Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-02-2008, 03:07 PM

I am mystified by this "PC" talk. Are you saying that Jesus was just a brutal, violent guy from the first century who could slay people before breakfast and not get all emotional about it? I thought you were Christians?

Toto · 02-02-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The king is the same man who has his enemies executed before him. I don't think this is even debatable.

If Jesus actually said this parable, he is referring either to Herod the Great or to his son Archelaus, probably the latter.

Herod went to Rome in a period of civil war when an opponent held the city of Jerusalem, backed by the Roman's arch-enemies the Parthians. I am not sure off the top of my head whether he was still in charge of Galilee, a district he ruled as a procurator before being elevated to King. Due to his impressive accomplishments as an administrator with his now-deceased dad Antipater, Herod was appointed as a full-fledged client king and returned a couple years later with a Roman army and drove his enemies out and established himself as ruler in fact.

After Herod's death, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to see if he could formally take over as client king in his father's stead. He was frustrated in that Herod's kingdom was rather split into three parts, and he had to settle for a lesser title of Ethnarch over about half the former kingdom, while his brothers took over the other two parts as Tetrarchs. When he came home, he ruled brutally, apparently trying to imitate his dad, but lacked his ability to get things done in ways that benefited the Romans and his subjects (Herod was able to do both those things, contrary to what you learned in Sunday skool). He was ultimately banished to Gaul(?) by the Romans, who then took direct control of his region.

It's probably Archelaus. See why it is good to get ahold of copies of Josephus or at least volume 1 of Emil Schurer's Jewish People (or via: amazon.co.uk)? The latter makes the meandering account of Josephus easier to comprehend, though.

DCH

So why did Jesus tell this story, and why did the gospel writers write about him telling this story? Was it just a story about a king who killed his enemies, with no moral to it?

reniaa · 02-02-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The king is the same man who has his enemies executed before him. I don't think this is even debatable.

If Jesus actually said this parable, he is referring either to Herod the Great or to his son Archelaus, probably the latter.

Herod went to Rome in a period of civil war when an opponent held the city of Jerusalem, backed by the Roman's arch-enemies the Parthians. I am not sure off the top of my head whether he was still in charge of Galilee, a district he ruled as a procurator before being elevated to King. Due to his impressive accomplishments as an administrator with his now-deceased dad Antipater, Herod was appointed as a full-fledged client king and returned a couple years later with a Roman army and drove his enemies out and established himself as ruler in fact.

After Herod's death, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to see if he could formally take over as client king in his father's stead. He was frustrated in that Herod's kingdom was rather split into three parts, and he had to settle for a lesser title of Ethnarch over about half the former kingdom, while his brothers took over the other two parts as Tetrarchs. When he came home, he ruled brutally, apparently trying to imitate his dad, but lacked his ability to get things done in ways that benefited the Romans and his subjects (Herod was able to do both those things, contrary to what you learned in Sunday skool). He was ultimately banished to Gaul(?) by the Romans, who then took direct control of his region.

It's probably Archelaus. See why it is good to get ahold of copies of Josephus or at least volume 1 of Emil Schurer's Jewish People (or via: amazon.co.uk)? The latter makes the meandering account of Josephus easier to comprehend, though.

DCH

So why did Jesus tell this story, and why did the gospel writers write about him telling this story? Was it just a story about a king who killed his enemies, with no moral to it?

It's an hyperbole and jesus would have mentioned the name if he wanted too, we are speculating by putting a name to a king, the pc part is:- the people he used this story on then knew what he was getting at and the tale was to point that out, If you talk to a farmer and want to make a point you would maybe use a farming story. As Modern people we look at the story and take from it more than what he intended because we have weird morality now everything has to be pc right down to our very word usage, a politition can be destroyed by a bad joke, jesus is being condemned by that same modern pc viewpoint.

eek not sure I made that any clearer lol.

Toto · 02-02-2008, 03:32 PM

We have a "weird" morality in which kings are not allowed to call for their political opponents to be brought before them and publicly executed? Give me that weirdness any day.

WishboneDawn · 02-02-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

It's an hyperbole and jesus would have mentioned the name if he wanted too, we are speculating by putting a name to a king, the pc part is:- the people he used this story on then knew what he was getting at and the tale was to point that out, If you talk to a farmer and want to make a point you would maybe use a farming story. As Modern people we look at the story and take from it more than what he intended because we have weird morality now everything has to be pc right down to our very word usage, a politition can be destroyed by a bad joke, jesus is being condemned by that same modern pc viewpoint.

eek not sure I made that any clearer lol.

I don't think it's weird morality and, thinking on this, I don't even think it's a matter of pc. It's just the difference between moderns and ancients and the difference should be acknowledged when reading ancients texts.

