Bernard Muller

I agree except that was drawn from Josephus' Wars (II, II-VII). Also let's notice Lk:19:12 and 19:14-15a at the start of the parable of the ten minas (which 19:27 ends), also pertaining to Archelaus' trip to Rome:
"A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return."
"But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us.
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom,"

sotto voce

Of course, the Bible has no validity of its own, is a composite of almost everything else known to scholarship. The one and only miracle.

J-D

Monarchies were, I expect, seen in a positive light by the monarchs themselves, their entourages, and their apologists. I'm not so sure about how widely those views were shared.

But the merits or demerits of monarchy aren't the point here, unless it's being suggested (and it doesn't seem to be) that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about monarchy. You seemed to be saying that the parable of the pounds is intended to point a moral about the creator. Now, regardless of what you or anybody may think about monarchs in general, I know many people who treat other people better than the specific monarch depicted in the parable of the pounds does. I treat people better than the monarch in that story, and there's nothing special about me. So the moral of the story, according to you, is not to expect the creator to meet ethical standards even as high as the standards of a fairly ordinary person like me, let alone anything better.

sotto voce

Of course there was dissent. There always is. But it's one thing to complain about one's government, it's another to suggest anything better. Historians must take account of economics, because economic realities define the nature of societies. Until the Industrial Revolution, all wealth was based on agriculture and fishery, so land possession, which was very rarely divided equally, defined the power base of any society. A national monarch had two principal functions. One was to defend the nation in war, or to acquire wealth by invasion or imperialism. The other was to create the legal framework by which wealth could be created at home, and to police the law that resulted. That meant restraining local major landowners, if only to protect the agricultural base that maintained the monarchy itself. So it was a system that certainly wasn't democracy, but worked well in an era when there was virtually no international law. Tyranny happened occasionally, when power went to the heads of individuals, when power corrupted absolutely, but this caused instability, and tyrants tended to have short life spans. It's notable that even the Roman Empire, that was a lot more brutal than, say, the Persian Empire, had to take some account of its conquered populations, to say nothing of the plebeians in Rome, who of course could have massacred the patricians overnight, had they been sufficiently goaded into it. "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown," the medieval Henry IV said, in Shakespeare's representation of him.

I'm sure you do, but if you can point out a non-constitutional monarch who, on accession, failed to eliminate those who would eliminate him, perhaps you'll let me know. It's well known that sudden death was one of the occupational hazards of a life in court. You either stayed on the farm, or in the schoolroom, or in an occupation of similar low estate; or you went for the high life, but risked your life. So it's anachronistic to cite from modern conditions. However, those pre-modern conditions may very well illustrate the principles of an eternal deity.

This is to completely misapprehend the message of the Bible, that insists that morality creates a necessity for a perfect conscience. Only the perfect can take the same moral ground as the Biblical deity, and none can take higher moral ground. An imperfect conscience, created by just one sin, will condemn, will result in destruction of the spirit after this life, the Bible says. Only a messiah can prevent that happening to all moral creatures. This is not the message of just one parable, but the message of the first word of Genesis through to the last of Revelation. The condition that the Bible relates is that the Bible deity will not accept those who do not accept Jesus, because truly morally acceptable people, in the biblical view, do accept Jesus, sooner or later. That is the warning message of this part of the parable.

Chili

Enemies are 'lies' or 'dead ends' or 'fantasies' that do not deserve attention and he is telling us here that he know his enemies that are here now are to be loosed so that he may be raised. Untied ends, you may call them, seeds that we did not plant, or investments we did not make in life because it was not ours. Not worth to examine in life as bad habits maybe to be slain so that freedom may be his. Probably best described as images that are not iconic, since fantasy does not belong in heaven where only truth is at, or he would not get there.

This is the ending of the investment parable where time should be spend wise and not chasing rainbows to idle dreams as dreamer without a dream to live, and so be motivated or driven from within, as with a goal in life so your dream can have an end, and then a song to sing.

Chili

You likely have that wrong but if you want to entertain those thoughts may you be king over them as well. I think they used to call that humping goats, or swine for Muslims

Chili

For what it is worth, 'Catholic faith' is a gift of God and no passage reading is allowed, lest they be the yeast of the phariees and pervert the mind as fantasy to entertain . . . such as going to heaven when you die, as they would be, and those were led before the Inquisitor to be charged only if they insisted in being actice as shepherd with a crooked staff as per Math 26:31 and Mark 14:27 and disperse the flock. These are those whose faith was 'shaken' and not 'annihilated' and so have found their final destiny as preacher now to preach a "different Gospel," and that was evidence hat their ass on fire for the Lord still with hope for 'better days agead', and those were handed over to the State as guilty with a special treat for them.

Significant here is that they were 'saved-sinner' and thus saved and not set free from religious obligation and hence the law in force for them (Gal.5:1-4), and actually wanted to die to reach their final destiny while preaching their version of the good news to others = The Great Commision from Matthew and Mark but not from Luke and John . . . and notice where their Jesus went = fry some more until they died of old age.

Sheshbazzar

And in spite of all of that obfuscating word-salad gibberish, the Holy Roman Catholic Church employed that verse as their justification for setting up the public burning and executions of countless tens of thousands of people.

The Church likes to keep its hands clean by the claim that they didn't execute anyone, they just charged them, and turned them over to the 'State' civil authorities for punishment
Conveniently these Catholic Church approved and appointed State 'Civil Authorities' were also the laity of the Catholic faith.
One hand hoping to wash away the guilt of the the other. Or so they wish men to believe.
But we are not all that stupid or forgetful.

mountainman

The warning message at Luke 19:27 is that if people do not accept Jesus then they will be dragged before him and executed. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" obvious has its loopholes.

Steve Weiss

+1