Luke 19:27 Jesus: 'But those mine enemies...slay them before me.'

a reply to: Profusion

I never noticed this before. I can tell you it isn't new though.

It is very out of character for a pacifist to say. I'm no fan of religion and I would imagine this was written to make the fall of Jerusalem look like Jesus' revenge.

Retro prophecy.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: Istaywoke77
a reply to: peskyhumans

And out of all the Koran verses you quoted, all I heard was " an eye for an eye"

-" And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out" = " an eye for an eye

You are neither a Theologian nor Muslim, nor a well read Christian. How about focus on YOUR relationship with YOUR heavenly Father and leave other folks be.... that would be the Christian thing to do. Love even those who are your enemy and stay far, FAR away from standing in judgement of others.

I read the Bible every day, and have for over 5 years. I am born again and will serve the Lord Jesus for eternity in heaven, of that I am very certain.

But from what you've said, if you died right now you would burn in Hell for all eternity. I encourage you to find Christ and abhor those things that are evil, such as the religion of islam.

You have no idea if the Bible tells a true story or a myth and have no problem telling people they would burn hell?

You must have missed the judge not, lest ye be judged section.

Christians threatening people with hell is common and comes from a feeling of contempt for the spiritually free. You know you can't hurt us so your threats are relegated to the afterlife and your opinion on what you think should be their fate.

Enlightenment awaits you.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Profusion

Funny stuff, as far as I am aware, Jesus didn't have any enemies, so this statement is a bit of a catch 22. Looks more like a test to find out if his followers were listening, maybe separate the intelligent from the idiots?

Cheers - Dave

His enemies are Satan and the servants of Satan (muslims).

I am pretty sure Muslims don't serve Satan and have the same God and basic beliefs as Christians.

If anything Christians would be his servants as Satan has to be subtle or his lies will be obvious. Satan is way more influential in Christianity than in Islam where he is just the adversary and tempter.

It is Christians who claim Satan is a powerful being, yet the Old Testament makes it clear he is completely subservient and obedient to YHVH. clearly Christians like Satan because they call him the prince of this world and claim he is in charge of earth.

I don't see Muslims giving Satan the title of prince of the world or claiming God put him in charge of earth.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Profusion

This is a parable. He is not speaking literally.

The story is about a king who goes away for a time and leaves his faithful servants with a coin each. While he is away, he made king of all even though people do not all wish it and some hate him for it. When he returns, he asks what the servants have done with their coins. The first two have each managed returns, one ten-fold, one five-fold. The third has simply hidden the coin away. The king is angry with the one who hid the coin away and orders his coin taken and given to the man who made a ten-fold return. Then he orders the ones who hated him for being king to be brought before him and killed.

This is an obvious parable of Christ himself and his followers. The coins are the Holy Spirit. The judgment at the end is referring to what will happen on the day of Christ's return when he judges the survivors. Those who turn away from Him and hate Him will be cast away.

Nothing about the religion has changed.

You are correct in the section that statement appears after a parable.

But the parable had ended and the words were not the words of a character in the parable. The parable part ended.

Jesus himself said the words maybe not as a command, but a statement of vengeance and violence not in line with the teachings of a pacifist, literal or otherwise.

And the specific parable was nonviolent in nature about a nobleman and his slaves return on investment. No reason to sum it up with a declaration of war and promise to slay his enemies, it doesn't enhance the meaning of the parable it is just unnecessary. The parable goes from making the most of what you have been given to "I'll kill my enemies.". Makes Jesus look nuts.



So to say that it is relevant to the parable and therefore shouldn't be taken literally is incorrect.

It shouldn't be taken literally because it was not said literally. It was still an unnecessary and violent, disturbing thing for the saviour of Catholicism to say. Christianity doesn't like to deal with it so they say it is part of a parable, but it is after the parable was over that he said it.

So it was just a violent statement with no substance.

a reply to: Parazurvan

Actually no... it was part of the parable

a reply to: Profusion

The context is a parable talking about a King not literally Yeshua, but again

Matt 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

a reply to: Akragon

No it wasn't the parable was over.