That said, I'm not sure how much the one line tells us about Luke's Jesus. To find out about Luke's Jesus we have to read the entire gospel and then come back to the weird bits like the slaughter line and see if it makes sense to interpret Jesus as a murder-happy guy in the context of the whole gospel. If it does, fine. If it doesn't then what's the most reasonable explanation for why he's talking about this nobleman who's demanding slaughter. To me, it seems it's probably hyperbole (because that pops up considerably more than slaughter lines) and it's probable that Luke's audience would have understood it as such.

DCHindley · 02-02-2008, 04:35 PM

My guess would be to contrast God's kingdom (where the first shall be last and last first) with the current age (where the rich get richer and the meek get everything taken away from them). Luke 13:29-30:

29 And people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God. 30 For behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."

A little later, in Luke 19:41-44, it says:

41 As he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, "If this day you only knew what makes for peace-- but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides. 44 They will smash you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another within you because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

This is what the rulers of the then-present world (meaning the Romans) do to their enemies (meaning the Jews, as Luke wrote after the Jewish revolt during which Jerusalem was destroyed).

This is staged by Luke 16:16:

16 "The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The king is the same man who has his enemies executed before him. I don't think this is even debatable.

If Jesus actually said this parable, he is referring either to Herod the Great or to his son Archelaus, probably the latter.

Herod went to Rome in a period of civil war when an opponent held the city of Jerusalem, backed by the Roman's arch-enemies the Parthians. I am not sure off the top of my head whether he was still in charge of Galilee, a district he ruled as a procurator before being elevated to King. Due to his impressive accomplishments as an administrator with his now-deceased dad Antipater, Herod was appointed as a full-fledged client king and returned a couple years later with a Roman army and drove his enemies out and established himself as ruler in fact.

After Herod's death, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to see if he could formally take over as client king in his father's stead. He was frustrated in that Herod's kingdom was rather split into three parts, and he had to settle for a lesser title of Ethnarch over about half the former kingdom, while his brothers took over the other two parts as Tetrarchs. When he came home, he ruled brutally, apparently trying to imitate his dad, but lacked his ability to get things done in ways that benefited the Romans and his subjects (Herod was able to do both those things, contrary to what you learned in Sunday skool). He was ultimately banished to Gaul(?) by the Romans, who then took direct control of his region.

It's probably Archelaus. See why it is good to get ahold of copies of Josephus or at least volume 1 of Emil Schurer's Jewish People (or via: amazon.co.uk)? The latter makes the meandering account of Josephus easier to comprehend, though.

DCH

So why did Jesus tell this story, and why did the gospel writers write about him telling this story? Was it just a story about a king who killed his enemies, with no moral to it?

PS: Toto, your link correctly identified the one volume paperback I was talking about.

Crimson Glory · 02-02-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Good point. We're sort of of looking at it with modern eyes and getting all bent out of shape. The ancient world wasn't PC in the least.

Is it not the 'word of God'? Isn't it supposed to be valuable for all times and places? If Jesus was God indeed, shouldn't he know the way people would interpret such words in the future? Why shouldn't we look at the Scriptures with modern eyes? If we don't, then Scriptures are completely useless! (which in fact, you know, they are)

Steven Carr · 02-02-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The king is the same man who has his enemies executed before him. I don't think this is even debatable.

If Jesus actually said this parable, he is referring either to Herod the Great or to his son Archelaus, probably the latter.

I see. So it has nothing whatever to do with the Kingdom of God, or Jesus answering the questions of people who thought the Kingdom of God was about to appear at once?

Steven Carr · 02-02-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So why did Jesus tell this story, and why did the gospel writers write about him telling this story? Was it just a story about a king who killed his enemies, with no moral to it?

The parable of the 10 minas is a parable about Herod Archaleus?.

'While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.'

So Jesus tells them a story about Archaleaus, because he was near Jerusalem.

Perhaps the idea about the timing of the kingdom of God has something to do with the story of a nobleman who has people who do not want him to rule over them.

A bit like Jesus going to Jerusalem and discovering people who did not want him to rule over them!

Steven Carr · 02-02-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

My guess would be to contrast God's kingdom (where the first shall be last and last first) with the current age (where the rich get richer and the meek get everything taken away from them).

The nobleman goes away, and until he returns , he entrusts his servants to use the gifts he gave them wisely and to reap an investment.

Apparently, this has nothing to do with Jesus.

Let us look at Luke 16 - 'I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?'

Just a few chapters after a parable of a nobleman giving his servants money to use in enriching his kingdom, Jesus explicitly tells his disciples that they are just like people who have been given wealth, and they will be judged on how wisely and honestly they use it.

But Bible-deniers still deny that the nobleman in Luke 12 was anything to do with Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2008, 03:07 PM	#31
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I am mystified by this "PC" talk. Are you saying that Jesus was just a brutal, violent guy from the first century who could slay people before breakfast and not get all emotional about it? I thought you were Christians?

02-02-2008, 03:32 PM	#34
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	We have a "weird" morality in which kings are not allowed to call for their political opponents to be brought before them and publicly executed? Give me that weirdness any day.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.