"Bring my enemies before me and slay them"

[Zzyzx]

.
Words attributed to Jesus CLEARLY state that those who refuse his "rule" are to be killed in his presence.

Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That is a very clear, unequivocal command to KILL those who refuse to accept Jesus as their "ruler" (or "savior" or whatever).

In my opinion, those are words of a murderous, despotic, egomaniac.

Question for debate:

1) Did Jesus say those words?

2) How can they be "interpreted" to mean anything other than a command to kill?

[Hobbes]

The only people who have a problem with this parable are non-Theists and critics who cherry-pick (decontextualize) the last verse and use it to argue against Christianity.

.

Yes sir.

And let's take the skeptic argument at face value and accept it as accurate (as hard as it is to pretend to do so).

Then the skeptic must either fear for their lives, or, believe that Christians are just too cowardly to follow through with their faith.

Many if not most skeptics I've run into seem perfectly willing to come to blows with a Christian to prove a point; in fact, some skeptics even seem eager to do so. I think the latter case is true in my statement above. The skeptic who believes this absurd, twisted translation of a parable, therefore must conclude that we Christians are fakers and cowards.

Ironically the most exquisite test of Christian faith would involve those of us who are willing to die for it; not kill for it.

[dianaiad]

...snip...
Yes, I know what a parable is.. But, words mean what words mean. ..and if you look at the parable in context, and accepting it is a parable, slay still means kill.

Trying to make the meaning of a set of words mean something other than what it says reeks of 'Let me read into the story, rather than take from the story'.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing?

We have two very different, and VERY plausible, explanations for that verse here. I would be happy with either one: first, that verse doesn't really fit in with the parable..it does not appear in any other account of it. So...it could simply be something that Jesus did not say.

This isn't exactly new...and is only a problem for those who really are strict sola scripturians, who believe that God kept the bible absolutely pure in language from
'then' to now.

I'm not one of those.

OR, if He did say it, it WAS the tale end of a parable, and not to be taken literally. I would personally lean toward Jesus not having said it, myself.

But here you are, with two very good, reasonable and logical explanations for it, and you insist that Jesus MUST have said it, and it MUST be taken absolutely literally, even though the rest of the parable cannot be?

Which of us, then, is committing eisegesis? I submit...it's not the bible believers this time.

[catalyst]

.
Words attributed to Jesus CLEARLY state that those who refuse his "rule" are to be killed in his presence.

Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That is a very clear, unequivocal command to KILL those who refuse to accept Jesus as their "ruler" (or "savior" or whatever).

In my opinion, those are words of a murderous, despotic, egomaniac.

Question for debate:

1) Did Jesus say those words?

Well, considering I don't believe that the biblically depicted jesus ever existed, no.
I am however happy to hypothesise the jesus character in the bible told such a parable and even by doing so, it still does not relate specifically to "him" as the nobleman, in and of itself. That parable requires the preceding verses in Luke 19 for ANYONE to presume that the nobleman is actually a representation of the jesus character and also requires the information post the parable in Luke 19 to support said claim. That said, the message SCREAMS for those in the nobleman's service(whether it be jesus or someone else) to off anyone not wanting to work for or serve him.

2) How can they be "interpreted" to mean anything other than a command to kill?

It can't be.


Catalyst

[fewwillfindit]

.
Words attributed to Jesus CLEARLY state that those who refuse his "rule" are to be killed in his presence.

Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

That is a very clear, unequivocal command to KILL those who refuse to accept Jesus as their "ruler" (or "savior" or whatever).

In my opinion, those are words of a murderous, despotic, egomaniac.

Question for debate:

1) Did Jesus say those words?

Well, considering I don't believe that the biblically depicted jesus ever existed, no.
I am however happy to hypothesise the jesus character in the bible told such a parable and even by doing so, it still does not relate specifically to "him" as the nobleman, in and of itself. That parable requires the preceding verses in Luke 19 for ANYONE to presume that the nobleman is actually a representation of the jesus character and also requires the information post the parable in Luke 19 to support said claim. That said, the message SCREAMS for those in the nobleman's service(whether it be jesus or someone else) to off anyone not wanting to work for or serve him.

2) How can they be "interpreted" to mean anything other than a command to kill?

It can't be.


