So, recruit me

[EnemyPartyII]

Because according to them it was not "romantically charged terminology".

Except that it IS romantically charged terminology... sticking your fingers in your ears won't change the facts

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I do not acknowledge the possibility if being wrong

Then I have nothing more to say to you. Have a good day .

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,
The Christian faith is faith in Christ, not doubt. To me and millions of others the evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Christian faith is faith in Christ, not doubt. To me and millions of others the evidence speaks for itself.

The same could be said of Muslims and their faith, Hindus and their faith(s), Buddhists and their faith, Jainists and their faith, ad infinitum. But this is irrelevant: precluding the possibility of error negates any hope of intelligent discourse. You presume your own infallibility, even if God himself came down and said, "brightmorningstar, you're beliefs on x, y, and z, are wrong".

Isn't such a stance antithetical to what Jesus taught?

 

[Kerwin]

Except that it IS romantically charged terminology... sticking your fingers in your ears won't change the facts

We are at a dead end here since you refuse to admit other cultures are different and I refuse to apply the rules of modern society to a society that existed over 2000 years ago.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We are at a dead end here since you refuse to admit other cultures are different and I refuse to apply the rules of modern society to a society that existed over 2000 years ago.

I think she is saying that the text is romantically charged even if we take into account the culture, mannerisms, and idioms of the time. That's the point: the text deliberately echoes romantic connotations from elsewhere in the OT (even Genesis is lifted from).

 

[OllieFranz]

We are at a dead end here since you refuse to admit other cultures are different and I refuse to apply the rules of modern society to a society that existed over 2000 years ago.

The crux of the problem is that you are misunderstanding EPII's claim. She is not claiming that the translated English version of the Bible sounds "romantically charged" to her 21st century ears. She is claiming that comparing the Hebrew phrases with the phrasing in other passages in the Bible, and with contemporary Hebrew literature, it is more in line with stories of romance than in stories of comradeship.

I have not made such a comparison myself, so I have no idea whether her claim has merit, but it is not the simple, self-serving claim that you so easily dismiss.

Edited to add: I have remarked on how the first two verses of 1 Samuel 18 reflect Genesis 2:24, which many conservative Christians claim defines marriage. But in that case I am talking more about how the English sounds to me, and I aknowledged the weaknesses of that approach.

 

[Kerwin]

The crux of the problem is that you are misunderstanding EPII's claim. She is not claiming that the translated English version of the Bible sounds "romantically charged" to her 21st century ears. She is claiming that comparing the Hebrew phrases with the phrasing in other passages in the Bible, and with contemporary Hebrew literature, it is more in line with stories of romance than in stories of comradeship.

I have not made such a comparison myself, so I have no idea whether her claim has merit, but it is not the simple, self-serving claim that you so easily dismiss.

Edited to add: I have remarked on how the first two verses of 1 Samuel 18 reflect Genesis 2:24, which many conservative Christians claim defines marriage. But in that case I am talking more about how the English sounds to me, and I aknowledged the weaknesses of that approach.

I have already pointed out that similar language is often used in non-romantic settings though generally family though not necessary close family settings.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have already pointed out that similar language is often used in non-romantic settings though generally family though not necessary close family settings.

Yet there is no instance of such language between two people who are 'just good friends'. Indeed, it only occurs between family members; is a married couple not considered a 'family'?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We are at a dead end here since you refuse to admit other cultures are different and I refuse to apply the rules of modern society to a society that existed over 2000 years ago.

You misunderstand... I am not applying modern rules... what I am trying to tell you is that the language used to describe Jonathon and David's relationship chosen by the authors, implies a romantic relationship IN THEIR CONTEXT.

That is, the language used by poeople of over 2000 years ago to describe romantic relationships, is the language chosen by the authors. It appears, in context, that the authors intended to convey a romantic element to their relationship. It has nothing to do with modern preconceptions, what I am trying to tell you is that the romantic language was considered romantic language by the authors, no matter what the modern reader thinks.

 

[Kerwin]

You misunderstand... I am not applying modern rules... what I am trying to tell you is that the language used to describe Jonathon and David's relationship chosen by the authors, implies a romantic relationship IN THEIR CONTEXT.

This is one verse that you are basing your conclusion on. So I went to biiblegateway.com and did a search of the King James Version of scripture for the word “knit” and did not find one use of it regarding romantic relationships.

1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

Here is another scripture from a similar time period and you can see “knit” is not used romantically.

16And there came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the hold unto David.
17And David went out to meet them, and answered and said unto them, If ye be come peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to betray me to mine enemies, seeing there is no wrong in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it.

Then there is this one from a later time period which also uses similar words but in a non-romantic situation,

2That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

I also did a search for the word “soul” and it is used in sexual situations such as in this early scripture though it sounds like a possible rape as her opinion does not appear to have been sought by either side..

3And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

Though certainly used in sexual situation the word “soul” does not itself have a sexual meaning but is used to indicate either the person or a part of the person much like the word “heart” as you can see from this scripture.

2If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;

30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

The most you can say for your point is that the people who wrote the bible used the same words in many different contexts leaving particular scriptures open to interpretation.

 

[OllieFranz]

This is one verse that you are basing your conclusion on. So I went to biiblegateway.com and did a search of the King James Version of scripture for the word “knit” and did not find one use of it regarding romantic relationships.

