Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 02-02-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yinyang

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

What happens when people reject their king? Rebellion is sure to follow. God is weeding out all rebels and in the new world there will be none to cause discord and strife. Everyone there will be truely united under God in truth...but as for those who reject their king (as Satan did) according to the text Hell awaits them. This is what Jesus meant about slay them before me. "And if any one's name was not found in the Book of Life, they were cast alive into the lake of fire." :wave:

Steven Carr · 02-02-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

What happens when people reject their king? Rebellion is sure to follow. God is weeding out all rebels and in the new world there will be none to cause discord and strife. Everyone there will be truely united under God in truth...but as for those who reject their king (as Satan did) according to the text Hell awaits them.

If you want a king, you have a funny way of showing it.

Why did you Americans get rid of your George III , your appointed ruler? You rebelled against your king.

Rebellion is bad. We should have had you all brought to us and killed in front of us. That is the Christian way.

reniaa · 02-02-2008, 10:12 AM

Lol this threads feels like we are telling Jesus to be more pc in his use of hyperboles in case someone takes them wrong way ^^

WishboneDawn · 02-02-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

Lol this threads feels like we are telling Jesus to be more pc in his use of hyperboles in case someone takes them wrong way ^^

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.

Malachi151 · 02-02-2008, 10:22 AM

Well, really, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is no better:

Quote:

Mark 12:
1 Then he began to speak to them in parables. 'A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watch-tower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 2 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 4 And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. 5 Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, "They will respect my son." 7 But those tenants said to one another, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not read this scripture:
"The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
11this was the Lord's doing,
and it is amazing in our eyes"?'

12 When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away.

DCHindley · 02-02-2008, 12:07 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The passage is Luke 19:11-28, and there is no controversy over the translation.

Quote:

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11 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. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a] 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 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."

The Triumphal Entry
28After Jesus had said this, ...

The question usually debated is, who called for his enemies to be put to death in front of him? The king in the story, or Jesus? Or is it the same person, as Jesus seems to endorse this sort of political revenge? If Jesus does not endorse this revenge killing, what is the point of the parable? Is it too mysterious for the unbeliever to understand?

NoBeliefs comments on this verse, and there is a TheologyWeb thread here , featuring our own Stephen Carr.

reniaa · 02-02-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

Lol this threads feels like we are telling Jesus to be more pc in his use of hyperboles in case someone takes them wrong way ^^

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.

So true and sometimes I feel like banging my head against walls when you know it's cultural differences of modern eyes verses ancient ones that your trying to get past so you can address the inner points of the arguement but never get there because of the pc sidetracking /arhhhhh frustrating lol

Malachi151 · 02-02-2008, 01:47 PM

Also, what about the anointing at Bethany scene?

Quote:

Mark 14:
3 While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head. 4 But some were there who said to one another in anger, 'Why was the ointment wasted in this way? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.' And they scolded her. 6 But Jesus said, 'Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.'

makerowner · 02-02-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

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.

So true and sometimes I feel like banging my head against walls when you know it's cultural differences of modern eyes verses ancient ones that your trying to get past so you can address the inner points of the arguement but never get there because of the pc sidetracking /arhhhhh frustrating lol

But isn't God supposed to have an absolute morality? If what God considers good can change from one time to the next, how does Judgement Day work?

reniaa · 02-02-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

So true and sometimes I feel like banging my head against walls when you know it's cultural differences of modern eyes verses ancient ones that your trying to get past so you can address the inner points of the arguement but never get there because of the pc sidetracking /arhhhhh frustrating lol

But isn't God supposed to have an absolute morality? If what God considers good can change from one time to the next, how does Judgement Day work?

It only changes from our perception of it! Also with the old testament you get the history of God dealing with a young rebelious race of people trying to make laws understood at their level, For us you need to look to jesus's words as he speaks to a more mature race that can understand better the reason for laws not just having to have a set of laws so when he explains about how a man commits adultery in his heart first etc you see he understands that the laws are a proctection us against our own weaknesses, and I can see this because I live in a time were commonplace adultary has led to so many problems etc.

Judgement day is when God takes back the reins of rulership from us, we had our chance basically we made a mess of ruling ourselves for all our enlightment we still can't stop killing and enslaving each other, greedy and power hungry. If this world is what man can do I wouldn't mind seeing a world with God bringing some changes

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

02-02-2008, 10:12 AM	#23
reniaa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: russia Posts: 1,108	Lol this threads feels like we are telling Jesus to be more pc in his use of hyperboles in case someone takes them wrong way ^^

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.