Catalyst

Did you read my explanation? Have you taken the time to study that which you argue against, namely Christian Theology? Are you aware of the common teaching within Christianity that Christ will depart, Christ will return, believers will be rewarded and unbelievers will be destroyed? This is precisely depicted in the fictional tale of the ten minas which we are discussing. Christians understand this because Christians study Christian Theology, and Christians are the only ones who would be inclined to obey a Biblical command, thus, since Christians understand this to be a parable regarding the time of Christ's return, nobody is going to kill anybody, and it is fallacious to suggest otherwise.

If you now agree with me, great! If you do not, please take the time to read my explanation earlier in this thread and reply section by section if you like in an attempt to demonstrate just why I am wrong.

I have presented an argument as to why your argument is fallacious. Please address my argument as it refutes what you have just said here so that I don't have to repost it in response to you.

Thanks.

[Goat]

The only people who have a problem with this parable are non-Theists and critics who cherry-pick (decontextualize) the last verse and use it to argue against Christianity.

.

Yes sir.

And let's take the skeptic argument at face value and accept it as accurate (as hard as it is to pretend to do so).

You mean, the skeptic assumes people say what they mean, rather than mean anything but what they said? Who would have thought that people would assume that someone would mean what they say, and say what they mean, even if it is a parable!.... How shocking.

Then the skeptic must either fear for their lives, or, believe that Christians are just too cowardly to follow through with their faith.

Or expect that if you are giving a lesson to the masses, you don't need a secret decoder ring to be able to figure out what the lesson means. Say what you mean, and mean what you say is a very important life lesson IMO.

Whew fewwillfindit tried to give his interpretation of what that parable means, he concentrated on the alleged time frame (Mind you , you had to some fancy reading with a decoder ring to pick that out).. and skipped totally the purpose and meaning of the line. Mentioned in passing, but the explanation
did not match the words written down. It was an avoidance of that line, rather than trying to look and figure out 'why was this line added into the parable'.

Many if not most skeptics I've run into seem perfectly willing to come to blows with a Christian to prove a point; in fact, some skeptics even seem eager to do so. I think the latter case is true in my statement above. The skeptic who believes this absurd, twisted translation of a parable, therefore must conclude that we Christians are fakers and cowards.

Ironically the most exquisite test of Christian faith would involve those of us who are willing to die for it; not kill for it.

And then we come to the cognitive dissonance, and martyr complex. What I do not see is an explanation of the 'bring my enemies before me and slay them' rather than dealing with it.

[fewwillfindit]

Double Post

[Zzyzx]

.
When the bible doesn't make sense call the passage a "parable" (fictitious religious story), or allegory (symbolic fictional characters and actions), metaphor (word or phrase used to suggest likeness or allegory), or the infamous "out of context" or "you are misinterpreting".

Those who are willing to claim such things to "defend scripture" seem to convey that they KNOW which parts of the bible are literally true and which are not -- but cannot identify a means to make that distinction on other than personal opinion basis.

For instance, can anyone show that the tale of "resurrection" is NOT a parable or other form of fiction? What about "virgin birth", "walking on water", "storms calming on command", etc -- are those "parables" (fiction)?

The only people who have a problem with this parable are non-Theists and critics who cherry-pick (decontextualize) the last verse and use it to argue against Christianity.

Yes sir.

I agree that most bible believers do not appear to be troubled with all manner of destructive statements and actions by Jesus or "god". When challenged, they usually retreat behind a facade of excuses, smoke screens, and evasions.

And let's take the skeptic argument at face value and accept it as accurate (as hard as it is to pretend to do so).

What EXACTLY is "the skeptic argument"? I presented my position clearly by QUOTING verbatim the bible statement -- and stating clearly that in my opinion "those are words of a murderous, despotic, egomaniac" -- and ASK if those are the words of Jesus.

Then the skeptic must either fear for their lives, or, believe that Christians are just too cowardly to follow through with their faith.

False dichotomy.

As a Non-Theist, I do not fear Christians because I consider myself more than capable of handling any attempt they may make on my life.

More importantly, however, it appears to me as though VERY FEW Christians actually follow bible instructions -- particularly when doing so would be difficult -- i.e., they don't walk the talk in real life.

I acknowledge that theocracy in any form IS something to be feared, and do my part to oppose domination of society by any religion.

Many if not most skeptics I've run into seem perfectly willing to come to blows with a Christian to prove a point; in fact, some skeptics even seem eager to do so.

