Are we required to kill unbelievers?

[intricatic]

I understand that is perhaps in this, that we conflict in our interpretations, because i do see your point, and I say that certain pieces just don't fit too well in this point, while others just say those pieces are irrelevant, but what i want to try and show you, is that when you place the parable, in it's earthly dwelling place, all the pieces are relevant.

This is the problem, though. To take this parable in a different form (to say the lord in the parable is not meant to imply Christ's relationship to His Church, to Israel) is to skew a lot of the other parables and render the messages into convolution.

As I pointed out with the Sower parables - what were these speaking to if not the same thing as Luke 19? Some aspects of your interpretation I agree with, such as;

A god of "Human esteem" is common in all of us. There are certain things that some of us object to, that we make our god of "human esteem" object to as well, such as in the church of my youth, that denied women the lord supper if they wore jewlery, tricking themselves into believing that our lord would be displeased by woman partaking in the lord supper with jewlery on, but instead it was not our true lord, but the lord they desired in that instance, and that is a lord of "human esteem". The lord the pharisees worshiped, was one of "human esteem". If the servant served his master, out of fear of him, void of love for him, he would be doing so for "human esteem", human praise, human rewards, human avoidance of punishment.

Though I don't agree that this god of human esteem is what Christ presents to us in the parable. The Pharisees did to Christ exactly what the citizens in the parable did to the master, though it wasn't them that Christ physically killed; indeed, Christ subjected Himself to their wrath and died, but He has yet to return to fulfill that aspect of the messianic image, no? The lord in the parable is doing nothing outrageous here, we're given no context to think that this lord was somehow unjust in his dealings with either the citizens or his servants. The ending verse adds an important detail, though;

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.
(Luke 19:26, RNKJV)

From the message itself, we know there is something more than what the sower parables present - this is the second half of the story. The sower parables spoke of the sower, the one sowing seed, but the seed were inanimate and impersonal. The focus was on the sower, and the way the seeds grow. In this parable, the focus is on the proverbial seed itself - the servant either grows or it does not grow and it regresses. The humble will be blessed, while the rebellious will not be; the first will be last, etc... 'The least of these' is not speaking of the servant with the least coins, but the servant who was least - the servant who worked good works, quietly, for his master. I don't see much humility in the last servant;

20 And another came, saying, Master, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 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.
(Luke 19:20-21, RNKJV)

But yet, how did the lord in the parable not sow or lay down what he now came to take up? Did the sower in the sower parables not sow his seed, simply because he didn't make them grow? The word used for austere in this passage is;

00840 840 austeros ow-stay-ros'
from a (presumed) derivative of the same as 109 (meaning blown); rough
(properly as a gale), i.e. (figuratively) severe:--austere.
see GREEK for 109
&
00109 109 aer ah-ayr'
from aemi (to breathe unconsciously, i.e. respire; by analogy, to
blow); "air" (as naturally circumambient):--air. Compare 5594.
see GREEK for 5594

Which is basically 'firm' or 'concrete' as adjectives. So this servant took the coin and hid it because he was afraid his master was firm in resolution - he knew his master would reward good works, and punish sloth. For what reason would this servant want to hide the coin, then? Why would he be afraid of doing what he knew his master wanted him to do? My assumption is that it wasn't out of fear that he hid the coin, but out of spite. That puts the explanation the servant gives the master in a more understandable light; the master did sow by giving the servants money to invest, and he did expect to reap something from that which he planted.

The best comparison, though, would be with the parable of the prodigal son;

17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
(Luke 15:17-24, RNKJV)

Which one of these two, the prodigal son or the final servant in the parable in Luke 19, showed humility to his master? Which one did not?

25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
(Luke 15:25-32, RNKJV)

 

[hithesh]

.

 

[GodIsGreat223]

Are we required to kill unbelievers?

Yes. If you dont get to them first, they will get you when you dont expect it.

 

[donkeykongrulez]

i believe they're called nonbelievers, but yeah we need to kill them before they kill us. decapitation is a plus.

