What Ever Happened to the David Kings ...?

[StuartJ]

The David kings were possibly real historical figures ...

The Tel Dan Stele, an inscribed stone erected by a king of Damascus in the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the phrase ביתדוד‬, bytdwd, which most scholars translate as "House of David".[71 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#His ... archeology

But they dribble out of Jewish folklore after the Ezra/Nehemiah tales ...

And don't reappear until the propaganda of the Jewish sect supporting the Jesus character.

The notion that the Jesus character was sired by the Jewish deity Yahweh (or the Holy Ghost) has nothing other than the cult propaganda and the imaginations of believers to support it.

The propaganda DOES - in two contradictory genealogies - however, trace the Jesus character back to the original King David.

What ever happened to the David kings ... and their supporters ... and their heirs ...?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to StuartJ]

They didn’t die out. Their descendants are still alive today. See post 6. The Monarchy was destroyed and, of course, the individual kinds from thousands of years ago died.

What part of this are you not getting? Your posts seem nonsensical. Is there some point you are trying to make?

Can you imagine the David faithful tried to get their guys back on the throne ...?

And wrote "prophecies " ...?

Join those dots to the Jesus propaganda.

Quite simple.

No gods and magical miracle virgins and angels and other make believe.

Just mundane human politics.

Won't get you a mansion in Heaven ...

But it IS intellectually satisfying.

[bjs]

Can you imagine the David faithful tried to get their guys back on the throne ...?

And wrote "prophecies " ...?

Join those dots to the Jesus propaganda.

Quite simple.

Imagine it? Sure. I can also imagine that the moon landing was faked and that George W. Bush was behind the September 11 attacks. The theory of “David’s faithful� trying taking back the throne after half of a millennium of not trying is like that. It is pure make believe, with no evidence in favor of it and all the evidence we do have going against it.

But it IS intellectually satisfying.

Not at all. It’s obvious hogwash. But if we start from the a priori position that there is no God or miracles, then anything no matter how ridiculous is better than believing that Jesus is God.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 12 by bjs]

The theory of “David’s faithful� trying taking back the throne after half of a millennium of not trying is like that. It is pure make believe, with no evidence in favor of it and all the evidence we do have going against it.

We have no evidence that I know of that the Davidians were or were not trying to get their guys back on the throne between Ezra-Nehemiah's time, all through the Greeks, the Hasmoneans, the Herods ...

They obviously didn't go away ...

Much is made in the Christian-Jewish propaganda of the David line of Jesus.

It makes magic and virgin free sense that the purpose of the Jesus figure was to seize the throne ...

And he failed to summon the armies of angels to do this ...

So the propaganda will have him do it NEXT time.

Simple down-to-earth human politics.

Make-believe free.

"All the evidence we do have" is an interesting offering.

I've been after evidence for a long time.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 12 by bjs]

Not at all. It’s obvious hogwash.

Is that just a teensie bit uncivil ...?

I offer MY hogwash as speculative hypotheses to try and discover what MAY be under ...

The obvious hogwash of Yahweh breeding with a human virgin to send the Jesus character to this planet to trick the Romans into acting as Jewish priests and sacrificing the Jesus character to Yahweh to calm him down ...

Again.

Even as a kiddie in Sunday school, I didn't find the "Jesus as my Lord and Saviour who Died on Calvary for MY Sins" to be intellectually satisfying.

For me, the hypothesis of mundane human politics lying beneath the fantastical tales of the Divine Leader, Jesus, IS intellectually satisfying.

And like all hypotheses ...

As opposed to the state of the mind known as "belief" ...

My speculations are open to question and amendment and development ...

Or total rejection ...

As I have done ...

I only offer the ones I still think have some merit.

There is MUCH I can't answer.

But for me, it's good intellectual exercise to rummage for answers between the lines of the propaganda.

And time much better spent than defending of dodging the angels and virgins and talking donkeys.