Enemy Party II never referenced 1 Samuel 18:1-2. And although I did, I made it clear that I was only looking at the similarity to Genesis 2:24, and that no strong conclusions can be drawn from that comparison alone. So I am afraid that you have wasted a lot of time gathering evidence to refute something EPII never said, and that I had already conceded was not, in itself, a strong piece of evidence.

But you are making assumptions about the interchangeability of Heart and Soul as the object being knit. The only other time in your list that soul was used in a similar situation, and phrasing it spoke of romantic love. Another quote in your list (Mark 12:30-31 -itself quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-5) shows that the heart and the soul are the seats of different qualities, else there would be no need to list them separately.

Even today we see them as exemplifying different qualities. For us the heart is the seat of Romantic Love, while the soul is the seat of trust. In Biblical times, it was apparently the opposite, love came from the soul and trust came from the heart.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart..." Proverbs 3:5a

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I actually think its 2 Sam:1, 25-26 the "greater love than for any woman" which is the clincher

The relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as loving heterosexual relationships in the Hebrew Testament: e.g. 'ahavah or אהבה (see Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon, Hebrew word #160; Gen. 29:20; 2 Sam. 13:15; Pro. 5:19; Sgs. 2:4-7; Sgs. 3:5-10; Sgs. 5:8) When they are alone together, David confides that he has "found grace in Jonathan's eyes", a phrase normally referring to Romantic or physical attraction. Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other. Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David.
The covenant made between the two men strengthens a romantic rather than political or platonic interpretation of their relationship. At their first meeting, Jonathan strips himself before the youth, handing him his clothing, armor, and weapons, remaining naked before him[citation needed]. This is when they first make their covenant, not long after their first meeting (1 Sam. 18:3-4). Each time they reaffirm the covenant, love (though not necessarily sexual in nature) is the only justification provided. Additionally, it should be observed that the covenants and affectionate expressions were made in private, like a personal bond, rather than publicly as would a political bond.
The fact that David refers to Jonathan as "brother" does not necessarily signify a platonic relationship. "Brother" was often used as a term of romantic, even erotic, affection in some ancient Mediterranean societies, and the word "sister" is used many times in the bible to represent a bride or a loved woman. For instance, "brother" is used to indicate long-term homosexual relationships in the Satyricon (eg. 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25, 79, 80, 91, 97, 101, 127, 130, 133), in the poetry of Catullus (Poem No. 100) and Martial (ie. 2.4, 7.24, 10.65), and in Apuleius' The Golden Ass (8.7). "From the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. ... it became usual for commoner husbands [in parts of the Mediterranean] to call their wives 'sister'" when they were in fact not siblings[3].
Although David was married, David himself articulates a distinction between his relationship with Jonathan and the bonds he shares with women. David is married to many women, one of whom is Jonathan's sister Michal, but the Bible does not mention David loving Michal (though it is stated that Michal loves David). He explicitly states, on hearing of Jonathan's death, that his love for Jonathan "passes the love of women" (2 Sam. 1:25-26). Furthermore, social customs in the ancient Mediterranean basin, did not preclude extramarital homoerotic relationships. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Books of Samuel, depicts a remarkably similar homoerotic relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

 

[OllieFranz]

I actually think its 2 Sam:1, 25-26 the "greater love than for any woman" which is the clincher

Not only does David say that his love for Jonathan was greater than for any woman, nowhere in the entire Bible does it say that David actually loved any woman.

 

[brightmorningstar]

But thats love not sex and the greatest love would normally be with the woman married to.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But thats love not sex

Exactly. They're not merely getting each other's rocks off, it's romantic love between two men.

and the greatest love would normally be with the woman married to.

Precisely! Which is why the statement is so important in this regard. It demonstrates that they were referring to what we would call a homosexual relationship: two men in a loving, romantic relationship (to the point of marriage, if 1 Samuel is anything to go by).

 

[OllieFranz]

Exactly. They're not merely getting each other's rocks off, it's romantic love between two men.


Precisely! Which is why the statement is so important in this regard. It demonstrates that they were referring to what we would call a homosexual relationship: two men in a loving, romantic relationship (to the point of marriage, if 1 Samuel is anything to go by).

I would call it a homoromantic relationship. We know that the love was there and was intense, but we don't know for certain that there was any homoeroticism involved.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would call it a homoromantic relationship. We know that the love was there and was intense, but we don't know for certain that there was any homoeroticism involved.

Homoeroticism (by which I assume you mean arousal to one's own sex, or acts thereof) is alluded to, if not explicitly stated, in 1 Samuel 20:41.

 

[Kerwin]

Not only does David say that his love for Jonathan was greater than for any woman, nowhere in the entire Bible does it say that David actually loved any woman.

Maybe not but it does say he was attracted to a woman to the extent of sleeping with her.

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."

In fact he had many wives.

I believe his first love was Jonathan’s sister Michal.

20 Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased.

As I mentioned previously though only homophobes would interpret the fact that their love for each other was greater than for any woman as meaning they were homosexuals since there are plenty of men who love one another as brothers and that love is greater than their love for a women and yet they are not homosexuals.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Maybe not but it does say he was attracted to a woman to the extent of sleeping with her.

No one is questioning that David at least, was bisexual, but the important point here is that Samuel clearly uses romantic terminology describing David and Jonathon's relationship... No one is saying that David didn't have sexual attraction for women, the point is that his greatest romantic love was a homosexual love.