Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Real King David


dragon15066

Recommended Posts

If you are like me and have been raised to believe the Bible as the “Living Word”, you have heard that King David was the greatest ruler of Israel. Jesus is quoted as having said that he was a "Son of David." Matthew refers to Jesus as such in the New Testament. According to the Jews, King David was the greatest ruler Israel has ever known, This is why Jesus is compared to David in Christianity.

But let us look at the true personal behavior of this “Divine King” David as he was as an individual. What did he do?

He is known to be given credit for uniting Israel and expanding it’s territory. He was seen as a “savior” by the Old Testament writers as a result of this. It is said that “a tree is known by it’s fruit” as stated in the New Testament. So being a SON of David, Jesus would be the fruit of the tree of David. Let us look not at the fruit in this case but the tree itself that has been given credit for doing such wonderful things for the Israelite s that by their own admission, see David as the greatest ruler of Israel.

Based on this highest of regard for this king, one would think that study of his life in power, we would discover a life of righteous living and just rule. We expect to find a life lead by example in his apparent closeness with his “lord”, especially if Jesus is (according to the writers of the New Testament), actually gaining credit for having himself compared to David. What is found is one of the most compelling examples of what I have been trying to say for some time and with all of my research and this site: The Trinity of Deception” is the greatest threat and biggest weapon against humanity as a system of control and enslavement!

One shocking example of King David’s mindset is seen when he is reported to have brought the Ark from Hebron to Jerusalem. He is reported to be in the lead of the procession so that his ego can be fed but this is not enough. He is so lightly dressed that he makes sure that he is displaying his genitals. “ Michal, conscious of the need for royal dignity, was contemptuous of this behavior and said so. He relegated her, now an unnecessary thorn in his side, to perpetual chastity so that she could never have a child.” http://www.bible-people.info/David.htm So much for being merciful! What kind of king reacts this way?

The greatest of all examples to this king’s morality is found in his affair and actions afterward with Bathsheba. According to the Bible, David sees Bathsheba bathing in the pool and has his servants bring her to him so that he can have sex with her. Now she is married to David’s most loyal warrior Uriah. Because of this, and the fact that David did whatever he wanted and punished those who even spoke against it as in the case of Michal, I must assume that she was in no way given a choice in the matter. Nor did the fact that she was married interfere with his sexual act. In fact, when she became pregnant, he only became more deceptive to the point of shocking those who have assumed that he must have been a great moral example for the Israelite s to hold him up so high as their greatest leader in history!

When David discovers that she is pregnant, he plots to have Uriah return home on forced leave so that he will lay with his wife and the child will be assumed to be his. Uriah however, does not even go into his house because he wished to be in battle. In Second Samuel 11:9-10, it is written “ But Uriah slept at the entrance of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house. When they told David, 'Uriah did not go down to his house,' David said to Uriah, 'You have just come from a journey. Why did you not go down to your house?” In Second Samuel 11:11, Uriah responds “Uriah said to David, 'The ark and Israel and Judah remain in booths; and my lord Joab and the servant of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and drink and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do such a thing.” The loyalty displayed on the part of Uriah is amazing!

What David did to Uriah is unforgivable.

This however, does not stop King David from becoming even more wicked in his planning. He then sends Uriah back into battle but tells those with him that during the battle they are to retreat, leaving Uriah to fight by himself and is therefore killed as a result! He then marries Bathsheba in order to conceal his unbelievably wicked actions.

I think that this knowledge is crucial in understanding the mindset of those who hold this man in such high regard as well as the fact that in the New Testament, we are lead to believe that it is an honor for Jesus to be compared to him. It is no doubt that in the Bible, King David is shown to be not only a deceiver, but also a rapist and a murderer! A man reported for the masses to believe that he is an example of a great leader. These things must be brought to the attention of those who have been taught in the ways of this horrible system of belief as evidence that what they are being taught is twisted and insane. They teach that they are the “chosen” and that they are righteous, yet the very one’s they hold up so high are by their own books, shown to be the most violent deceptive and sexually perverted people ever written about! It is time that humanity see’s these icons of the Trinity of Deception for what they really are and take a real hard look at those who hold them up so high as an example of what they teach!

"Despite this flawless reign on a national level, David had many problems in his personal life. One day while the men were at war, David spied a beautiful woman, Bathsheba, from his rooftop. He discovered that she was married to Uriah the Hittite, but this did not stop him from sending for her and getting her pregnant. He then recalled Uriah from battle and pretended that Uriah was the father of Bathsheba’s baby. Uriah refused to go home to his wife, so David sent Uriah to the front lines of battle, where he was killed. David then married Bathsheba. When confronted by Natan the prophet, David admitted his sin. In punishment, Bathsheba’s child died and David was cursed with the promise of a rebellion from within his own house. Bathsheba and David soon conceived a second son, Solomon.

