Torah

I came out of Christianity several years ago and have been listening to online Jewish teachings to find truth. Because of what I have learned from rabbis, I am seeing a lot of patterns in the Tanach that I can't unsee and I cannot quit thinking about it. I am looking for someone to consider these patterns and help me know if there is validity to it or if I'm just jumping to wild conclusions. There is so much! But I will just present the main idea of it and await your response before sending other verses that I think support my conclusion. Here goes: Elements of Genesis 38 mirror Jeremiah 3. Basically Tamar, who represents the Northern Kingdom (in the reflection), plays the prostitute and when Judah (Southern Kingdom) sees it, then he does worse. But when confronted with it, he recognizes his sin and repents. The same thing seems to happen with David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 & 12. There are two children born from both Judah/Tamar and David/Bathsheba (One from adultery and one for Yibbum?) Tamar: 1) Zerah, whose line leads to the "Troubler of Israel" 1 Chron 2:7, and 2)Perez, whose line leads to the Messiah. Bathsheba: 1) Dead baby 2) Live baby - Solomon, whose line leads to Messiah. Since both the Northern and Southern kingdoms were likened to prostitutes (Jer 3, Eze 23), then it seems valid that the two prostitutes standing before King Solomon were a representation of the Northern & Southern Kingdom. They both have a baby. So two babies, one dead and one alive. The live baby, the true messiah, comes from the Southern Kingdom, Judah, the rightful mother. And the Northern Kingdom has been trying to push off a dead baby into the arms of Judah and claiming it is theirs. This is what Christianity has done, and Judah has examined this 'dead messiah' through the light of the Torah and know that it is not their baby. I believe the Northern Kingdom is actually lost in Christianity. Thank you for your time, I anxiously await your feedback.    

What is the Rambam referring to when he elaborates on Nevuah, and talks about that G-d imparts knowledge (mada) into the hearts of men? Is he referring to Ruach HaKodesh? Or, is he just giving some sort of definition for Nevuah that pertains to this halacha? If he is just defining Nevuah, why does he feel the need to do so here? If he is talking about Ruach HaKodesh, what might be the parameters of that? For example, if someone accepts Rashi of the Godel Hador of his time and accepts that he was a holy person, and gives appropriate weight to his commentaries and piskie halacha, but does not believe that he wrote his commentaries on Chumash with Ruach haKodesh or if someone similarly does not believe that the targum of Onkelos or Yonathan ben Uziel were written with Ruach Ha Kodesh, is that on par with not believing in Nevuah? Similarly, (in addition to accepting their piskei halacha as halacha) would one need to assume that even the leaders of our generation are guided by ruach a Hakodesh?