Learning from David and Michal

[John Toppass]

1 Samuel 18:1 - Their souls were knit together.

1 Samuel 18:3 - they loved each other so much they made a covenant together.

1 Samuel 18:4 - David pretty much stripped naked and gave all his clothes he was wearing to Jonathan, including his robe, garments, and girdle.

1 Samuel 19:2 - Jonathan "delighted much in David".

1 Samuel 20:30 - Saul apparently gets mad at their relationship -
"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? "

1 Samuel 20:41 - They kissed each other.

2 Samuel 1:26 - "very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women"




... sounds pretty gay to me. :thumbs:

I just do not understand how anyone can interpret scripture the way some do. We can not hold any standards we have now to those who were in a different standard.

Furthermore, the only times I have heard someone trying to show David was in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan was when they were trying to defend their own homosexual relationship.

 

[matt wade]

Furthermore, the only times I have heard someone trying to show David was in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan was when they were trying to defend their own homosexual relationship.

Not the only time. Either they are trying to defend their own homosexual relationship, or they are just a person that loves to mock the Bible at every opportunity they can. Corndoggy is a troll through and through. He continually tries to find ways to pervert the Scripture and mock it in any way he can. He's questioned in the past why his pastor won't let him get up and speak in front of groups of people and partipate in ministries. Obviously his pastor sees him as someone that perverts the Word of God as well.

I'm amazed that he is allowed to continue on this board and mock our God as he does. We aren't allowed to comment on another person's salvation, or I would.

 

[webdog]

2 Samuel 6:14 says that he had on an ephod, and never mentions anything else. An ephod is pretty much just an ornamental breastplate held in place by shoulder straps. That's all it is. Considering this plus the fact that Michael said he was exposing himself, you don't really have any grounds to claim that he wasn't nearly naked, plus David never denies this allegation. Michael saw him with her own eyes... she wasn't making stuff up or hearing rumors, she saw him, and as soon as she did, this is when she despised him. It has nothing to do with jealousy, he wasn't with another woman or anything, she just saw him dancing, and if he was simply dancing for the Lord and nothing else, she really had nothing to be jealous of in terms of other wives or whatever. Apparently he was going well beyond that though because as soon as she saw him do whatever he was doing, she dispised him.

Arguments from silence are not worth much, and not worth responding to.

 

[DHK]

Not the only time. Either they are trying to defend their own homosexual relationship, or they are just a person that loves to mock the Bible at every opportunity they can. Corndoggy is a troll through and through. He continually tries to find ways to pervert the Scripture and mock it in any way he can. He's questioned in the past why his pastor won't let him get up and speak in front of groups of people and partipate in ministries. Obviously his pastor sees him as someone that perverts the Word of God as well.

I'm amazed that he is allowed to continue on this board and mock our God as he does. We aren't allowed to comment on another person's salvation, or I would.

I agree. He is a troll, and may not last long on this board.
Please do not stoop to his level.

 

[DHK]

Also in regards to his dancing, he wasn't just dancing. Keep in mind that he was nearly naked, and danced like that in front of everybody. She didn't criticize the dancing, she criticized him for uncovering himself in front of everybody including the maids and being vain about it. His response was but "it was before the Lord".

Why just David? Compare Scripture with Scripture?
Isaiah was not "just" naked?

Isaiah 20:2-3 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot.
3 And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;

Now what if God gave you that command? What would you do?
Or do you understand the command that God gave to Isaiah?
How much of Scripture do you really understand?
What did Isaiah really do; really look like for those three years? Please explain.

 

[corndogggy]

Furthermore, as was already pointed out, no one stripped naked. You need to study the Bible.

1 Samuel 18:4 - "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."


If you start stripping and take off your robe, your garments underneath that robe, and your girdle... tell me, what exactly is left in terms of clothes???

 

[corndogggy]

Now what if God gave you that command? What would you do?
Or do you understand the command that God gave to Isaiah?
How much of Scripture do you really understand?
What did Isaiah really do; really look like for those three years? Please explain.

Sorry, can't comment, that's way too drastic of a subject change for perverts to comprehend. :thumbs:

 

[historyb]

 

[Marcia]

If the relationship between David and Jonathan had been homosexual, the Bible would not have used the word "love" nor presented it in such a positive way. This is proof that it was a deep friendship and bond. It is representative of God-inspired love.

We see love between Jesus and the "beloved disciple" who liked to lay on his (Jesus) breast.

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23).

Any relationship between men spoken of in a positive way as was David's and Jonathan's and Jesus and this disciple is a relationship that does not go against God's word.

 

[padredurand]

1 Samuel 18:1-4
1 Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself.
2 And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house.
3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
4 And 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.

Corndoggy, you have my pity. Your idea that David and Jonathan's relationship was homosexual is nothing short of blasphemy. I Samuel 18 follows the account of David's defeat over Goliath and the saving of Saul's army. It is obvious that Jonathan's devotion to David stems from Jonathan's recognition of David as the Lord's anointed king. It must have been humbling for the king's son to stand before David. David did what the entire army could not do. Jonathan paid homage to the victor; honor David did not receive from his own siblings. Jonathan watched his father Saul lie impotent against the Philistines. He recognized his fathers claim to the throne was because of popular appeal. Jonathan saw the true king in David. If you find any sexual implications in that, you are indeed a very troubled individual.

Jonathan stripped himself of his robe and armor. He was arrayed for battle. David, who actually fought against Goliath, wore nothing but the clothing of a shepherd. Jonathan, as son to the king, was heir apparent to the throne of Israel. He removed his regal garment - the robe of a prince - and gave it as a symbol of honor to the rightful heir apparent. I say again, If you find any sexual implications in that, you are indeed a very troubled individual.