David’s personal strife continued when his son Amnon raped Tamar, Amnon’s half-sister. Absalom, who was David’s son and Tamar’s brother, then killed Amnon." Taken directly from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/David.html

The Temple of Enki dragon15066.blogspot.com

Joshua Crispino

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

David was truly a man after God's own heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David was truly a man after God's own heart.

Yes, he was. And while your comment was probably meant to be derisive, it misses the real meaning of that statement. David - from boyhood - had FAITH in God. Just like Abraham, his faith was counted to him as righteousness. David's character was pretty shabby where morality was concerned but he never lost his faith and he ALWAYS begged for and genuinely sought God's forgiveness. The carnal mind does not understand this concept. Faith is the most important thing in pleasing God. Openly, knowingly and repeatedly rejecting, even cursing God has always seemed an odd pastime. One assumes that for a person to gain something positive from that behavior they would have to have a very powerful motivation - or perhaps they just enjoy tweaking believers. It just strikes me as sad.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

david was punished, he was cold for the rest of his life. his kingdom was cut in two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he was. And while your comment was probably meant to be derisive, it misses the real meaning of that statement. David - from boyhood - had FAITH in God. Just like Abraham, his faith was counted to him as righteousness.

And just like Muhammad, righteousness is an empty word based on your confirmation bias.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he was. And while your comment was probably meant to be derisive, it misses the real meaning of that statement. David - from boyhood - had FAITH in God. Just like Abraham, his faith was counted to him as righteousness. David's character was pretty shabby where morality was concerned but he never lost his faith and he ALWAYS begged for and genuinely sought God's forgiveness. The carnal mind does not understand this concept. Faith is the most important thing in pleasing God. Openly, knowingly and repeatedly rejecting, even cursing God has always seemed an odd pastime. One assumes that for a person to gain something positive from that behavior they would have to have a very powerful motivation - or perhaps they just enjoy tweaking believers. It just strikes me as sad.

I do not understand the concept that god is some get outta jail free card. Forgiviness can be received if the repentance of perpetrator is true from free will and heart, not of external motivation but to refine one's soul and spirit. To keep committing obvious wickednesses without a second thought when in such high position doesn't make you an unforgivable b******, but it does mean you dont understand what it truly means to be forgiven.

Those who repent truly, not regret but come to terms with whatever they committed, become more straight in their life and know from their backbone to avoid committing wickednesses of such nature again. People who dont use their god-given brain to earn the mercy, are lazy. Sinners, mainstream christians would call them.

Edited for not putting words into god's mouth.

Edited by Mikko-kun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

david was punished, he was cold for the rest of his life. his kingdom was cut in two.

Seems to me he was just reminded that there's something he should seek repentance for. Dont know if he did tho. Receiving punishment doesn't count as being forgiven: those who do grave ills and realise their mistakes and truly repent, seek out their punishmens atonements themselves with all their heart.

Edited by Mikko-kun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get into the argument over David's faith or morality, although there are good points on both sides, but one important thing to remember is that he and Bathsheba were chosen to be the parents of Solomon, who was destined to build the Temple in Jerusalem that would be home to the Ark. I guess it's the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' thing again.

Edited by Kasha
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to accurately portray an ancient mytho-historical figure, especially one that was categorically mortal, unlike nearly every other major literary character of the day. David is supposed to screw up, he's human. The entire point of having saints is to showcase their humanity and human failing and, in spite and because of this, find a measure of relatable closeness with the Almighty.

Why does David legitimize Jesus of Nazareth? Most simply, David founded the only royal lineage in Jewish history and one recognized by other political powers throughout history.

Imagine if the Axis powers had won the Second World War and a thousand years from now a prophesied descendant from George Washington's supposed extinct line came out of the woodwork. You can see the instant appeal that Jesus as a son of David would have had to a nation under Imperial rule.

But on to David himself: Saul united the Tribes of Israel as a tribal king. David united the Nation as a true king, so add a few measures of Abe Lincoln into the American Presidential metaphor. David is the king that drove out the Philistines and the neighboring tribes to establish Israel as the resident power in a highly contested region. He then conquered and re-founded the city of Jerusalem as the country's capital; one that has endured for three millennia as the capital, longer than almost any other city in history.

As I said earlier, David wasn't without his failings. But the first one you've mentioned is a moral victory for David and is meant to be read as such. Michal, the daughter of Saul, isn't exactly a sterling person. She was the daughter of a tribal lord and the first recognized king of Israel. Then said king starts using this poor shepherd boy as a propaganda tool and Michal finds a way to p*** off daddy. What better way to make the first king of an unestablished line mad than for the princess to start dating a good ol' boy from the boonies who's so far down the line of birth order, that he'll have literally nothing to inherit from his father's shepherding interests? Then add Saul's heir apparent, Jonathan, acknowledging this same redneck kid as a better potential king than he ever could be.

