Jesus Condones Killing!

01.08.07.1848

Brian Flemming took it out of context in The God Who Wasn’t There, but if you check it out for yourself, it’s only a parable that Jesus recites to his disciples between Luke 19:12-27. At the very end, the parable basically sets up the message that it’s okay to murder someone in front of you if they don’t want you in an authoritative position. Applying that to Christianity, it can mean that it’s okay to kill people who don’t accept Jesus as Lord. Point is… through this parable, Jesus, or whoever is speaking for him (Paul most likely), condones murder.

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:14		But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us.


Luk 19:15		And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.


Luk 19:16		Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

Luk 19:17		And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Luk 19:18		And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

Luk 19:19		And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

Luk 19:20		And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

Luk 19:21		For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

Luk 19:22		And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Luk 19:23		Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Luk 19:24		And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.

Luk 19:25		(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

Luk 19:26		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.

Luk 19:27		But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

Yep, Jesus condones murder, somebody call the Pope.

Boy did you do a lousy job of interpreting this parable; you’re not even close to understanding it.

Thankfully, the voice of insight has spoken to clear everything up for us.

Not gonna talk about how he came to bring the sword and all that. Come on, you can pull out more evidence than that! Make him out to be real bloodthirsty!

Anybody know the context of the parable? Seems like it could be used to justify certain Leveler and Anabaptist ideas. Jesus is for the Revolution?

First of all realize what a parable is, its a story to represent a universal Truth and is usealy told with a flair that the common man would understand, no intellect required.

This parable was about accepting a good gift from your master that has proved himself good yet one of the servants concluded that the master was evil and buried the money in fear that he would be punished for losing any of it. The issue here is that this servant was evil in thinking that the master would do an evil deed when he has never shown any proclivity to do so before. IOW, to automatically assume someone is evil is a telltale sign that the author of that thought is the evil one and was punished by losing the money the master gave him and it went the one who was the best steward of his money (the one with the most profitable return).

This is analogous to the good gifts that God gives us all and how we treat these gifts with out intent.

How anyone got murder out of this is beyond me. You do know what Murder is, dont you?

01.08.07.1852

I’m actually rather suprised this thread got any attention whatsoever.

Leave it to the Christian to interpret Christian writings, and a Muslim to the Koran, and a Jew to the Torah, and so on. However, in any case, no matter which way you cut the cake, murder is murder; even if you have someone killed in front of you just because they don’t think you should be in power sounds like evidence enough for a conviction.

By the way Ucc, what translation are you using?

The last line is not likely to have been something said by Jesus. It is not consistent with the largely conciliatory ethos of Jesus’ ministry and it is not present in Matthew’s parallel account of the parable (Matthew 14:14-30). This would be a difficult passage to justify for Biblical literalists, but not for those who recognise that the gospels were penned by authors with their own individual agendas, several decades after the death of Jesus.

Is there anything amibguous or context-dependent about this verse?

Is the slaying of people who refuse to submit to you murder, or is it not?

JP

Heh, actually yes.  The ambiguous, context-dependant part of it is that firstly it might be words that Jesus is putting in the mouth of a fictional character in his parable, and not Jesus saying He wants a bunch of people brought before Him so He can slay them.  That's pretty context-dependant.  Secondly, the verse doesn't have anything to do with the preceding parable or what comes after, if it's taken to be out of context of the parable. 

Here’s a challenge for sagesound and others- interpret the relevant parable (Parable of the Talents, I reckon it’s called) so that it makes any sense at all with a conclusion of “I want to murder people who won’t submit to my authority”. Explain to me the significance of the coins, the master leaving, some pages investing, some pages hiding the coins in a napkin, and so on, if the conclusion was intended to be something as simple and brute as that. I am curious about this.

EDIT Sagesound: The translation was the KJV, I have no special attachment to it, but it’s the default used by the Blue Letter Bible, my source.

I agree with both you and uccisore, the last sentence was not Jesus speaking and was not part of the parable, doesn’t even fit and I have never considered much of anything else outside of what Jesus (Supposedly) spoke to be of any true value in the bible. Also consider that the evil that was spoke of in the parable was often dealt with harshly in those days so it is obvious to me that this was added by the author and couldn’t possibly be Jesus’ words as this would be contradictory to his specific teachings.

