David and Bathsheba Historicity Part I

Is interesting to perceive that the Anointing won a bigger dimension with King David: a new concept of forgiveness was proposed: not only a cleanup, but a restoration, which could produce effects as much in the body as in the spirit, “fix it all, and, if it’s not possible, make a new me, make me a new being, a new life, make a miracle in me!”: what happened to David was a real disgrace for God.

David was the truly son of God, the son that he loved. And I think that, in that moment, God really rethought his partnership with the Jews, and understood the limit of forgiveness, starting by that his own self did not forgave David. I think that, in this moment, the head of God bugged. He must’ve got pissed, than, melancholic, and must’ve repeated a thousand times the phrase “this was not supposed to happen..!”: and for this, he went opening from the Jews, on the measure that he looked for another race, or not: after thousand years, he finally managed to forgive the Jews and sent the Messiah: and it gave on what it gave. For this, I’ll tell you guys how it happened the story of David and Bathsheba: it’s an interesting story, and it must be readed, because it’s the second time that love is involved in a discussion of big port: and it reflects very well the enigmatic description of the ‘interior’ of Christ. I’ve been saying that the Sumerians, Jews and Christians are part of one unique historical movement. What I argument is that the episode with David is the marker of the passage of the Judaism to Christianism: but, of course, the unitarism is a system without passage, therefore, David is only a connector: it was from David, I mean, due to what happened to David, it’s that was made necessary the coming of the Messiah. If David didn’t had failed, Christ wouldn’t exist.

Oh yeah. The matter may be understood this way. But. We may also understand as David being the marker of a stage which finished, that indeed, the Judaism finishes in David. The forgiveness reached the maximum that it could reach of his stage of way down to earth: now it was time for the sin to go up. For this, I find recommendable the reading, is one of the few biblical accounts that I find interesting, and, in certain way, quite realistic:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

source: [X]

Give your vesicle two pieces of mozzarella cheese, more six eggs an avocado juice: if you feel sick, give her a toasted turtle, if she’s not convinced, give her a belly [of goat]. I suppressed the object, for understanding that the action precedes the verb: I mean, the intention of the command: which were the commands of [King] David and what did God commanded, and what happens when one disobeys a command, who’s is the sin[?]: from who practices or of the practiced?]: I mean, David was spared, but he was never forgave: and his punishment called me the attention: David sinned against the heart (the Ruach of God) and was stepped away of the love (panim) of God, which brought over the limits of the forgiveness.

There was a problem with the moral and what’s the limit of the vesicle, the limits of the forgiveness. And it wasn’t not even needed to prove, because David was  a confess defendant, not only he knew what he had made, as God also knew, just as the entire city knew: even the prophet knew.

… It was a happy morning, David had just finished to come out of Bathsheba’s house, when he met with the prophet Nathan: And David dove into a profound depression… :

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

source: [X]

The most precise, 2 Samuel 12 according to Masoretic Hebrew:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

source: [X] / [X]

In mode that, the moral, this precious Jewish National Treasure, was posed on the table once more. Bathsheba had already said that David was a small man. That David was small, all knew, but all also knew that he was a great man. An enigma was formed: how to understand the statue of David, where would it be his greatness, what was the size of his moral, the size of the spiritual greatness of David, why did his nudity ashamed the Jews and, mainly, God…[?] The idea is that he would’ve been sacrificed, but without having firstly stabbed God. David would’ve said: “You will apologize me”, and God would’ve replied , “Thou will be never forgave, thou shall not carry the judgement and thou shall live without lucidity”: and this meant the abandonment of the Jews, for understanding that their stage had reached the end, it was time for transition, the beginning of the mutiny, the separation, that transmission which occurs from father to son, the such passage of DNA, the passage of the judgement. And as the Prometheus of Mythology, someone appeared carrying the torch of the Jew, I mean, the flag of David: it was of the house of David and possessed the entire credentials. But think about what would this history be if there wasn’t the great King David, the real King of the Jews.