You must know a very different group of people than I have known and associated with for sixty years. In fact, telling the TRUTH (rather than expressing hyperbole), I have never known a "skeptic" of my acquaintance to physically assault a Christian "to prove a point".

I will readily acknowledge that, in my experience here and elsewhere, "skeptics" readily and repeatedly TROUNCE Fundamentalist / Biblicist / Literalist Christians in debate on a level playing field.

I think the latter case is true in my statement above. The skeptic who believes this absurd, twisted translation of a parable, therefore must conclude that we Christians are fakers and cowards.

It would be prudent to NOT attempt to say what a "skeptic" "must conclude".

Ironically the most exquisite test of Christian faith would involve those of us who are willing to die for it; not kill for it.

I have no comment regarding anyone's willingness to die for their religious beliefs. Hirohito's Japanese soldiers were admirable examples during WWII -- willing to die for their "god".

[fewwillfindit]

. What I do not see is an explanation of the 'bring my enemies before me and slay them' rather than dealing with it.

I have dealt with it and hit it head on. Even if I grant you your ultra-literal interpretation of the last verse, you are still attempting to understand it in a vacuum. Fortunately, it doesn't exist within the bubble that you place around it.

Here is how it would read if I were to grant you that it is an actual command:

1. Christ departs to get His Kingdom
2. During His absence, the citizens rebel and decide they don't want him to rule over them when He returns
3. Christ returns to set up His Kingdom
4. He finds that some servants were fruitful and some weren't
5. He gives rewards to the fruitful and removes rewards from the unfruitful
6. Next, he commands those standing nearby to slay the citizens who did not want to submit to His rule

You cannot interpret this in a vacuum. It is taught elsewhere in the New Testament, plainly and in non-parabolic terms, that Christ is going to:

1. Depart to be with His Father in Heaven
2. Return to establish His Kingdom
3. Reward faithful followers
4. Destroy those who do not want Him to reign over them

This, my dear Goat, is Theology 101. The last verse is not in a vacuum, so you cannot pretend that it is and translate it as though it is just plunked down in the middle of Scripture as a stand-alone command for all time.

There you have it. Even interpreted as you would have it interpreted, meaning that He commands believers to kill unbelievers, it is impossible, in light of the clear teachings regarding the Kingdom in Scripture, that this could happen until after Christ returns to set up His Kingdom. Obviously this hasn't happened, so obviously your interpretation is impossible.

[catalyst]

fewwillfindit wrote:

Did you read my explanation?

YUP! AND?

Have you taken the time to study that which you argue against, namely Christian Theology?

Went into christianity at 15, from then 2 years as a christian counsellor, 6 years at theology college, and then a further 3 1/2 years of post graduate "preaching" prior to my leaving christianity. Since then, further investigation on a more historically realistic level (which found wanting to say the least):making it a total of 31 years studying "the word" from every which way angle possible. What are your creds as to this, fewwillfindit? Please share.

Are you aware of the common teaching within Christianity that Christ will depart, Christ will return, believers will be rewarded and unbelievers will be destroyed? This is precisely depicted in the fictional tale of the ten minas which we are discussing. Christians understand this because Christians study Christian Theology, and Christians are the only ones who would be inclined to obey a Biblical command, thus, since Christians understand this to be a parable regarding the time of Christ's return, nobody is going to kill anybody, and it is fallacious to suggest otherwise.

see my above reply.

If you now agree with me, great! If you do not, please take the time to read my explanation earlier in this thread and reply section by section if you like in an attempt to demonstrate just why I am wrong.

I have presented an argument as to why your argument is fallacious. Please address my argument as it refutes what you have just said here so that I don't have to repost it in response to you.

Thanks.

I did on the other thread, where you didn't bother replying.

[dianaiad]

.
When the bible doesn't make sense call the passage a "parable" (fictitious religious story), or allegory (symbolic fictional characters and actions), metaphor (word or phrase used to suggest likeness or allegory), or the infamous "out of context" or "you are misinterpreting".

It is a rather good idea to call something a parable...if it actually is a parable. Zzyxx, I hate to break this to you, but this was...a parable. Jesus was rather famous for them. They are also called 'analogies,' and quite a few people use them. It's a perfectly good, allowable and effective tool of communication.