 

[DHK]

Sorry, can't comment, that's way too drastic of a subject change for perverts to comprehend. :thumbs:

We need to get serious here.
1. You are admitting that you are a pervert. Is this correct?
2. In doing so, the administration will have cause to ban you immediately.
3. This is not a joking matter.

Ephesians 5:3-4 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Ephesians 5:11-12 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

Ephesians 5:15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

 

[Pastor Larry]

1 Samuel 18:4 - "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."


If you start stripping and take off your robe, your garments underneath that robe, and your girdle... tell me, what exactly is left in terms of clothes???

He didn't take off his robe and his garments underneath the robe. He took off his royal coat and his armor, and his belt. There would have been clothes under that.

1 Sam 18:4 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.

Jonathan, like his father Saul (16:21), “loved” (Hb. ʾāhab; v. 3) David. That love inspired him to make a covenant with David, one that was expressed with extravagant gifts to the new celebrity. In a single day David had acquired the finest sword in the Philistine army as well as one of the finest swords in Israel’s armory; he had been permitted to wear the king’s clothing in the time of conflict and was given princely clothing in times of peace. The fact that Jonathan gave David the garb and armaments originally reserved for the heir to Saul’s throne clearly possesses symbolic and thematic significance. In an apologetic vein, it also provides an explanation of how David came to possess these coveted tokens of power.(Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1996). 199)

The issue here is apparently the recognition of Jonathan that David was to be the next king. It has nothing to do with an immoral relationship. You have to have a perverted mind to read that into the text.

 

[corndogggy]

We need to get serious here.
1. You are admitting that you are a pervert. Is this correct?
2. In doing so, the administration will have cause to ban you immediately.
3. This is not a joking matter.

Ever heard of sarcasm? Perhaps if I didn't have one moderator saying "you are a pervert" and another trying to give me an unrelated quiz to prove that I am, I wouldn't feel the need to try to laugh it off. :thumbs: Otherwise, if I wanted to joke around, this is about the last place I'd come. Some of you need to knock it off with the personal insults. That last one from you was borderline calling me a fool with the way you bolded stuff.

 

[corndogggy]

He didn't take off his robe and his garments underneath the robe. He took off his royal coat and his armor, and his belt. There would have been clothes under that.

1 Sam 18:4 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.

If you want to use different versions other than the KJV to prove he didn't take his clothes off, consider the World English bible:

"Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him, and gave it to David, and his clothing, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his sash."

 

[Pastor Larry]

If you want to use different versions other than the KJV to prove he didn't take his clothes off, consider the World English bible:

I didn't use a different version to prove he didn't take his clothes off. I used a different version to show that your understanding is wrong. The word used there is mad, which TWOT say "usually denotes a priest’s garment (Lev 6:3), a soldier’s fighting garb (I Sam 17:38; 18:4; II Sam 20:8), or just an outer garment (I Sam 4:12; Jud 3:16)." It is an outer garment, not inner garments. It would be perhaps similar to taking off a coat or a sweater. http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn1There is a word for normal clothes and this is not it.

The text simply will not back you up on this.

 

[DHK]

Ever heard of sarcasm? Perhaps if I didn't have one moderator saying "you are a pervert" and another trying to give me an unrelated quiz to prove that I am, I wouldn't feel the need to try to laugh it off. :thumbs: Otherwise, if I wanted to joke around, this is about the last place I'd come. Some of you need to knock it off with the personal insults. That last one from you was borderline calling me a fool with the way you bolded stuff.

First of all by the demeanor of your posts throughout this thread you are making a mockery of the Bible, and have indicated that when it comes to subjects like homosexuality that you could indeed be what some call a "pervert." I don't think you have all here convinced that you are not.
Second, be informed that in the past there was one that was banned from here simply because he was.
Third, Your insistence that Jonathan was homosexual is not a joking matter.
Fourth, I wasn't joking around, as I stated at the beginning of my post. I am serious.
Fifth, I didn't call you a fool; the Scriptures did. If the shoe fits wear it.

By your own admission you do not want to comment on the Isaiah passage. And for what reason did you state?
Would you care to try again?

 

[corndogggy]

By your own admission you do not want to comment on the Isaiah passage. And for what reason did you state?
Would you care to try again?

My unsarcastic reason is that I don't see the need for me to be singled out to have to pass some kind of weird quiz of yours on an unrelated subject to prove that I interpret that other passage in the same way that you do in order to be able to comment on this subject.

 

[DHK]

My unsarcastic reason is that I don't see the need for me to be singled out to have to pass some kind of weird quiz of yours on an unrelated subject to prove that I interpret that other passage in the same way that you do in order to be able to comment on this subject.

What on earth are you talking about? It is a related question. I am interested in your knowledge of Biblical heremeneutics. It is related because the Bible says that Isaiah was also naked, and that for three years. How do you account for Isaiah's nakedness in comparison to David's nakedness? Why are you so reluctant to answer a simple Biblical question?

 

[corndogggy]

It is related because the Bible says that Isaiah was also naked, and that for three years. How do you account for Isaiah's nakedness in comparison to David's nakedness?

Hang on now, I thought everybody else's official stance was that David didn't get anywhere near naked, neither while dancing nor with Jonathan? When did David get naked in your opinion?

 

[DHK]

Hang on now, I thought everybody else's official stance was that David didn't get anywhere near naked, neither while dancing nor with Jonathan? When did David get naked in your opinion?

I'm not talking about my opinion. I haven't given it. I am talking about your stance in this issue and what you have already stated about David's nakedness. In the light of what you have already stated, what is your position on Isaiah nakedness? That is all that I am asking.