Sanhedrin105a and b sources: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_105.html/ http://beithaderekh.org/?p=513/ http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Curse_Naz.html ]

On Sanhedrin 37b and 38a there’s a dialog among rabbis which advocates that God would’ve cursed the House of David. It’s an issue which interests all, that problem that Moses had already detected: Abraham, in the Dialog of the Well, and about the decision of Sodom and Gomorra, in another passages, is always questioning or proposing an accord with God. Moses too. David is the only Jew that until the present moment didn’t imposed any condition in his relation with God, was a guy of many qualities, a warrior, studious, a habile general and in love with God: God had found the son he so much seeked for. There’s a passage on the Sanhedrin, that this would’ve been one more temptation of Satan, that David would’ve asked God to tempt him. For this, inside the Christianism, Bathsheba appears in the negative sense: “one more temptation of the woman”: associating the woman to the Demon and that the failure of David is that his soul would’ve corrupted itself. It means: another corruption for God, the such contamination of the purity… one can imagine God walking around the corners questioning himself why David did this. God didn’t understand why David could love two things: and the answer is in the purity, it’s in the seed: David would’ve possessed Bathsheba while she was in her period [niddah]: and it’s one of the explanations of why their first son [Saul] died, and before he [David] was anything, he was the faithful depositary of the seed: a carrier of the Word: a servant of the image: a man of the own heart of God. It was needed that the man understood the seriousness of that which he carried among his legs, which was much more than virility, but an obedience: there wasn’t another form of loving God: otherwise, this would be understood as Betrayal: it would inevitably lead to the meeting of other Gods.

The matter is the idea of a new Lev (and this may be understood in many forms, including under a new form of living); the Jews are exposed to many rules and this may signal that God would be opening hand of perfection. The question is that the new lev don’t specifies exactly if it’s applied to the body, or to the spirit, or if it’s applied to both and, in what form it would be rendered its course. For this, a new word was proposed: Ruach. It would need to produce a rationalism that could support structural changes on the properties of body and on the spirit: Ruach needed to fulfill forgiveness, cleanup, deserving and, at the same time, introduce someone special, the  Messiah, which would perform the Ruach.

The Meanings and uses of Ruach:

  • Genesis 1:2 – ‘the Ruach of God hovered over the face of the waters-
  • ‘ 2) Isaiah 42:1 – “Behold, my servant which I exalt…. I put my Ruach over him’
  • 3) Luke 4:17-18a, Isa 61:1 – “and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: The Ruach of YHVH is upon me because He hath anointed’. Understand the Hebrew word ruach (and their counter-part, Greek pneuma) is central pro understanding of why Yeshua (Jesus) is called “Messiah” (Moshiach, Christos). It is also important to know what Scripture teaches about “spirit”, in order to discern and avoid disappointments made on behalf of or by a Holy Ghost, or Holy Ghost. There is a contra-done or “another spirit”, “who is now working in the children of disobedience” (2Cor 11:4; Eph 2:2). In the Hebrew Bible the word ruach occurs approximately 400 times. Its meaning is ‘air’ moving -either in the form of blowing a breeze, or violent winds of the storm. Ruach is pronounced roo-ach (-ach as termination of Pesach or Bach). In approximately 100 seats in modern English Bibles, the word is rendered “wind”. Note the role of Yeshua in the word pneuma (Greek, wind/spirit) in John 3 and the parallel in John 20:

“That which is received from the flesh is flesh; and that which is received from the pneuma is pneuma…. The pneuma blows where it wants and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So is everyone that is received from pneuma” ( John 3:6.8). “When he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy pneuma’.” (John 20:22) But commonly in English Bibles, the ruach is translated or as “spirit” or “spirit” (the difference is explained below). This is the dimension of intangible property of a human being or God. Ghosts beings immaterial and human angel are called ‘spirits'(ruchot). A few times, Ruach is translated as “mind” in accordance with the thoughts, beliefs, disposal, handling, even the courage of some. The Ruach of God has spiritual characteristics vv. (At the end of this introduction is a list of range of settings). Ruach denotes the divine power of the spiritual world. Note the two visions of declarations of Yeshua. The version of Matthew seems to be an interpretation of the original metaphor reported by Luke. “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).”

