All the Women in the Kingdom Belong to the King

[brideofjc]

Found a book in the local library which looked interesting so I took it out and have flipped through it. I found the following extract. I am not very impressed by what this book says on much that is recorded in the Bible: but then, it does say, Jewish Lore & Legend, not Jewish truths. Nonetheless, there may be traditions that have been handed down that throw some light on the customs alleged in the second paragraph.

I have split the extract into two, the first part being what is recorded in the Bible and the second part being apparently pure PI but I'm just wondering if some of our Jewish cafe society (Abigail?) can offer any comment?

Extract from "Dictionary of Jewish Lore & Legend" (Pub: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1991)

"Bathsheba: Favourite wife of King David and mother of his successor Solomon. David fell in love with her when he glimpsed her bathing and had an affair with her. When she became pregnant, he arranged for her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite to be sent home so that he would regard the child as his own. This ruse failed, and Uriah was posted to the front line so he would be killed in battle. Nathan the prophet upbraided the king for his evil doings in taking away another man's wife (II Sam 11,12).

"Despite the Bible's negative portrait of David's relationship with Bathsheba, the Talmud maintains that he did not in fact commit adultery. All soldiers in the king's army had to give a conditional get, or bill of divorce, to their wives in case they never returned from the battlefield. Thus, Bathsheba was a divorcee, and David's affair with her was not an adulterous one. She was in fact a very young girl at the time of her first contact with David and still a virgin, for Uriah had not consumated the marriage. Even when she eventually gave birth to Solomon, her first child having died in infancy, she had still not reached her teens."

I can't see what possible basis there might be for suggesting she was a virgin at the time of David's first naughty deed. David at the time was no spring chicken and this makes him out to be some particularly nasty old lecher with serious paedophile tendencies. But then again he did have a young maidservant to warm him in his last days.

This is because King David represents Israel's GLORY YEARS, when it was he who thought of and perhaps planned on building the first temple, albeit he was not allowed to because he had blood on his hands and so had to wait until Solomon could take over. It was he who slew Goliath....you get the picture. It is the same attempt to white wash the sinful deeds of an otherwise upstanding man whose heart was after all after God's. Not that God sins. The RC do this same thing by asserting that Mary never had sex with Joseph and never had any other children than the Lord Jesus and even AFTER giving birth, her hymen was still properly in place. Maybe Jesus was a premie, do you think? Or it was 100% PURE MIRACLE, and the LORD GOD caused the hymen to stretch to allow for the virgin birth, and then so that Joseph would always know that indeed Mary had been a virgin because then he was able to proceed with a normal honeymoon period and found out the truth for himself.

As far as Bathsheba is concerned, it may very well be that military men had to give their wives a conditional type of divorce, but at the same time it doesn't make any sense, because if you failed to come back from the battlefield, it would naturally be assumed that you perished, and the wife was then released from her matrimonial bonds according to the Law, so what would be the point. That's stretching the law to cover David's sins besides which, Uriah was very much alive when David had a go at his wife.

[brideofjc]

Thank you Jen-o,

I just did the same thing.

(added in editing)(grammar too)

Not long after I got here I was mocked by another poster who told me to, 'be quiet and go play with my girlfriends' or something very near to that anyway. I'm sharing this because my impression of that poster is that he would be willing to stand up for men who practiced this distorted doctrine brought up in this thread but was willing to mock me for my friendly intentions.

There is not often such a clear and obviously hypocritical point that I can bring up as this one.

How come the hypocrits are the ones who excel at playing the "shame card."

I believe in Psychological circles, it is called transferance.

Bless you, Jeff

[JeffSjo]

Thanks Brideofjc,

I looked at transferance on wikipedia.

I think that it's commonplace for folks who've had nonsensical standards shoved down their throats, especially by bad preachers, transfer their squashed and approppriate fellings in a totally nonsensical direction.

Your post just helped me make a little sense out of some nonsense.

PEACE to you brideofjc

(added in editing)

IMO when someone uses transferance as a weapon to bludgeon someone into submission they are a bully.

Edited May 6, 2008 by JeffSjo

[JeffSjo]

TRANSFERANCE, THANK YOU, THANK YOU BRIDEOFJC!!!!!!

Transferance, when a woman takes feelings that God intended for her to have for her husband or even Jesus Christ himself and is encouraged to feel these for a fallible human minister.

No wonder things got so screwed up at TWI as cocerning Dr. Wierwille and the rest of top leadership.

Transeferance, it tricks some ministers into thinking that all the women belong to him. If I was a betting man I would be certain that this screwed over many TWI people.

It sure worked that way in my little splinter group. I was at loggerheads with leadership over many things and my wife held feelings for the leader as an owner( I'm not exagerating people, it's really happening today), and father. For one woman called a prophetess she felt for as a mother. No wonder I felt outgunned. All of my little group were systematically directed into transfering all these emotions to the leader or his cronies. But the leader was sure to keep the cronies under his thumb most of all.