 

[intricatic]

We are the ones, that take it from it's earthly context, and transplant it over to the heavenly realm, there is no reason to do so with the passages. In doing so it becomes hard to see my point, and that is why I asked the previous questions, so that we can bring the parable down to earth to examine it, since there is nothing in the parable that probids us from doing so.

I understand that is perhaps in this, that we conflict in our interpretations, because i do see your point, and I say that certain pieces just don't fit too well in this point, while others just say those pieces are irrelevant, but what i want to try and show you, is that when you place the parable, in it's earthly dwelling place, all the pieces are relevant.

The reason they're taken to the "Heavenly Realm" is because the simplicity of the gospel message is from the heavenly realm; this was a play on words through God to Moses in order to prove a point, which did not come until Christ.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
(Deuteronomy 30:11-14)

But the relevance of the passage in Matthew 24, 25, Luke 17, 18, 19... falls into the same form of parable that Christ Himself explained to the apostles and disciples - it was an established form towards the end of what a parable meant. For it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off...

18 "Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. " 19 "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. " 20 "But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; " 21 "Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. " 22 "He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. " 23 "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
(Matthew 13:18-23)

Can this format not be seen clearly in the parables in Luke 19, Matthew 25, etc..? Seeing the established pattern in Christ's parables speaks of a unilateral message where different elements are spoken of in each specific parable, but the format doesn't change in any drastic way overall.

 

[hithesh]

(Oh, truemyth, where have you gone?)

I apologize, for seeming as if I was avoiding your questions. I was not intentionally doing so.

1. If the king if the parable is the god of human esteem, what is the parable intended to prove, since the king wins?

The King does not win in this parable, he is not at peace. He is angry, he is frustrated, he wants people to be ruled under him, by force, and oppression.

Let's assume the 3rd servant put the money in the bank to collect intrest, but still felt the same way about the king, in this parable, would you assume he was acting, for the same reasons the man gave his colt to Christ? If the one servant placed the money in the bank, he would do so out of fear of his oppresor, while the man who gave his colt, did so out of love for his lord.

If the king in the parable only knew what would give him peace.

A god of "Human esteem" is common in all of us. There are certain things that some of us object to, that we make our god of "human esteem" object to as well, such as in the church of my youth, that denied women the lord supper if they wore jewlery, tricking themselves into believing that our lord would be displeased by woman partaking in the lord supper with jewlery on, but instead it was not our true lord, but the lord they desired in that instance, and that is a lord of "human esteem". The lord the pharisees worshiped, was one of "human esteem". If the servant served his master, out of fear of him, void of love for him, he would be doing so for "human esteem", human praise, human rewards, human avoidance of punishment.

Sometimes, in certain passages of our good book translators, change words like love your enemies, to pray for your enemies, for the same reason, for "human esteem", in this parable, the king is "human esteem" in only so much as we continue to view him as our lord.

On the parable:

I remember when I use to work in retail we had this one manager, he was a tyrant, and he was lazy. He'd use fear to get us to work, and during closing there would be tons of work to do, and he would just go downstairs watch tv, talk on the phone, while his workers toiled and did everything.

We didn't really like him much, but did what we were told, only to retain our jobs. Us, workers did the bare minimum for him, and then left for the day. This manager new we didn't like him much, he did not recieve the respect he sought for himself, from us, and this infuriated him.
If he only knew what would give him peace.

Now we had another manager, named Abby, and she was kind to us, treated us with respect, always helped us close, always got her hands dirty, to carry some of our burden. Us, workers did beyond what was required for her, because of her compassion for us. We would have gladly given up our colt. Sometimes the store would not have enough hours to grant, and we were understaffed, and yet if Abby was closing, us workers, would work off the clock, without pay, just to help her out. We where at peace, and she was at peace as well.

2. What is your response to verse 15? It seems to clearly place the action after it (including verse 27) following the king's return. That will have no effect on your interpretation, but under the traditional one your complaint was that verse 27 was unconscionable. You also claim that you don't have a problem with final judgment. How can you reconcile this?

I'm not too sure what the first part of this question is asking. But I'll try and answer the question the best way that I can. The king obtained his kingdom by force, much like the first manager who got us to work by force.