“If I cast out demons by the Kingdom of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20). The “Finger of God” denoted the supernatural powers behind the magicians of Pharaoh (Exodus 7:5). For in its roots Ruach denote air moving, it is important does not always translate it as “spirit”, which has only one meaning. For example, a spying of many ways that Isaiah uses Ruach adds breadth to its references to the Ruach of God – especially on the prophecies of him about the Moshiach, the greased with the Ruach of God. (See Ruach in the Hebrew Scriptures). As is common in Hebrew thought, many passages with parallel lines of thought reveal dimensions of interconnected Ruach. The Ruach is commonly translated as breath/breathing, and the breath comes out of the mouth. The creative power of God is shown when his mouth speaks words: “God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Genesis 1:3).

“By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and the Ruach of his mouth all their hosts’ (Psalmos 33:6) Note that the future greased “will kill… the Evil One … with the Pneuma of his mouth” (2 Thess 2:8). Since the words express the mind of some, the Ruach/Breath of God can denote their inner thoughts or mind. The word Hebrew traditional to “mind” is lev or levav (literally “heart”), and commonly is parallel to the Ruach.

“I will give them a Lev and put a new Ruach among them” (11:19). Note how the Jewish translators of the Bible into Greek rendered the line of Isaiah 40, and like the Apostle Paul later validated their translations: “Who directed [measured] the Ruach of the Lord?” (Isa 40:13 Hebrew). “Those who knew the mind [we] of the Lord?” (Isa 40:13 LXX; Rom 11:34). After quoting this verse in Greek (1Cor 2:16a), Paul reminds his listeners that “we have the mind of Messiah [nous Christos]” (v.16b). Later, the same group he says the wisdom of your advice to them: “i think that i also have the Pneuma of God” [in this matter] (1Cor 7:40). The interchangeable use of Paul of the mind (nous) and spirit (pneuma) with a support in his exposition on the Spirit in Romans 8. The Ruach/Heart/Mind of God could be called your disposal resident, character, or nature. This nature he wants implemented in Israel (and in all human beings) for remold them rebirth them (resurrect them), recreating them with your “new” character, according to his image. In accordance with its “image” was the original intention (Gen 1:26). “I will give you a new Lev and put a new Ruach among you… . And i’ll put my Ruach among you” (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

After the great sin of David involving Bathsheba, he expressed his fear that God would “hide his face” from him. He was afraid that the Lord no longer looked to him, heard their cries, or speak a word of forgiveness to him. (The Hebrew word for “face” is panim).

David thought that God could start out fully its Panim and then abandon it, or as a king, dismiss him from his court. Then he begged God not to remove his ruach, but even “restore it to him (Ps 51:10-12)…

David uses a rare Hebrew expression, “Holy Ruach” (Ruach qodesh), to form a parallel: the nature of God// Presence -Panim.

“Renew a Ruach firm inside of me.

I do not remove your Panim [presence],

and do not take your Holy Ruach to me” (Ps 51:10b-11).

The word ruach/Lev/Panim [all = spirit] is the key to understanding the concept of “Messiah” (The Greased), both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Because the Ruach of God emphasizes a deeper meaning of anointing Bible: “[The Lord says], Woe, my servant, which I exalt, my chosen, in which my Spirit delights i put my Ruach upon him; He will bring justice to the Goyim [nations].” (Isa 42:1; quoted in Matthew 12:18). “The Ruach of the Lord God is upon me, because he hath anointed” (Isa 61:1a; quoted by Jesus in Luke 4:18)”

“It is important to raise the question of why Yeshua [Jesus] of Nazareth is called “Messiah” 529 times (Christos in Greek; Moshiach in Hebrew). Because to decide if Yeshua was a Messiah or the Messiah depends on how we understand your anointing with the Spirit Ruach/Pneuma of God. As The Ruach-Untado, Yeshua commonly associates himself with the Spirit. Not only he blows the Ruach before his death (“Receive the Holy Ruach”, John 20:22), as he “will” the Ruach or divine presence in the future, after his departure.”