This whole thread is about TRANSFERANCE. I'm not suree HOW it got started in TWI but in my little splinter group it's been deliberately planned and tought by every means possible. Tranferance can be a powerfull tool in the arsenal of any sick b--tard that wants to Lord it over the Lord's inheritance.

For the Biblical minded I say, JESUS CHRIST IS JESUS CHRIST, HE'S NOT THE DUMB--- GUY WHO MINISTERS TO YOU THAT WANTS YOUR WORSHIP.

(ADDED IN EDITING)

If any of you bible maniacs out there would like to discuss this in doctrinal, all that I have to say is that when Paul used terms like fathered or mothered he was talking about what he did, not what he wanted from the believers in terms of tranferance.

I'm certain because of how he was thankfull that he didn't baptise many of the Corinthians and didn't want them to think too highly of any minister, himself include that this TWI style TRANSFERANCE would have horrified him.

I'm eager to take this point to doctrinal if anyone would like to look at what all the scriptures say, not just a few that have been twisted into meaning that the lead minister gets it all.

No minister who has any sanity on the subject would allow himself to be in a position of being at odds doctrinally with the concept of "I'm not the woman's husband or Lord."

Edited May 6, 2008 by JeffSjo

[Nottawayfer]

Transferance: that's interesting. Does anyone else remember Athletes of the Spirit portraying the relationship between minister and his people as a "love" relationship? This kind of struck me odd.

[brideofjc]

TRANSFERANCE, THANK YOU, THANK YOU BRIDEOFJC!!!!!!

Transferance, when a woman takes feelings that God intended for her to have for her husband or even Jesus Christ himself and is encouraged to feel these for a fallible human minister.

No wonder things got so screwed up at TWI as cocerning Dr. Wierwille and the rest of top leadership.

Transeferance, it tricks some ministers into thinking that all the women belong to him. If I was a betting man I would be certain that this screwed over many TWI people.

It sure worked that way in my little splinter group. I was at loggerheads with leadership over many things and my wife held feelings for the leader as an owner( I'm not exagerating people, it's really happening today), and father. For one woman called a prophetess she felt for as a mother. No wonder I felt outgunned. All of my little group were systematically directed into transfering all these emotions to the leader or his cronies. But the leader was sure to keep the cronies under his thumb most of all.

This whole thread is about TRANSFERANCE. I'm not suree HOW it got started in TWI but in my little splinter group it's been deliberately planned and tought by every means possible. Tranferance can be a powerfull tool in the arsenal of any sick b--tard that wants to Lord it over the Lord's inheritance.

For the Biblical minded I say, JESUS CHRIST IS JESUS CHRIST, HE'S NOT THE DUMB--- GUY WHO MINISTERS TO YOU THAT WANTS YOUR WORSHIP.

(ADDED IN EDITING)

If any of you bible maniacs out there would like to discuss this in doctrinal, all that I have to say is that when Paul used terms like fathered or mothered he was talking about what he did, not what he wanted from the believers in terms of tranferance.

I'm certain because of how he was thankfull that he didn't baptise many of the Corinthians and didn't want them to think too highly of any minister, himself include that this TWI style TRANSFERANCE would have horrified him.

I'm eager to take this point to doctrinal if anyone would like to look at what all the scriptures say, not just a few that have been twisted into meaning that the lead minister gets it all.

No minister who has any sanity on the subject would allow himself to be in a position of being at odds doctrinally with the concept of "I'm not the woman's husband or Lord."

Playing the "shame-card" would probably fall more into this category: Glad you liked "transferance" so here's "psychological projection"

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"[1] [2]

Overview

According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. It is a common process that every person uses to some degree.[3]

To understand the process, consider a person in a couple who has thoughts of infidelity. Instead of dealing with these undesirable thoughts consciously, he or she subconsciously projects these feelings onto the other person, and begins to think that the other has thoughts of infidelity and may be having an affair. In this sense, projection is related to denial, arguably the only defense mechanism that is more primitive than projection. Those who project deny a part of themselves that may otherwise come to the surface. In this case, they cannot face their own feelings of infidelity and therefore project them onto the other person.

[brideofjc]

Transferance: that's interesting. Does anyone else remember Athletes of the Spirit portraying the relationship between minister and his people as a "love" relationship? This kind of struck me odd.

Rather usurping the role of the Head of the church and His love for His Bride. LCM also did a rather crude move and it always reminded me of worshipping

an Asherah pole.

[JeffSjo]

Thanks again Brideofjc,

The bully was probably revealing his own desires via projection bias.

BUT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD FITS TRANSFERANCE PEFECTLY IMO.

[Ham]

Rather usurping the role of the Head of the church and His love for His Bride. LCM also did a rather crude move and it always reminded me of worshipping

an Asherah pole.

Oh, you mean the atheletes of da spirit "s.i.t." move?

Asherah pole, about four feet tall?

:biglaugh:

hahhahahahahhaha...

*cough, wheeze...*

[brideofjc]

Oh, you mean the atheletes of da spirit "s.i.t." move?