What we also tend to forget, is that when we are speaking of the words of our lord and savior, every word must mean something, every variation between different parts must mean something, and that is what i set out to prove.

Verse 27, doesn't spell out final judgement, there are no clear refrences to eternal punishment, neither is there one in matthew 24. In luke 19, we assume "ordering his servants to kill those who refuse to have his as king" emplies final judgement, in matthew 24 we assume throwing the servant out into the darkness, with wailing and gnashing of teeth, is eternal punishment. But, nothing about etenal fire, or fire in general is provided, to give us the defintive conclusion, that christ is refering to hell. Though hell perhaps contains, darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth", so does hell on earth, in a place many of us know as anger, and lack of love.

We are the ones, that take it from it's earthly context, and transplant it over to the heavenly realm, there is no reason to do so with the passages. In doing so it becomes hard to see my point, and that is why I asked the previous questions, so that we can bring the parable down to earth to examine it, since there is nothing in the parable that probids us from doing so.

I understand that is perhaps in this, that we conflict in our interpretations, because i do see your point, and I say that certain pieces just don't fit too well in this point, while others just say those pieces are irrelevant, but what i want to try and show you, is that when you place the parable, in it's earthly dwelling place, all the pieces are relevant.

 

[hithesh]

Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." 8

40 He said in reply, "I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!"

41 9 As he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it,

42 saying, "If this day you only knew what makes for peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes.

43 10 For the days are coming upon you when your enemies will raise a palisade against you; they will encircle you and hem you in on all sides.

Now any idiot can see, that those that are forced to be silent, are the enemies in verse 43, if you're not wise enough to agree to this, then don't even bother responding. (particulary when luke 20, show that the pharisee were afraid of the people, stoning them.

Now the question is, why would these enemies encircle the pharisees on all sides, as if the people were revolting?

Would you agree that the pharisees, ruled by force and oppression?

 

[intricatic]

hithesh, let me ask something because I'm terribly confused by this post. In this passage, Luke 19:40, which comes directly after the Pharisees tell Jesus to rebuke His disciples (or to reprimand them for saying things the Pharisees thought they aught not to be saying), are you implying that Christ is talking about the Pharisees when He replies with "...if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!"?

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from here, and I'm not sure if this isn't simply a misreading on my part. Please correct me if I've missed something.

 

[hithesh]

hithesh, let me ask something because I'm terribly confused by this post. In this passage, Luke 19:40, which comes directly after the Pharisees tell Jesus to rebuke His disciples (or to reprimand them for saying things the Pharisees thought they aught not to be saying), are you implying that Christ is talking about the Pharisees when He replies with "...if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!"?

No, "they" and "their enemies", are refering to the people/disciples.

Christ is talking to the pharisees when he says "if they keep silent, the stones will cry out", saying that if the pharisees keep the disciples/people silent their stones will cry out.

Stones implying anger.

When he speaks to them of their enemies encircling them, he is also speaking of the pharisees enemies, which would be the people they kept silent.

DO you agree thus far?

 

[intricatic]

No, "they" and "their enemies", are refering to the people/disciples.

Christ is talking to the pharisees when he says "if they keep silent, the stones will cry out", saying that if the pharisees keep the disciples/people silent their stones will cry out.

Stones implying anger.

When he speaks to them of their enemies encircling them, he is also speaking of the pharisees enemies, which would be the people they kept silent.

DO you agree thus far?

I think so, but I'm not certain. Christ would be dirrecting this portion at the Pharisees;

40 And he answered and said unto them, "I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

To mean (as the context is rather obvious) that even if He were to make His disciples stop proclaiming Him as the King (38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.), the stones even would declare it to them. But the prophecy, even the prophecy through the end of the chapter, was answered in the destruction of the temple, first at the crucifixion, and later at the literal destruction of the literal temple (the stones, the cornerstone, and the stones used in the construction of the temple that Jesus proceeds to teach in...).

47 And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him, 48 And could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him.

To which, what Christ knew obviously, and to what His followers knew obviously - as is pointed out by their proclamation of Him as their King - was that peace comes through Christ. As such He taught unmolested in the temple because so many came to hear Him.

