Mageth

When I read it, I can't tell where the parable ends and Jesus just talking to those present begins. In the verse just before that, Jesus says "For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him." This sounds more like Jesus talking to the people than the parable King.

Further, the bit about "my enemies" doesn't seem to fit into the context of the rest of the parable. You know, context.

Mageth

Originally posted by Milton
Where did you pull out that passage? From a longer story, wasn't it? Yes, the story was a parable, too.

Like I said, that passage doesn't seem to fit into the context of the parable just before it.

To make the story short, it is an analogy of the day of judgment. The king is the one who is delivering judgment, as if it was God. Those who were his enemies, are like those who did not believe. Those excecuting their due punishment, are like the angels throwning the evil ones in the eternal fire.

That's one of many possible interpretations for it, yes. Parables are weird like that. Unfortunately, Christians in the past have used such vagueness to justify all sorts of atrocious acts. Couldn't God/Jesus have been a bit more clear?

So there you have it.

Tell that to those who have been executed by Christians in the past using the Bible as justification.

As for the laws in exodus, you know well that with Christ the death penalties ended...at least at the hands of other sinners, who are equally deserving of death.

No, I don't know that well. That seems contradictory to Jesus' command in Matthew 5. In fact, you appear to be disobeying Jesus' command:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..."

I'm sure glad you are, though.

That "deserving of death" comment scares me, though. What have I done to be "deserving of death"? It must make for a miserable life to walk around believing you and everyone else deserves to die. And note that the 9/11 terrorists thought their victims were "deserving of death".

What I do know well, however, is that Christians, throughout the centuries, have used such scriptures (and the "deserving of death" belief you expressed) to justify the slaugther of "infidels". Apparently Jesus didn't do such a good of a job in communicating to them to stop the killing.

Milton

Well, if you see verse 25, they are still talking about the 'pounds' and about the other ten who already had what they had been given previously. So then the king responds to them with that statement, that those that have more will be given, and those who do not, even what they do have will be taken. This is still part of the parable, as you can see. Then last part, verse 27, fits the parable because every king and/or kingdom has enemies. And as you can see, it says those 'who did not want me to reign' over them.

sakrilege

And don't forget that Pat Robertson and others stated they America deserved 9/11 which implies they thought that Americans were deserving of death.

tribalbeeyatch

LOL! River, are you ever right? Ever heard of Mormonism? "22x faster" Bwahaha

River

Thats great and all but Mormonism is tiny relative to Islam's installed base. So, 1.6 Billion followers growing at that rate ( and no signs of slowing down) is pretty big deal.

Mageth

Originally posted by Milton
Well, if you see verse 25, they are still talking about the 'pounds' and about the other ten who already had what they had been given previously. So then the king responds to them with that statement, that those that have more will be given, and those who do not, even what they do have will be taken. This is still part of the parable, as you can see.

No, I can't see. If I could see, I wouldn't be making the comments I have, would I? It's not at all clear that it's still part of the parable. It sounds more like Jesus' comment or summary of the parable immediately above to me.

Then last part, verse 27, fits the parable because every king and/or kingdom has enemies.

That's a stretch. It jumps from talking about leaving "pounds" in the hands of servants, and rewarding those who invest wisely, never mentioning enemies, to suddenly bringing enemies before him and slaying them? The two things don't seem even remotely related to me.

And as you can see, it says those 'who did not want me to reign' over them.

And Jesus doesn't want to reign over us? Christ the King and all?

It may be that it's part of the parable, but it takes a liberal extension of the parable to make it so. In context, it's simply not as clear as you make it out to be. And even if it is a parable, it would seem to indicate that Jesus didn't have much of a problem with his enemies being slain. And indeed, verses like this have been used to justify just that.

Jesus could have been more clear. Maybe fewer parables and more straight talk would have been better. Like "But don't kill infidels; that's not what I mean by this parable!"

tribalbeeyatch

But...but...but... You were wrong, and spectacularly so. Just admit it.

Milton

I see. I guess there is no more to be said on that subject.

Gregg

RBac,

First, let me state that I started out as a believer, although I was never an orthodox Christian. For a long time I accepted the view of Jesus advanced by such churches as Divine Science, Science of Mind, and Unity. Even after I rejected that view, I accepted that someone named Jesus had in fact lived and had had enough of an impact that he was later mythologized. As you say, this sounds like a very simple, straightforward explanation. I would venture to say that even most atheists take this position.

The problem is, even after you've applied Occam's Razor, the theory you're left with still has to fit with the known facts. And after carefully studying Earl Doherty's arguments (www.jesuspuzzle.org), I came to agree with him--the historical Jesus position does NOT explain the facts as well as the mythicist position.

Doherty's primary, but by no means only, argument, is the argument from silence. Consider: the letters and epistles were written before the gospels, yet Paul and the other writers speak of Jesus in almost exclusively spiritual terms, in fact in terms quite similar to the way the Greek philosopher spoke of the Logos. Never do they mention Mary, Joseph, Judas, Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Arimathea, Pontius Pilate, the garden of Gesthemane, Calvary, the empty tomb, Jesus' miracles, or most of the other people, places, and events in the gospels.

Paul does make reference to appearances, but these appearances do not resemble any gospel account, and furthermore, he insists Christs' appearance to him was no different than his appearance to the Jerusalem apostles! I think seeing a vision of the ascended, spiritual Christ is quite different than seeing, touching, and eating fish with a resurrected, physical Jesus.

Paul also refers to Jesus taking bread on the night he was betrayed (more accurately translated as "delivered up"). But other dying/rising savior gods were believed to have eaten a sacred meal before their sacrifice. Back then it was not strange to think of gods or divine beings sitting, eating, and drinking, or of things in heaven taking place during the "day" or the "night." So, there's no reason to assume that Paul must be talking about an earthly, historical event.

BTW, Paul also says he came by his knowledge of Christ by revelation, not by hearing an oral tradition.

Again, there's much more to Doherty's argument, but the above is a good sample. You might not agree with him, but after studying his case you might accept that this theory is not as "convoluted" as it appears at first glance.

Regards,

Gregg