Actually, you are completely right. I should have read from my own Bible, because in the NIV it is clear that the quote is a part of the parable. The KJV version you posted earlier makes it sound as though the last two verses are separate from the parable - that they are Jesus speaking directly to his disciples - but in the NIV translation it is clear that they are part of the parable itself:

Now it could possibly be said that Jesus is relating this story as an analogy for his own right to dominion over earth - that anyone who opposes his status as king deserves to be brought before him and killed - and perhaps in the conext of Luke’s words this view makes sense, but in the context of Jesus’ philosophy (from what we know of it) these certainly aren’t sentiments he would have espoused. Interestingly, I find that the entire parable itself is in conflict with Jesus’ wider eschataological message (where he usually depicts the weakest and poorest inheriting the most in the kingdom of God, rather than the other way around in the case of this parable), but perhaps I have misunderstood it.

Yes I believe that you did misunderstand it, in my post above (yesterday) I explain what I think it means and this is in complete agreement with Jesus’ teachings without contradiction.

Yep, that's why I said 'might be', is that I couldn't tell for sure from reading the KJV either, it's worded poorly (or my understanding of older English is poor, one of the two).  All I could really say for sure is that the mental image of Jesus finishing up this story, and then saying as a new thought, "By the way, bring some people over here so I can kill them" seemed horribly out of the place. 
I wonder if the Master having people brought before him and killed isn't a metaphor for Hell. Jesus certainly references Hell quite a bit, with the parable about the wheat and the chaff, stuff like that. I do agree with you that the most literal interpretation, that Jesus is condoning the killing of non-believers, doesn't jive with His message as I understand it. 
   The way I've heard this parable explained to me is that it relates to the gifts God gives such, such as intelligence and charisma and so on. This would be a parable directed towards people already in the service of Christ- once in His service, the gifts or talents we have are to be put to use, as opposed to squandered.  The man who refused to invest the money would be like somone saying, perhaps "Yes, I know you made me smart, Lord, but I didn't speak about you because I know that you are a vengeful God, and I was worried about saying the wrong thing." Of course, that was an interpretation given to me when I was about 9 years old, intended for nine year old ears. It's been way too long since I've revisited this one.  If I had to make up my own interpretation, it seems to me that the servants are like the various Churches, the talents their members, and the investment evangelism.

Possible, especially given the conclusion that Matthew gives to the parable (Matthew 25:28-30):

I don’t think Jesus had a conception of hell quite like the hell of modern Christianity, but “the darkness” and the place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” are certainly allusions consistent with Jesus’ ideas about the fate of those rejected from the coming kingdom of heaven.

What you and Kingdaddy both say is plausible, but yet again I find it inconsistent with Jesus’ other teachings. Take the message from the beatitudes for instance (Matt 5:5, 5:10 etc.) and elsewhere in the gospels (Matt 18:4 etc.) and you find that Jesus’ message is consitently that the roles in the coming kingdom will be reversed: those who have the least on earth will have the most in heaven. If we take this parable as an allegory of Jesus and his imminent return, we find this philosophy turned on its head: those who have the least will have even less when the “king” returns. Presuming the authenticity of the parable (which is hardly assured), I’m sure that Jesus had a message here that is consistent with his wider message, but I’m struggling to discern exactly what that message might be.

I agree that notions of Hell (and Heaven for that matter) have evolved quite a bit over the years. Since they allegedly impact all of us, and since we know relatively little about them, they are always going to be extensions of our own culture.

JP

That bit about the people who have the least having even less after His return is certainly puzzling, and I see what you mean about it contradicting the beattitudes. The whole of the parable seems to be talking about wise use of what the Master has given, though, not just whether a person is a have or a have-not. I think the issue here is the most and least [i]of what[/i]? What it is that will be reversed, such that those who have the least will have the most when Jesus returns? What it is that will be magnified, such that those who have little of it will have even less when He returns?

Couldn’t it be read as people using their abilities in the service of God.

The more faithful a servant you are, the better your God-given reward will be. This could not merely apply to the hereafter, but to the now. The more you devote yourself to the service of God, the better your life will be, not materially but spiritually.

One of the first things new religious movements do is to create an alternate currency. In the case of early Christians, the currency seems very service-based to me (later, during the Reformation, it became ‘faith’ at least that is my take on the historical events. But my knowledge of the Reformation has a Lutheran bent to it). So, those who provide service (to God) will be (spiritually) rewarded. This contrasts with the Jewish model where those who observe the proper rituals will be (spiritually) rewarded.