(42 Saying, "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. ")

I'd say this was because the Pharisees cared far too much about the political power they wielded than living for God, whom they even claimed to serve.

 

[hithesh]

I'm sure you perhaps know plenty of christian preachers, you would say that resemble the pharisees.

So let's think along the lines of the real world, since this parable take place on earth, and not in the heavens.

The church of my youth, some months ago held, a VBS (vacation bible school) for the youth. They had our fresh young youth minister, (who was wildly respected among the youth, and loved by them , just like the people in jesus's time who loved John the Baptist.) leading the vbs.

The VBS was a spirtual success many came to god, the youth were happy. But the following sunday the senior church leaders rebuked the youth leaders, for using a "space theme" for the VBS.

Later the senior church leaders, took control of the youth ministry, and the young were no longer allowed to have a say. The youth were angry, and disheartened by these events.

Now if the leaders of church, continued doing what they were doing, oppressing the youth, keeping them silent, taking control of their "kingdom" against their will, what do you think the children will eventually do?

This is a simple question, that you do need to run to your bible for answers, just tell me what you think these children would do?

Would they do the same as those enemies chirst spoke of in the end, encircling the pharisees?

Tell me what do you think would happen, if these modern pharisees, kept the youth silent?

 

[intricatic]

I'm sure you perhaps know plenty of christian preachers, you would say that resemble the pharisees.

So let's think along the lines of the real world, since this parable take place on earth, and not in the heavens.

I agree, many do. That had been one of the biggest problems with my finding a Church up until I found the one I now attend. But the parable is most certainly in the world just as much as Christ was, and just as much as the temple in Israel that was torn down some years later by the Roman occupation was.

The church of my youth, some months ago held, a VBS (vacation bible school) for the youth. They had our fresh young youth minister, (who was wildly respected among the youth, and loved by them , just like the people in jesus's time who loved John the Baptist.) leading the vbs.

The VBS was a spirtual success many came to god, the youth were happy. But the following sunday the senior church leaders rebuked the youth leaders, for using a "space theme" for the VBS.

Later the senior church leaders, took control of the youth ministry, and the young were no longer allowed to have a say. The youth were angry, and disheartened by these events.

Now if the leaders of church, continued doing what they were doing, oppressing the youth, keeping them silent, taking control of their "kingdom" against their will, what do you think the children will eventually do?

This is a simple question, that you do need to run to your bible for answers, just tell me what you think these children would do?

Would they do the same as those enemies chirst spoke of in the end, encircling the pharisees?

Tell me what do you think would happen, if these modern pharisees, kept the youth silent?

I should hope they wouldn't rise up and kill the leaders, as this would be a contradiction to what Christ Himself taught the people. Leave them? Most surely, and so did the people in Israel leave the Pharisees to follow Christ around en mass. Perhaps this had something to do with why they wanted to kill Him so much. Losing followers isn't something political powers enjoy as it tends to corrupt their ability to hold any form of control without violence against the very people whom they wish to lead, which then marks the decline of their rule.

I did have an experience very similar to this when I was growing up, though, and I understand where you're going with it. Would these leaders have been able to keep these children silent, though? It wouldn't have mattered, the children would either have lost faith, or run off to another youth group that fit more in line with the love the original youth leader showed them. In Israel at the time, things were far more complicated because the Pharisees really didn't hold much power, it was already beginning to be forced into obsolescence by the Roman's occupation, and they knew it quite well. This probably played a very large part in why they reacted to Christ the way they did; they wanted to consolidate their power by cooperating with the Romans.

And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
(Luke 19:44, KJV)

This can be taken twofold as well; they shall not leave in thee one stone.... stones, the followers of Christ, which compose the spiritual temple which Christ became, and the very stones of the temple which would soon be destroyed by the Romans. The love of power that caused them to stumble over the very salvation God had sent them, though they saw the signs better than even the people who accepted Christ as King for the love He showed them, became the reward that they received for placing their faith in passing, temporal things. What should be thought provoking about this is that Christ wept over their rejection, He wanted nothing but for them to accept Him so that they might find His peace.