Luke 19:27 Jesus said, "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
Is it OK for Christians to kill non-believers?
Or is it only a justified act in his presence?
Jesus was speaking of a third person. The nobleman after feeling cheated would say bring these enemies of mine .....and slay them in my presence.
Jesus was not making such a command.
How convenient that man can pick and choose which "inspired words from God" are stated in a literal or metaphorical "third person" fashion. Yet i suppose that all of the scriptures that speak of Jesus as loving and caring, well, those are just obviously in literal context. But scriptures about Jesus being violent, or God's desire for bloodshed sacrifice, or the earth being a flat circle, well those are purely metaphorical. How very very convenient.
I wasn't picking and choosing. The verse that you quoted is the last verse of a story that Jesus was telling. The story began (v. 12) " a certain Noble man went into a far country......... And he gave.... And then one gave back 10.... and then he said bring them before me and kill them.
Jesus was telling a story about a third person.
It is too easy to jump to wrong conclusions when we pay attention to only one verse.
Yes, I am quite familiar with the passage, and yes I realize that Jesus was telling a story here, but you must note that Jesus would always speak in parables in regards to himself and God. When Jesus spoke of the very known story of the "good Samaritan", was he not implying a teaching from the story? Yes, he was, just as he does in this story.
It is true that the "story" (Luke19) could have been speaking of when the Lord God judges upon judgment day the thieves will be punished. I was saying earlier that Jesus did not say for the disciples, or you, or me to kill anyone.
Hay friendly how is it going. in answer to your question ; if you were talking to me? I'd have to say neither
Jesus was violent. You find other examples all through the NT.
I recall Jesus and the pharisees in the temple, for example.
I don't remember Jesus ever hurting anyone? He was trying to hurt a few feelings of the religious folks that were acting like 3 year olds that thought that they were invisible in their hypocritical behavior.
And he threw a few tables around one day. I think that he only threw that temper tantrum to make sure that the high priest became mad enough to hurry up a little more than they were planning to??? I think they killed him the next day.
Violent doesn't mean hurting someone physically. Jesus was violent in a psychological way.
A true Revolutionary.
If I have read any thing like that I don't remember that either. I do remember him telling some of the children
(as mentioned above) that they were going to be punished if they didn't quidit.
I agree with you Tantrum. Jesus was very mentally abusive at times, but he's not near as violent as his father, the ruthless and bloodthirsty God of Abraham, known as Yahweh. Maybe that's why Jesus is seen as such a pure and loving character. In comparison to his father, just about anyone could be labeled as a saint.
There are alot of passages from the bible, that if you read them nowadays, you just kind of shake your head. Times are different now, and there are laws that govern what a person can or cannot do. Leviticus 19:19 says that you should not wear clothing of mixed types, like mixing linen and wool. Leviticus 19:27 says "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." Does this mean that the Beatles, and anyone else with a bowl haircut (Jack from Jack in the Box most recently) will be going to Hell? Or 1 Timothy 2:9 where it says that He will pray for women with "broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."
In many ways the Bible is out dated. I do not believe that any one follows it to the T, so to speak. However, this does not give you a license to kill.
I agree Jaremi.
It is real easy to confuse between parable and first person situations. Thats why so many think they see contradictions and errors in it's corpus, but hey it is an abtuse and monotonous read, but .
Almost everyone that has ever read THE BIBLE holds onto misconceptions as to what scripture actually says. Yes there are some pretty rough statements that is written that the Lord was to have said.
One or two misinterpretations of scripture is like loosing a weight on a sport cars tire. It gets outa balance and ya can not drive so fast. Pretty soon the tire itself gets out of round and then it starts jumping all over the place.