So, those who are already spiritually wealthy will continue to grow and develop beyond those who are less spiritually wealthy. Makes sense to me.

I see no contradiction or inconsistency.

The parables about those who have the most or are first will have the least or be last is simple enough to me. It is a natural law that can be proven in that you cannot elevate yourself, others must elevate you. One cannot praise ones self and gain any of the benefits of praise, it is up to others to praise you and elevate you; this law is true and working with many examples in reality.

The other parable that is posted here by the OP is simply about the evil intent of the servant that supposed the master to be evil and in turn his actions revealed that the evil belonged to him, not the master. All of this is aimed at those (like many atheist) that believe God to be evil because of the evil deeds of other humans, yet God had done nothing but give life and love and all other good gifts, yet he is blamed by the evil people for the cause of the evil that they themselves do. IOW, your judging God for the evil in your own heart, and projecting this upon his personality, which is bearing false witness or slander.

Atheists are ripe with this attitude and spend most of their time regarding religious discussion accusing God of the evil in their own heart. I can’t think of anything more worthy of death considering the damage it does to turn other weak souls away from God, truly these people are the bad apples that spoil the bunch and need to be separated. So I guess I can understand the addition at the end of the parable as a necessary killing or culling, but this is not murder as murder is a selfish act.

Atheists DON’T believe god is responsible for the ‘evil’ in this world any more than they (we) hold Micky Mouse responsible.

If you don’t believe god exists, how can you blame something that doesn’t exist for certain actions?

How can you blame a fictional character for ‘evil’ ?

.

Then you can understand the mind of the ‘terrorist’? They believe the exact same thing so maybe you should stop fighting them and join them?

PS: You have reinforced my belief that xtian extremists are no different from muslim, or any other religious extremists. In essence, they’re ALL exactly the same; just different brands.

PPS I used to be a christian but it was people like YOU who forced me into becoming an athiest. So, since it was people like YOU who “turn other weak souls away from God”, perhaps you should be killed too?

I suggest you start thinking of a good excuse when you have to front Jesus. He aint going to be happy about all the people like me who were turned off by the violence and boastful self righteousness of xtianity.

.

01.09.07.1855

Ucc, here’s the thing: I don’t dispute the overall meaning of the story that was intended, which is not too shabby of a moral guideline to go by… No, my argument goes deeper than that.

Amuse yourself for a moment to consider this. You are a great teacher who has succeeded in amassing many disciples, if not hundreds of followers. You tell them a story that has a relevant meaning behind it. Of course, being the teller and inventor of this story, you had intended to communicate one or more lessons. Now, in the course of your story, you have your protagonist do or say something to justify murder. What kind of message is your story sending aside from your overall moral teaching?

Let me go farther and be more specific. If you read the Parable of the Ten Minas, you would find that it would have been perfectly fine for the story to end one verse shorter. Really, look at it. I’m reading from an NIV copy I have; Luke 19:26 “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.” That is a perfectly fine ending for a story… the king (protagonist) proclaims a final decree for the people, and all is well. However, the whole ending shifts gears suddenly when on verse 27, the use of the word “but” suggests an addition. Mark 19:27 “‘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.’”
Seriously, that last verse is so dismal, so out of tune with the rest of the parable, that it just does not sound like it belongs as part of the story. Except… The only connection is with verse 14, where it says "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’ Again, the word “but”. Aside from the connection between verse 14 and 27, there is no other mention or potential connection to any other part in the parable regarding this matter. In fact, it is as likely just as possible that verse 14 was added in as well to set the stage for the finale of verse 27. When you remove verses 14 and 27, the parable is perfectly readable without any hint of a broken plot. Go ahead, exempt verses 14 and 27 and read the parable… you will find it surprisingly a perfectly fluid plot, more focused on the overall intended meaning that was initially meant to be communicated.

So now that I’ve explained that…

The possible answer is that Luke, or someone else, added in this last part to justify murder for the sake of (by example) Jesus. If not Luke then by some religious nut seeking to validate an interpolated ideal. This is the most likely. However, if in fact the bible is the pure and perfect truth, and that Jesus really did say those things, then he had communicated a second message in that parable. He had communicated that it was justifiable for his followers to kill in his name. So which is it?