It was in the same paragraph but his story was over and he was speaking as himself something not related to the parable.

It is a sudden departure, but a departure still. It added nothing to the parable, wasn't a punch line and the content was unrelated as if he changed the subject.

If it made the parable make sense or had anything at all to do with what he had just said I would agree with you. But it is not based on the parable or a part of it in any way.

a reply to: Parazurvan

no it is part of the parable...

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

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

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.

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

Done

28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

a reply to: Akragon

Move the done up two numbers and I agree. Otherwise I fully examined the text before commenting and am certain of what I say, even your version reads the same way to me.

They are not the King's words, the story was over. They were Jesus words and after as well as not related to the parable.

Even the quotations in my Bible signal the end of the parable, maybe you don't have the ' to signal the end of the quotation within the " greater quotation, but mine does.

a reply to: Parazurvan

The verse makes no sense in the context of the rest of the passage if its not part of the parable...

Jesus wasn't a dictator... or a warlord...

Or even a "nobleman" as its stated in the passage...

HE would have no reason to say such a thing other then in an allegorical sense

that would mean it was added to the text, except it fits the parable perfectly...

Even the quotations in my Bible signal the end of the parable, maybe you don't have the ' to signal the end of the quotation within the " greater quotation, but mine does.

See i don't care about the commentary or quotations in bibles of any sort...

I can read perfectly fine

a reply to: Akragon

The nobleman was not a warlord either. He had ambition but:


I don't think it makes sense for either of them to say it but I do know how to read punctuation and I have what I have and I would imagine you have the same. I'm NRSV, what do have?

a reply to: Parazurvan

KJV is the only bible i read...

but i have all the versions

all of which agree... said verse can only be part of the parable...

such a statement wouldn't ever come from what is written of Jesus... not even in the Apocryphal books

Or gnostic for that matter...

in fact the only thing that comes close is found in Infancy gospels... when Jesus was a naughty child

a reply to: Akragon

Well I am going to have to disagree because even without punctuation it does not belong to the speech of the king which, whether it makes sense or not, ended and Jesus began speaking for himself.

It is not the only time he waxes violent. That is more of a parable of its own, a more profound parable that is easy to miss if your not looking.

That is in line with Jesus behavior to be subtle knowing not everyone will catch it.

a reply to: Akragon

Really? " Think not that I came to bring peace, but the sword."

Multiple references to eternal damnation.

I think you are mistaken.

If he wasn't actually ordering his enemies death, he was being hypothetical like his other violent comment.

Plus it actually came true. His enemies were defeated.

a reply to: Parazurvan

no...

There was only one recorded time where he was actually violent

except in the infancy gospels...

the verse is clearly part of the parable. The very next verse tells the reader it is a new part of the story... he finished the parable which can be referenced in many other passages in the gospels

28 And when he had thus spoken

a reply to: Parazurvan

Really? " Think not that I came to bring peace, but the sword."

Does not the sword bring division?

it wasn't a literal sword... but the division of the spiritual and the carnal

(physical based mind)

a reply to: Akragon

Either way Jesus has a major role in the Apocalypse that is really his show and that is violence OT style.

But I agree not a literal sword

Just as he doesn't literally want his enemies brought to him to kill.



And a nobleman trying to become king is not going to assign that task to three slaves. So you can rule out that comment as having come from the nobleman.

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Profusion

Fascinating: The thread appeals to 3 of the hottest topics on ATS; Islam; Christianity; Mandela Effect!

I am leaving before the house burns down.

Too late ... already happened ....


3rd Crusade
1191 a.d.
27 Rajab, [August 20]
In the afternoon of Tuesday, about four o'clock

King Richard The Lionheart personally oversaw the execution of thousands of Muslims.