Sources: [X] / [X] / [X]

 Jesus then placed himself as being the successor of David. And the jews should be deads of glads for this. During his life, technically, he only passed the Ruach for the eleven apostles, Paul would’ve received his Ruach in spirit, for this was that he had incurable ulcers, because his body, this way, wouldn’t have gotten really pure…

The interesting is the perception that the Ruach has the power of anointing too, because the anointing doesn’t fixes defects, it only cleans them, who fixes the motor, who places the new motor is the Ruach, is not any Ruach: it’s only the Messiah Ruach, because this one carries the divine power of Transformation, not only forgave the sin, I mean, it removed the impurities, as well as guaranteed against any future contamination.  The matter that really disturbs and difficult the understanding is that Christ assumed for himself that the correct form of this performing would be from the body to the spirit. Note that, in all the Hebraic passages, the Ruach is used upwards to downwards, indicating that the Ruach is from the spirit to the body. It was this way that Christ was anointed, not by John Baptist, but it was by the Holy Spirit .

The anointing of Christ to his apostles was physic, he didn’t opted by the simplistic gesture of saying “feel all anointed, the Ruach of the Lord has anointed you all”, it’s a physical act. in the same mode, the Resurrection is a physical act; the shredding of blood in the cross is a physical act: And in the understanding of Christ, this materialism was lacking to the Judaic Unitarism: it was necessary the presence of God in the Earth to touch physically in a human being and turn into pure the body.

The dialectic, the ‘philosophy’, doesn’t exists for nothing: the unity is, essentially, dialectic, otherwise, it wouldn’t move. When we read the Bible, we’re talking about something in movement, it doesn’t exist properly a beginning nor an end, but something that is going on, and when we less perceive, we’re learning these movements. There’s a why for this: the dialectics is, essentially, reductionist, it’s always disappearing with something when presents its result.

For this that, whenever confronted with the mathematic models, unexplainable losses occur. All the sciences that we know, without exception, are based in one unique result: the unity: the only thing in this universe able to produce laws: equality. If it was asked to mount an object with all the sides equal, producing straight angles, even though you had never heard mention about the square, you would mount it, without bigger difficulties. And you wouldn’t be able to any other form other than that. And certainly you could find the square divine. But not less curious is that, in the nature, there’s nothing squared. Make a test: put a triangle inside a square: it will touch in three sides, and make the circular movement. Associate the square to the body, and the spirit to the triangle: you will have the sensation that the square is moving, that’s alive, that’s breathing, as the statue of Michelangelo. This is the judgement, the capacity of attributing properties: this wouldn’t be possible without the unity.

Anne, what are you saying, that without unity we wouldn’t have the capacity if understanding the forms nor of construct things [give shape to things] neither?’:  –Yes, exactly.

In mode that’s not hard to understand how Christ took the form of David: and putted the crown in his head. Because, in the Jewish understanding, the Messiah wouldn’t be a God, neither would’ve cosmic phenomenal powers: he would fulfill the function of and Statist, the one of a King: because, besides the purification of background, it was the union of the Judaic people, the construction of the temple, and the such aimed peace. It’s by the line of the Crown that Christ orders to kill: it’s a power that only the kings had.

And by the line of Jesus, he exerts his Messianism. It wasn’t something that Christ claimed, much more than was appointed, but because indeed, the throne line was vague. Christ utilized himself of the new lev of the Judaic prophecies. Inevitably, those which fitted in the stereotype of the Messiah, would be the successor of David: it’s the understanding of the Christians: Christ fitted exactly between the Old Testament and the New Testament Babylonian. For this, Christ, by himself, even before existing, was already an idea: an image in construction.