Asherah pole, about four feet tall?

:biglaugh:

hahhahahahahhaha...

*cough, wheeze...*

I don't know about the four foot thingy, but what I was thinking about, was when he was arching backwards and thrusting his groin up

towards GOD (just a dance move of course). Of course, it was PURE BETA! Geez, does anyone remember those gawd awful beta machines?

I had a VHS and I remember I had to rent a beta so that I could transfer the video to VHS and thus later I transferred it to the deep 86.

[Ham]

Maybe I'm just evil today..

I thought you were referring to the little s.i.t. "move"..

kinda looked like he was stuck on something..

[brideofjc]

Maybe I'm just evil today..

I thought you were referring to the little s.i.t. "move"..

kinda looked like he was stuck on something..

I don't remember any SIT move? I take it you're being facetious?

Do tell, what did he do, I've tried absolutely hard to forget about that blasphemous object of self worship.

If you remember....Asherah was supposed to be the Queen Consort to Yahweh, or otherwise known as

the Queen of Heaven. So you see, when he was thrusting up towards heaven, maybe he wanted to

have a go at the "Queen of Heaven."

Edited May 7, 2008 by brideofjc

[Ham]

it was one of the "manifestation" moves. kinda funny looking, kneel down close to sitting position, quiver and shake..

I'd better not speak any more graphically than that. Don't want the moderators to get me in the back room and work me over here..

[brideofjc]

it was one of the "manifestation" moves. kinda funny looking, kneel down close to sitting position, quiver and shake..

I'd better not speak any more graphically than that. Don't want the moderators to get me in the back room and work me over here..

Well, see I told you....he was into self worship. I'd better stop too!

[sky watcher]

Deuteronomy 22:22 - If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. vs 23 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; vs 24 - Then shall ye bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. vs 25 - But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: vs26 - But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him, even so is this matter.

I don't see where it says that kings are exempt from this. Does someone have a translation that says that? If so, was David exempt from all the laws that governed Israel? Out of the thousands of laws that applied to Israel, did he have to obey none of them? If so, which ones did he have to obey and which ones could he ignore? Where can I find the list? What chapter and verse?

I always hated it when vp taught that "David's sin wasn't that he slept with Bethsheba, his sin was that he had Uriah killed." Sorry, but that's NOT what the Word says. She should have been stoned, (unless she cried out and no one heard her [or acted as if they hadn't]) and David should have been killed too, according to what I understand it says in the Law. I know that he repented (after Nathan's visit) and that God forgave him, but that was by God's mercy and grace. He deserved to die according to the Law of Moses.

I understand that he was the king and that people looked the other way for him. Just like they did in twi. But David, when confronted, repented and admitted his guilt.

Also, look at the story Nathan told David. The one precious little lamb referred to Bethsheba! She was not some tool to be used and then discarded. Nathan makes that very clear.

It might have been said of David that all the women in the kingdom belonged to him, but it wasn't God who said it.

Deuteronomy 22:22 - If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. vs 23 - If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; vs 24 - Then shall ye bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. vs 25 - But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: vs26 - But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him, even so is this matter.

I don't see where it says that kings are exempt from this. Does someone have a translation that says that? If so, was David exempt from all the laws that governed Israel? Out of the thousands of laws that applied to Israel, did he have to obey none of them? If so, which ones did he have to obey and which ones could he ignore? Where can I find the list? What chapter and verse?

I always hated it when vp taught that "David's sin wasn't that he slept with Bethsheba, his sin was that he had Uriah killed." Sorry, but that's NOT what the Word says. She should have been stoned, (unless she cried out and no one heard her [or acted as if they hadn't]) and David should have been killed too, according to what I understand it says in the Law. I know that he repented (after Nathan's visit) and that God forgave him, but that was by God's mercy and grace. He deserved to die according to the Law of Moses.

I understand that he was the king and that people looked the other way for him. Just like they did in twi. But David, when confronted, repented and admitted his guilt.

Also, look at the story Nathan told David. The one precious little lamb referred to Bethsheba! She was not some tool to be used and then discarded. Nathan makes that very clear.

It might have been said of David that all the women in the kingdom belonged to him, but it wasn't God who said it.

Edited May 20, 2008 by sky watcher

[WordWolf]

it was one of the "manifestation" moves. kinda funny looking, kneel down close to sitting position, quiver and shake..

It was this football practice "wind-sprints" or something.

Someone mentioned that before.

Other than satisfying the football wannabe, it communicated NOTHING, because it was a

move that signified no action other than "running in place."

[waysider]

VP was a conman, not a king.

The Way was a cult, not a kingdom

[What The Hey]

VP was a conman, not a king.

The Way was a cult, not a kingdom

Well, there goes someone's whole hypothesis then, huh?

Boy, am I upset. NOT!!

[brideofjc]

Well, there goes someone's whole hypothesis then, huh?

Boy, am I upset. NOT!!

But please do note that hypothesis starts with HYP(e)!

plus please do note that hypo is: hypo- under or below something, low hypothermia