Beha-ed-Din was a member of Saladin's court and (along with much of the Saracen army who watched from a distance) witnessed the massacre of 2,700 of his comrades:

He did this because the Sultan did not fulfill his engagements and in consequence the prisoners were treated as those who would not that Jesus should rule over them. All told about 10,000 Muslims were executed after the siege of Acre. The Crusader kingdom was back! But the Sultan would not come out and play, thus abandoning all prisoners, ignoring all ransoms, and generally turtling for the duration. Eventually the Christians left for home, and the Sultanate started expanding again.

So... it already came true.

Mike Grouchy

Love the presentation of the post. Wish i had the patience to make posts like that!

a reply to: Profusion

I AM a Christian, but you are correct something has changed, back in the 1980's when I first read the bible there was a being described in the book of revelation, he was to overcome the beast and the kingdom of the beast, not to slay them that is for the lord himself but he had a number which was spoken of in the same way as the number of the beast and was Seven Threescore and Seven but were six threescore and six was the number the beast which was "A man" this number was "THE number of man".

I also recall other part's of the bible that have altered or morphed, it is literally like our reality has been blended with far darker and more evil one but that is just my take on it, Heck I even remember the description of God as Jacob saw him at bethel when he looked up and saw a lader reaching unto heaven, in my reality at least he was described as being a man like being with a face that shone like the sun, eye's that blazed white like coal's in a furnace, white hair and beard, hand's and feet like burnished brass reflecting the light of a furnace white robe down to his ankles with a golden belt or girdle around his chest, his crown was like a rainbow but with more colours and his throne which he stood before and amidst was like a sapphire and an emerald and also all the stone's described by john of patmos when he saw new Jerusalem, he though in Jacob's vision was not IN heaven he was OVER/ABOVE heaven.

Now thing's change, but let me ask you this, if you know in yourself they have changed and feel isolated like I did remember YOU have been given the gift of your reading before it changed, that reading is sealed in you and can not be lost, indeed it will outlast heaven and earth but you are I assure you not alone.


Remember also this, if you have left christianity because of it then you are in darkness, the other religion is not of God but it most certainly is of the one behind these changes and that one is non other than the Devil itself so I urge you to choose to return, christ did not call you so that the devil could have you.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Profusion

I AM a Christian, but you are correct something has changed, back in the 1980's when I first read the bible there was a being described in the book of revelation, he was to overcome the beast and the kingdom of the beast, not to slay them that is for the lord himself but he had a number which was spoken of in the same way as the number of the beast and was Seven Threescore and Seven but were six threescore and six was the number the beast which was "A man" this number was "THE number of man".

I also recall other part's of the bible that have altered or morphed, it is literally like our reality has been blended with far darker and more evil one but that is just my take on it, Heck I even remember the description of God as Jacob saw him at bethel when he looked up and saw a lader reaching unto heaven, in my reality at least he was described as being a man like being with a face that shone like the sun, eye's that blazed white like coal's in a furnace, white hair and beard, hand's and feet like burnished brass reflecting the light of a furnace white robe down to his ankles with a golden belt or girdle around his chest, his crown was like a rainbow but with more colours and his throne which he stood before and amidst was like a sapphire and an emerald and also all the stone's described by john of patmos when he saw new Jerusalem, he though in Jacob's vision was not IN heaven he was OVER/ABOVE heaven.

Now thing's change, but let me ask you this, if you know in yourself they have changed and feel isolated like I did remember YOU have been given the gift of your reading before it changed, that reading is sealed in you and can not be lost, indeed it will outlast heaven and earth but you are I assure you not alone.


Remember also this, if you have left christianity because of it then you are in darkness, the other religion is not of God but it most certainly is of the one behind these changes and that one is non other than the Devil itself so I urge you to choose to return, christ did not call you so that the devil could have you.

I'm sorry, not being disrespectful, but you have got to be joking that leaving Christianity is living in darkness.

There are other religions. Christianity is not the one true religion because it isn't one religion. There are thousands, with different beliefs and many Christians are in dark themselves as are many Muslims in light. The reverse is also true.

Light of a spiritual nature is not unique to Christianity.


Your ideology is spiritual bigotry. And ignorant.