sugarhitman

It means that those who has rebelled or rejected God will not be allowed to live in His Kingdom. This parable is of the Judgement, that Jesus here shows awaits those that oppose Him. There is no need of sugar-coating....it means just what it says.

Salam

I don't see anything wrong with the parable. It's just a parable to help us understand something. Doesn't mean Jesus approves the killing.

yinyang

That is a contradictory statement. If it means just what it says than it means bring people before me and slay them, not some people are'nt going to heaven.

It's not enough to just suggest an interpretation that is contradictory to the actual verbage used. There needs to be some sort of reasonable argument to support it.

If jesus wanted to say that you wouldnt get into heaven if you dont follow his rules he could have said that.

yinyang

How does it mean jesus dissaproves of the killing. He is the one asking for it.

Many xians focus on their preconceived notion that jesus couldnt possibly have meant what the words actually say. Of course the words werent written by him, and may or not have been uttered by him, if he even existed.

But that aint whats important. What is important is that:

1) There is never any need to suggest that anyone should be killed for not following jesus teachings and/or not spreading his word. You can easily make the same case without violence. If I were in his place I would never have used such wording, I would consider it highly immoral, as a leader, to suggest such a thing.
2) Any xian can interpret pretty much whatever they want, in order to pretend that you are a sinner. If you follow another religion, or if you have sex before marriage, if your gay, whatever. These violent words give a pass to those who would do harm to those "sinners", in gods name.

Again, just saying that these words can be interpreted in a way other than that stated isnt enough. There needs to be a logical argument to support that claim.

Salam

So for mentioning the word "kill" means he's asking for it?

The nobleman is suppose to be Jesus or the father, and the killing is the judgment of death in the afterlife.

Many theists interpret their scriptures the way it matches their agendas. Whether the word killing exists or not they will do what they think is right in god's name.

WishboneDawn

I think it's a parable about a noble man that reflects something jesus is trying to get across to the people he talking to. not a castoff story, not Jesus talking about himself. Actually, It's a parable that Luke was trying to get across to the people he was writing for (assuming there's agreement that that's probably what Luke originally wrote! thank you Bart Ehrman). Aside from just looking at the parable, what about looking at it in the context of how Luke presents Jesus throughout his gospel? Which I might do but that meansI have to go read the damn gospel now.

sugarhitman

It has the same meaning as that in the parable of the Stone the builders rejected has become the capstone and the parable when the tenents kill the son of the owner of the field. This is the Judgement, this is what Jesus was speaking of in these parables. Skeptics are using false visualization when interpreting this parable. In their minds they see Jesus killing these men simply because they reject him as king. But it is more to this then that, in the parables of the stone and the tenents of the field, these 'enemies' of God will even try to overcome him. In Revelation when Jesus returns the beast and the armies of the world will try to defeat Jesus, but He will overcome them and destroy them. This also is against those who reject and oppose Jesus in action and in word. :wave:

yinyang

The parable doesn't say, so this nobleman was walking down the street, "kill", and started collecting money on the way to the laundromat.

It says, bring those who don't want to spread the word before me and kill them.

Its hardly a complicated message to interperet. The language is very plain, and explicit.

That's pure invention. You wouldnt use the phrase as stated to make the point you say he's making. You would just say they would be judged. He is suggesting an action. Not to mention, that even if he is talking about the judgement, its still f'd up. Who's judgment? In the eyes of xians, non beleivers are still considered misguided if not down right evil, if they don't follow, because of phrases like this in the bible. That has real world consequences.


Yes, which includes slaying people before god.

yinyang

Thus the inconsistancy. Theres no question that much of the new testimate is full of nice peaceful stuff. It is strange to me to read this passage and think of it as just some message jesus/luke is trying to covey. That suggests that the language used is just a minor factor. It isnt, it speaks volumes, that the writter included the words he included. The message is kill. The words say kill. It may not be in context with the rest of, or at least most of, the book of luke, but so what. If I wrote a book on philosophy, and said you should treat youre nieghbors nicely, and wash your car every sunday, and if people dont want do do that, they should be brought before me and slain, youd think I was f'n nuts.

yinyang

I'll have to read that parable, I'm not familiar with it.

But I dont interperet this parable the way I do, because I reject jesus as king, which I do. I interperet it the way I do because thats what it says.

I understand you dont interperet it the same way, but you hav'nt explained why its OK to use those terms 'slay them before me'. Or that it's ok to tell people that those that dont follow are evil and will suffer. That is an evil in itself. Its not good enough to relate this parable to the "judgment". The whole idea of the judgement is no better. It also helps xians to think that non beleivers are wrong and deserve punishment for not beleiving in jesus/god/ghost, whatever. Its the same argument.