sotto voce

'1 Samuel 18:1 - 5 (you know the gay sounding reference of Jonathan and David becoming one).'

You know nothing of the sort. What a travesty.

'Jonathan became one in spirit with David.' 1 Sa 18:1 NIV

After talking with him.

Merely due to its existence as Bible content, this relationship is obviously not intended to be understood as either sexual, or, from its special mention, even gender based. Why, then, is it included in the record? It has no precedent, since Abram, and it acts as no precedent in the whole Bible.

Or does it? The clue, surely, is that it is David, the anointed of God, the ancestor of the promised Messiah, who is concerned. Wherever David's behaviour is concerned, it tends to be either something very human and disapprobated, like the Uriah affair, or something specially honoured; in which case, David as figure of the Messiah is likely to be indicated, as so often. So is a 'Platonic' but close relationship traceable to the Messiah?

Isaiah spoke of a new Israel, a new ekklesia:

'As a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you.' Isa 62:5 NIV

The baptist identified the church founded on Jesus as the bride:

'The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.' Jn 3:29-30 NIV

Paul wrote to the church in Corinth as a bride:

'I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.' 2 Co 11:2 NIV

So David represented Jesus the bridegroom, in a spiritual, non-physical sense. It is Jonathan, of royal blood, loyal to David, and innocent of the sins of his father, who pre-figured the church.

semiopen

Performing fellatio on God does not make one gay.

stephan huller

You mistranslate 1 Samuel 18:1 - 5 which literally reads 'the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as himself."



I am not saying that any physical relationship took place but it's the kind of stuff that these guys could put on their wedding invitations if their names were 'David' and 'Jonathan'

sotto voce

White flag to the fore.

It's the NIV. Not unassailable, but a translation chosen by many professionals for its accuracy.

Misrepresentation of source.

That has precisely the same import.

Then you have nothing of interest to say.

stephan huller

But it is curious, just like the frequent lawsuits against John Travolta by male masseuses. The section's removal by the LXX is also curious. Sort of like an out of court settlement.

sotto voce

Obviously, no anti-Jesus Jew would like the idea that David represented Jesus the bridegroom of the true Israel; that Jonathan, of royal blood, loyal to David, and innocent of the sins of his father, pre-figured the church.

semiopen

I think the Jews all married God so your exegesis is derivative at best.

How To Celebrate a Traditional Jewish Wedding

The main difference is that you've taken to reading a lot of weird shit into a mysterious bromance whereas Jewish sages have shown a superior understanding of the bible.

credoconsolans

Same import as what?

Sure he does. A love relationship - bromance or more than that - doesn't have to be physical.