Rednals

Hand me a quote that says specifically "struck down by God"...

And how the hell is saying that God struck the couple down, defending the scripture? I would like an example of that too...

Also, miraculous powers may come from God... that doesn't mean God deals the given damage... i.e., if I was given God-like powers by God, it doesn't mean God approves of every single one of my actions...

Diogenes the Cynic

If an omniscient God gives miraculous powers to someone knowing full well, in advance, with no possibility of error, that said person will use them to kill, then God is just as culpable. God cannot be let off the hook. If I give someone a gun who I know will use it to kill someone, then I'm just as guilty as the killer.

Amaleq13

Nobody is claiming that the Bible is written only in parables and it is irrelevant whether Jesus wrote any or even spoke any of the words in the Bible. The OP is about what the Bible says, not what Jesus can be somehow confirmed as saying. That parables are explicitly presented in the Christian Bible with "hidden" meanings that require interpretation was offered in opposition to your suggestion that the parable under discussion should not be considered a metaphor. That suggestion is clearly contrary to the expressed purpose of their inclusion so it makes no sense regardless of whether you think Jesus really taught them or not. It is what the Bible says about them.

Read the OP again and explain what your position is with regard to the passage-in-question. Is it or is it not a Bible passage where Christians are ordered to kill?

It would appear to qualify whether one accepts it as part of the parable or as a comment made afterwards. Either way, the followers of God (ie Christians) are being commanded to slay God's enemies.

Amaleq13

Sorry, I missed the "YLT"

Rednals

hmm... not 100% sure what you mean, Amaleq...

As for Diogenes, well, that is why I ain't a Christian...

I believe in something, perhaps God, but I don't believe in the Bible version of it all...

God can't be all-knowing because, if he was, then he punished Adam and Eve for something that he knew was going to happen and didn't do anything to prevent...

GakuseiDon

Surely it can't be anything other than part of the parable? It is almost chiasmic. Compare v14 and v27:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...7;&version=15;

14 and his citizens were hating him, and did send an embassy after him, saying, We do not wish this one to reign over us.
...
27 but those my enemies, who did not wish me to reign over them, bring hither and slay before me.'

Who is talking? The nobleman in the parable, or Jesus? Compare v13 and v26

13 and having called ten servants of his own, he gave to them ten pounds, and said unto them, Do business -- till I come;
...
26 for I say to you, that to every one having shall be given, and from him not having, also what he hath shall be taken from him

Yes, that's technically true, but it is such a hard-hearted way of looking at that passage.

trendkill

I didn't explain that Christians were never ordered to kill by Jesus. I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to make a blanket statement like that, hence my interest in this topic in the first place. I just think the meaning of this particular parable, and the context of the final line, is pretty clear, and it's not an order for Jesus' followers to kill.

trendkill

I think I already covered this in one of my earlier posts. The people ordered killed are characters from the parable, and the overall text makes no sense when assuming the final line is an order from Jesus to kill all unbelievers. The rebellious "citizens" from the beginning of the parable become completely extraneous; the order itself is a non sequitur to what Jesus had been saying; Jesus then immediately leaves town without witnessing the slaughter he supposedly ordered to take place in front of him (remember, if we're going to attribute the killing order to Jesus, we also have to attribute the manner in which the killing was ordered to take place to Jesus as well).

OTOH, assume the nobleman says it, and everything falls into place.

Hm, some of those do actually appear to agree with Toto. But I really think the right interpretation is clear enough that I can discount any version that has Jesus saying the line as himself, rather than the nobleman, as having its quotation marks wrong. FWIW, the quotation marks in the RSV, which seems to have a reputation for accuracy (it's recommended in the Bible/Archaeology resource thread at the top of this forum), support my interpretation:

The double quotation marks are the words of Jesus as quoted by the narrator, and the single quotes, which I emphasized in red here, are the words of the nobleman as quoted by Jesus. As you can see, the order to kill was given by the nobleman, not Jesus.


Yes, that's true. It's the one and only thing I can see that supports your/Toto's reading. But I don't think it's much to rely on considering the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It looks like that one probably agrees with me, however, there's a close-quote missing here. Where's the closing of the quotation mark I emphasized?

Amaleq13

The question was pretty straightforward and the rest of the post was explaining how you seemed to have missed the point entirely by bringing in the irrelevant notion that Jesus didn't write the Bible.

Is it or is it not a Bible passage where Christians are ordered to kill?

Amaleq13

I think we've already covered this and the answer doesn't provide an escape from the apparently problematic meaning of the command since the nobleman is understood to represent God/Jesus.

"Technically true"? What does that mean?

"Hard-hearted"? It is my impression that God will be one hard-hearted sonofabitch during the End Times. How is that observation an argument against the interpretation. What might be a soft-hearted way to interpret a command to bring my enemies before me and slay them?

"Slay" really means "tickle"?