Wallener

This has no meaning unless civil authority is capable of defining "right" and "wrong". And if civil authority has that ability, then religion becomes unnecessary to the process of setting up moral standards. I assume that was the point you were trying to make...?

trendkill

And let's also not forget the other parables I cited with two different and mutually exclusive end-times metaphor threats at the end, neither of which involved orders to kill.

All you can get from that line is the general concept of a judgment and punishment. Human noblemens' powers are manifested solely through their command of their subordinates, therefore, any judgment they carry out will have to be done by ordering their subordinates around. To read the analogy as giving God the same constraints as a human nobleman, i.e. that he has to have humans carry out the final judgment , is absurd.

Diogenes the Cynic

Who was Jesus talking to when he gave the order to slaughter unbelievers in front of him. That statement is made in the imperative mood -- as a command. To whom was Jesus giving the command?

trendkill

It was the nobleman giving the command, not Jesus. This was already explained in detail, see posts 8 and 68. Let's not get repetitive here.

Diogenes the Cynic

It was Jesus. The point had already been made and Jesus was giving the tagline as he always did.

And since the nobleman was "God" in the parable, it's a distinction without a difference. It was God giving the order....and God was Jesus.

trendkill

Whoa, where was this point made? Where's the support for it? Are you actually going to defend the position that all or most of Jesus' parables are about what Christians should do to unbelievers (given that they tend to end with punishments)?

This has already been answered as well. four posts up, in fact.

Diogenes the Cynic

Your answers made no sense so I disregarded them. it is not pertinent that other parables don't have Jesus ordering his followers to kill people. This one does. If that contradicts other statements attributed to Jesus, so what? That just proves that the bible contradicts itself-- something we already knew. Is there some reason that we should assume that contradictory statements could not have been attributed to Jesus by different authors?

I actually think the tagline reads like a redaction. My guess is probably that the original parable ended at 19:26 and the command to slaughter enemies was added later.

There is no question that in the Greek, that statement is given as a command and that whether you want to argue that Jesus is speaking as himself or the "nobleman," it still amounts to a command by God to kill unbelievers.

trendkill

The point is, parables follow a pattern. The punishment is not the moral of each respective parable, it is just part of the literary style. To pick one of the punishments and pretend that it is the centerpiece is baseless.

Oh, I see. And this didn't seem relevant until now. Anyway, if we assume it was pasted on there by someone who wanted Jesus to be giving random orders to kill, then it would fit the bill. But as yet we have only your opinion that it "reads like a redaction" to support this. Which I find extremely dubious given the mention of the rebellious citizens at the beginning of the parable.

which is not at issue...

Er, no. If it's spoken as a command by Jesus, it amounts to a command. If it's a quote of the the nobleman, it amounts to a threat by God to punish unbelievers himself. Not a command to someone else. The command part (and even the killing, possibly) becomes incidental; it does not translate over in the analogy.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, if it is spoken by the Nobleman it is a COMMAND. No matter who is speaking it is still a COMMAND. The grammar in Greek can be read no other way. The verb is given in the imperative. There is only one possible translation. It's an order to kill unbelievers. There isn't anyway around that. It says "you must slaughter my enemies." The "you" cannot be removed from the verb.

TySixtus

Leviticus 20:9

All those who curse their father or mother must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13

The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties.

Leviticus 20:15

If a man has sexual intercourse with an animal, he must be put to death.


Hmmm.... back to drawing board, Reverend.

Ty


ETA: Oh, can't forget this doozy. Moses ordering the murder of all those calf worshippers... or, 'unbelievers', if you will.

Exodus 32:27

He told them. "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even you brothers, friends and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day.

Sounds like there's plenty of scripture to back up the killing of non-believers.