But David goes on to prove himself in combat and rises to become one of the most respected commanders. Then the current king starts suffering from paranoid delusions, tries and fails to destroy his own propaganda tool, and ultimately dies (albeit the death of a warrior) in an incredibly costly battle.

Jump forward to the parade with the Ark you mentioned. David has completely eclipsed Saul as the beloved and undisputed king of Israel, favored by God and people alike. Michal, now one of a number of wives, isn't criticizing David's "nakedness," rather his "un-coveredness," to which there is a great difference. Like that between a Hawaiian shirt with cargo shorts and a tuxedo. Don't know where you got him showcasing his "scepter and the crown jewels" from, because the verse (repeated later in Chronicles) depicts David dressed in a simple linen robe and a priestly cape-like garment, called an ephod. Not exactly the royal purple associated with a king, especially for the purposes of a public procession, where a proper king (in Michal's view) deigns to grace the peasants with his majestic finery and presence in their streets.

Michal is also criticizing David's dancing and frolicking. David's traditional association with playing the harp and singing is a categorically masculine practice in the culture of the time, while dancing and clicking timbrels together is it's female equivalent. David is doing his David Bowie impression because he's deliberately removing himself from the Middle Eastern god-king role in the procession and directing its focus toward the symbolism-laden Ark. The King doesn't even carry the Ark, but has the traditional priesthood do it, so he can cartwheel through the streets. Michal is bent out of shape because David would rather be a jester-king in the presence of the Lord than attempt to assert himself as a ruler divine.

At this point in the story, Michal is a bored and bitter queen among a number of peers who no longer has the novelty or claim to ostentatious status that she once had. David's humility, popularity, and spiritual zeal is what she's criticizing and that's why she was no long approached as a potential mother and denied that status among her fellow wives.

Next, David's eventual wife, Bathsheba.

This is one of those cases where out culture can't be used to view another that precedes ours by a few thousand years. It's also a case of the distinction between legal wrongdoing and ethical wrongdoing.

David sees Bathsheba, wife of his personal friend and a noble commander, bathing on her roof one evening and summons her to his palace where shenanigans ensue. And this is blatantly rape and an abuse of his royal power. And he tries to cover it up by ordering said friend, Uriah, home, because, you know, cuckolding your friend is better than ordering your friend's wife stoned in the town square. And when that doesn't work, he orders Uriah on suicide missions until it takes and then has a hurry-up wedding to the widow.

Now look at it from the culture of the day. First, Bathsheba wasn't married to Uriah at the time. She was "his woman," but in Late Bronze Age/Iron Age Israel, if you're husband went to war, it was considered an acceptable, no-fault divorce, after which the marriage would resume when he came home. More of a nuptial pause button than a full stop. Hence why Uriah chose to sleep in the barracks of the royal compound rather than go home. Why start back up what'll end by the next morning? The point of this was to allow wives a way to move one in the plausible circumstance that their husbands were taken into captivity and slavery after a battle--still alive but unable to fulfill their marital duties.

The authors further emphasize her loyalty in her name. Bathsheba can be taken as either "Daughter #7," indicating fertile and unimaginative parents, or, "Daughter of the Oath." Bathsheba, when she slept with David, was under no oath to Uriah, but was being held to the oath a subject owes her king. Which brings us to rape. It meets our definitions, unwanted sexual contacts, but keep in mind that prima noctis goes back to Gilgamesh. If a king sends for a woman (who had a contemporary legals status on par with our pets), there were no questions asked. The fact David didn't send out for women nightly like they were Chinese take-out is actually a mark in his favor.

But like I said, David was ethically and morally in the wrong in this story if not legally, and he pays for it. He and Bathsheba will have their happily ever after and the line that will ultimately yield Christ will come through her, but first David has to endure the kind of conflict in his house that destroyed Saul's claimant line. Just because Solomon becomes the next hero doesn't mean that David doesn't suffer through the loss of the first child by Bathsheba or the later rebellion by one son, rape of one of his daughters by another son, and the power struggle that followed Solomon's succession.

David was the first messiah, the Anointed King of Israel. He established the kingly line that the Messiah must derive from. He founded Jerusalem as the Holy City that would come to host the House of the Lord of Israel. He was a poet who left countless dead in the wake of his military campaigns. He was betrayed by those he loved and betrayed those he loved. But with all that he is remembered for, he was never a son of Zeus or the consort of a goddess. He was a man, plain and simple, and never has there been a claim that he was anything more or less than such.

At the end of it all, David was a good man who sinned as all good men do, and yielded from his line a very good Man who came to reckon and redeem for such sins. This is why he is remembered and venerated so widely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Magnanimus. I haven't been on threads for years. This site is one of my favorites. It's always good to hear someone who adds intelligent information to the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.