them. Most likely Mary of Bethany (might not be the same as Mary Magdalen), but there are other reasons for Jesus' love. He might have been blood related, that they were his cousins or similar.
edit on 28-9-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join