I have always the care, always that I deal with historicity, on linking the passages on that which, for me, I call of primordial structure. I talk about the Christian woman and I talk about the natural woman. In mode that it would stay, as I come already staying, much vague to talk about Bathsheba without replace her inside a primordial structure: David was angled by the Christians, why wouldn’t Bathsheba also have been? What’s known about Bathsheba is that she was the woman of Uriah, daughter of Eliam, and that she was much younger than David, and even her name is uncertain: but it would be illogical disconsiders that being the daughter of the personal counselor of David, David wouldn’t know Bathsheba since the day she was born; The most probable age David had when he putted a crown on his head was by the thirties, and that his marriage with Bathsheba would’ve been around the fifties. What happened during this intervals of time, is not known. What’s known is that David spent the most part of his life fighting, and that he died fighting, and that he stayed with Bathsheba until the moment of his death. It’s also known that God cursed David and also blessed him. But the heart of God, in this situation, still remains a mystery. It’s what we’ll see in the stories: because, on treating of Judaism, Christianism, Unitarism, everything can be geometrized. Now, for this, is needed a specialist, that has four eyes. But indeed, I don’t win the life as mystery solver. The interest of Rose66 in the story, are another. This story belongs to the world, and there’s no how to reedit that which was already written.

The History that Didn’t Happened is as the own name already says. The term refers also to the bad counted stories: which feelings leave to desire: I mean ‘leave to desire’ because don’t produce any pleasure on reading them: a truly suffering, disgrace, blood, these things. But I know what’s the issue about, and I’ll turn the stories the most pleasurable possible,  because indeed, I don’t know do it in another form, writing wouldn’t have any sense. If I complain so much and talk so much, is because, indeed, the stories I’ve readed, are horrible: and I’m not trying to embellish them neither, it’s about another thing, something tastier of reading and seeing.

And the geometry, comes an hour on which you get tired, because its mission is to let tired really the human being, to make you work, even when you rest. These stories full of angles, are, essentially, fakes, a real dis-taste: You won’t see Bathsheba happy and smiling by the corners, David is always stressed, tense, crying, bad saying himself, regretted, killing, desperately alone, even more when God stepped away, after Bathsheba. I’ve readed all his Psalms, those horrible letters, hymns of tears, funereal, he didn’t made a single one for Bathsheba: but of course, all of that confirmed Bathsheba, God was right all the time. But indeed, the Jews –I talk about the Jews not as a race, but by the authorship of something, but I could also quote the Sumerian, because they have weight in the balance: but I think that in a general form the human being received very well this idea, for the feeling being well related to those Semite people: and these ideas weren’t Occidentalized for nothing… in mode that, there’s no sense talking about races, because, talk about Jew, for me, is the same thing that talk about the Human Being: but the concept of humanity wasn’t born in the Occident, because indeed it’s not about a rebirth: Adam and Eve, by any matter, are the precursors of Humanity: they didn’t born from the Earth, they were Created by God. In mode that the idea is morally well defined, and don’t possesses any disguise. By the other side, explain the proposal would be stressful and innocuous. But’s important that one has a firsthand literature, that one knows the story, because the angles proposed will be over the story which was validated, but, at the same time, know that, besides the angles, besides the results, is known very few about the feelings of the characters. There’s a circuit between Eve and Bathsheba, and a circuit between Bathsheba and Hypatia: and between Hypatia and the Christian woman: it’s not a task for a philosopher to make. For this, is important to perceive better this erased figure, hided and at the same time, enigmatic, which was responsible, technically, by the finishing of a race: Bathsheba: because she stayed between the man and God. As Hypatia: stayed between the man and Christ, in mode that, historically, the woman was angled: it’s always between two things: and the silence of the woman always was the form of validating these affirmations. In mode that, to arrive in the condition of explaining what is a natural woman, is necessary to cross a via cruces. But’s as I already said: the passage will be made, but without carrying a cross on the backs. The human metamorphosis, the nature has to carry a cross on her backs.

anglaterre_ / france

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close