First off, who has the right to claim which scriptures are literal or metaphorical? Scriptures that sound warm and fuzzy are labeled "inspired words from our loving God" and the oppositional, grotesque, disturbing scriptures, "well whoever wrote those just took gods thoughts out of context, don't take this scripture literal" even though 2 Timothy 3:16 states "All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." So according to this scripture Luke 19:27 should be used for "disciplining in righteousness", after all, this scripture would fall under the category of "All scripture is inspired by God" It doesn't read "Some, or most scripture is inspired by God". Who knows, maybe 2 Timothy 3:16 is one of the metaphorical scriptures...................... Again, how very convenient.
I take that scripture that Jesus is said to have said as literal. Jesus literally told many stories. He told one story about someone picking at a splinter out of someone else's eye while that person had a plank in their eye. Would you then assume that people were walking around with pieces of lumber literally poked in their eyes.
I continue to express my belief that we should read the prophetic scriptures with understanding before we attempt to understand those stories that is taught by describing what someone else might do. we need a firm foundation before we pile a bunch of crap on top of it that does not fit.
We build a house on a firm foundation and then add one piece of lumber at a time and before ya know it; it is time to move the furniture in. If we have to build the house around the furniture the walls are going to be crooked.
As far as all scripture being inspired by God. What scripture was he talking about at the time.
Well Luke was written in 56-58 A.D, which was before 2 Timothy, which was written in 65 A.D. So yes, Luke 19:27 falls under that category of "All scripture is inspired by God" because Luke was written years before 2 Timothy. 2 Timothy 3:16 doesnt read "All scripture before such and such date is inspired by God" it clearly states " ALL scripture is inspired by God". All, not Some, or the pretty ones. ALL SCRIPTURE.
I have never thought that while the disciples were speaking and writting their letters that They ever considered their own teachings as "THE SCRIPTURES" It was not until 325 that these letters were called scripture. At least that is my understanding.
Please tell me you are bored, or your trying to promote your hubs!!!
Regardless of belief, the Bible....the King James, New International, or Precious Moments....whatever the case, book that is being referred to, is a collection of man-made ideas.
Whether written in Greek, Latin, Armenian, English, or German, it is a collection of human language, selected out of a much larger pool of overall written thought dubbed "Christian."
Who determines what "books" become "epistles" and which ones are made to disappear? Was the Council of Nicea God in action?
Have Protestant revisions to the Roman Catholic canon been the offshoot of divine intervention?
Or was it based off the wills and desires of men?
Who determines what has been written down through the ages? The commoner?.....hardly.
From the ancient Coptic orders to the Gregorian, Greek-Orthodox, Roman Orthodox, and various diverse Protestant, New Age, and other "Christian" sects there are various human interpretations of selective written and unwritten ideas that can largely tend to conflict with one another.....not support.
Now, regarding this particular verse.......what does this "parable" have to do with the overall story?
What does this line of thought....expressed in this specific story, really represent?
From this can be derived the meaning of the 27th verse.
Let's see where this goes, shall we?
by rdhowell5 years ago
Some prominant theologians have asserted that St. Paul's theology appears to be universalistic in its overall thrust. One isolated passage can be used to illustrate the idea:Romans 5:18 â��Therefore just as one...
by Alexander A. Villarasa16 months ago
Humans, from way back when we started language as a communication tool, used metaphors as a linguistic mechanism to express otherwise abstract ideas into something concrete. Linguists have argued that...
by jerami7 years ago
Jane Bovary wrote:Okay, I see. For the sake of argument, what if you came across a saying from Jesus that did strongly contradict your own moral sense? Jerami wrote Just for discusions sake; could you...
by Cranfordjs15 months ago
People, please stop using the question section to post. I hate leaving comments on questions because people take advantage of the one response rule to take a shot at the previous comments. This forum is inspired by a...
by schoolgirlforreal3 years ago
When we explain salvation to people who want to know, we use "Roman's Road" which are verses from Romans,"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. " Romans 3:23"For the wages of...
by denden mangubat4 years ago
Some says that the" two witnesses" mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible are Enoch and Elijah.But according to thewarningsecondcoming.com, the two witnesses are the Christians and the House of Israel
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.