[Jagella]

What ever happened to the David kings ... and their supporters ... and their heirs ...?

Stuart, I'd recommend you read Hector Avalos' The End of Biblical Studies. He explains in it that the evidence for King David is no better than the evidence for King Arthur.

So the answer to your question is that King David was probably a myth.

[StuartJ]

What ever happened to the David kings ... and their supporters ... and their heirs ...?

Stuart, I'd recommend you read Hector Avalos' The End of Biblical Studies. He explains in it that the evidence for King David is no better than the evidence for King Arthur.

So the answer to your question is that King David was probably a myth.

OMG ...!!!

I'm shattered

Nah ... not at all.

Folks of faith have been digging up the Middle East for centuries to satisfy their confirmational biases.

King Arthur, Jesus, Robin Hood, Santa, David ... maybe in history, somewhere ...?

But they do - I suggest - exist in the imaginations of believers.

The "idea" of the legendary King David may be what the Jesus cult was clinging to.

The possibly fictional Jesus character may have been a pretender to a real or semi-fictional or imaginary Throne of David.

And the propaganda was rallying propaganda that played some part in the Jewish uprisings.

A god-sired martyr with amazing superpowers who would emerge from the clouds with armies of angels ...

What an inspirational rallying hero.

An inspirational hero that Christians still expect to burst through the clouds at any moment and exterminate all those not on their side ...

Just as the credulous faithful have been doing since it all started.

[StuartJ]

[StuartJ]

Following the conquest of Judah by Babylon and the exile of its population, the Babylonian Exilarchate was established. The highest official of Babylonian Jewry was the exilarch (Reish Galuta, "Head of the Diaspora"). Those who held the position traced their ancestry to the House of David in the male line.[2] The position holder was regarded as a king-in-waiting, residing in Babylon and later in Achaeminid Persia during the classic era. Zerubbabel of the Davidic line is mentioned as one of the leaders of the Jewish community in the 5th century BCE, holding the title of Achaeminid Governor of Yehud Medinata.

During the Hasmonean and Herodian periods
The Hasmoneans, also known as the Maccabees, were a priestly group (kohanim) from the Tribe of Levi. They established their own monarchy in Judea following their revolt against the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty. The Hasmoneans were not considered connected to the Davidic line nor to the Tribe of Judah ...

During the Hasmonean period the Davidic line was largely excluded from the royal house in Judea, but some members have risen to prominence as religious and communal leaders. One of the most notable of those was Hillel the Elder, who moved to Judea from his birthplace in Babylon. His great grandson Simeon ben Gamliel became one of the Jewish leaders during the Great Revolt.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line

The Davidians never went away or stopped exerting political influence ... it would appear.

In the absence of evidence for (the hogwash of ) a god-sired Magic Jesus ...

I offer that my hypothesis of a real or fictional Davidian Political Jesus is plausible.

Simple human politics.

No mansion in Heaven though ....

[bjs]

I offer that my hypothesis of a real or fictional Davidian Political Jesus is plausible.

A hypothesis is defined as: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Unless you have means and intention of further investigating your idea, it is not a hypothesis. It is a conspiracy theory.

[StuartJ]

I offer that my hypothesis of a real or fictional Davidian Political Jesus is plausible.

A hypothesis is defined as: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Unless you have means and intention of further investigating your idea, it is not a hypothesis. It is a conspiracy theory.

Given the possibility that Human Jesus is fictional ...

And the TOTAL ABSENCE of evidence for Divine Jesus ...

And given the contradictory David genealogies for the Jesus character ...

And the "King of the Jews" appellation for the Jesus character ...

And the biblical "prophecies" for the line of David ...

And my regular posts here concerning Davidian Political Jesus ...

I'd say I had a very plausible set of down-to-earth, angel and virgin and resurrection-free hypotheses offered up for further investigation.

A shred of proof of ANY sort to back up a god-sired Jesus would be something of a setback...

But the god-sired issue is usually avoided by folks of faith.