Great Joke

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by walwor

None of that changes the boundaries of the parable. I'm afraid this is getting to be like a stalemated game of chess where neither of us is willing to give even the slightest bit of ground, and that is not conducive to a genuine debate of issues. I have an answer for you, and you have an answer for me. You make the following claim:

This forum is not a 'genuine debate' to see who can checkmate one another with one being the winner and the other the loser. Like all forums nothing more than the exchange of ideas although sometimes heated, is the purpose of posting.

Religion and politics are things that can never be won in a debate, as neither you nor I can prove anything to anyone. Faith and belief are not pawns on a chessboard. When you find that your points are effectively countered in any exchange, you find a debate where there is none.

Perhaps I have missed something, not having tried to find every post you have ever written, but I have seen several instances where you have started a thread trying to prove the Gospels as contradictory and written in "invisible flax" or whatever that was that you said, and now you are claiming that really you just want to be left alone. The truth is you obviously enjoy the whole debate. But I just can't continue arguing in circles with someone who doesn't see where a parable begins and ends, which is the only reason I got into this discussion. May the G-d of Israel show you all truth, and I add "in Jesus' name" because that's what I believe and how I pray.

You know you too seem to be arguing about what you believe with all your heart but no matter how many Bible quotes or verses from older versions in other languages you post, there is no proof. This is a forum to air our own perspectives and there is no way I wish to change yours nor can you change mine.

The real danger is when one or the other actually goes out to change other's beliefs in order to validate our own unproved beliefs or in your case some kind of free salvation from your sins.

If you want to use this forum as a tool to proselitize, then go to a Christian chat line where you can discuss your points of views with the choir. Otherwise you can openly discuss your ideas where you can try to disprove other persons points but don't imagine for a minute that this is a formal debate with winners and losers.

 

[walwor]

This forum is not a 'genuine debate' to see who can checkmate one another with one being the winner and the other the loser. Like all forums nothing more than the exchange of ideas although sometimes heated, is the purpose of posting.

Religion and politics are things that can never be won in a debate, as neither you nor I can prove anything to anyone. Faith and belief are not pawns on a chessboard. When you find that your points are effectively countered in any exchange, you find a debate where there is none.

You are over-using my "chessboard" reference. Obviously faith and belief are not pawns on a chessboard, they are the chessboard. No matter, my purpose has not been to proselytize, but to set the record straight. You persist in incorrectly attributing to Jesus a scenario in which He says to His disciples, "Bring me my enemies to be slain before me," and I have tried to do no more than to get you to see that that is a quote in a parable. My reason for making this distinction is that you have used this out-of-context quote to further the notion you have that Jesus was preaching violence, which just isn't the truth. I am simply asking you to acknowledge what is in the text, not to concede on a point of faith, but you sidestep by complaining that G-d shouldn't speak in parables, and that there are too many translations of the New Testament, and those are points for a different discussion. You are defending your ideas against all comers, I give you that, but in the course of doing so you are unwilling to yield even the tiny bit of ground it would take to acknowledge that you have taken this quote from the parable out of context, and that is the point I was making with my "chessboard" analogy. As far as this not being a forum for "genuine debate," I believe this is a forum for whatever we wish. When I engage in this lengthy a discussion with someone it is because I believe it is worthwhile, and because I see the other person as being worth debating. I don't like flame wars, although I do occasionally engage in them because I am human and I get angry. I have backed off getting into one with you because I don't want to flame with someone with who has the same pro-Israel opinions as I do. But even if I were arguing with a Muslim about something Mohammed said, I still wouldn't take it out of context to prove a point, because it wouldn't be the truth.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

You are over-using my "chessboard" reference. Obviously faith and belief are not pawns on a chessboard, they are the chessboard. No matter, my purpose has not been to proselytize, but to set the record straight. You persist in incorrectly attributing to Jesus a scenario in which He says to His disciples, "Bring me my enemies to be slain before me," and I have tried to do no more than to get you to see that that is a quote in a parable. My reason for making this distinction is that you have used this out-of-context quote to further the notion you have that Jesus was preaching violence, which just isn't the truth.

Now that we have estabished that this is not a debate but simply a clarification of Luke 19:27, lets take a closer look at this Jesus' parable.

You state that Jesus was actually quoting somebody else and that we simply mustn't think that he would ever urge anyone to do anything as impolite as slay his enemies! Heaven forbid.

Never mind that the entire parable is not at all clear that he was, in fact, quoting anybody else. Never mind that - if as you say he was quoting someone else like the Nobelman- he certainly seems to have been quoting them approvingly. For he immediately in the next sentence does not condemn the nobleman's call to kill his enemies, Jesus simpy ascends to Jerusalem. What lesson is the reader of this parable to learn?

You say that I took this parable out of context." Christians judge communications and parables on the results of what appears to be Jesus' agreeing with the nobleman: the proof is in the pudding--is it working? For many centuries, people have been misunderstanding this parable. The Catholic Church and the Popes during the Inquisition, took Luke 19:27 very literally, and had dissenters cruelly, brutally murdered in public. Someone else who was confused by his biblical upbringing was Adolf Hitler.

It might have been better if Jesus came right out and clearly said it is wrong to bring one's enemies before them and NOT SLAY them.

 

[walwor]

You state that Jesus was actually quoting somebody else and that we simply mustn't think that he would ever urge anyone to do anything as impolite as slay his enemies! Heaven forbid.

I don't understand your point of view on this. Didn't G-d slay His enemies? Didn't the Israelites slay the Canaanites? Is there not the promise of G-d, "Vengeance is Mine?" Don't the prophets indicate that G-d will be avenged on His enemies? Why, then, is this parable such a stumbling block for you? I will say again, that the nobleman in the parable is Jesus at His second coming- an event which is still in the future, at the culmination of Armageddon. In your own opinion, when the Messiah comes, will He or will He not have vengeance on the enemies of G-d?

Never mind that the entire parable is not at all clear that he was, in fact, quoting anybody else. Never mind that - if as you say he was quoting someone else like the Nobelman- he certainly seems to have been quoting them approvingly. For he immediately in the next sentence does not condemn the nobleman's call to kill his enemies, Jesus simpy ascends to Jerusalem. What lesson is the reader of this parable to learn?

I've stated the lesson of the parable. The reader, or listener, is to learn not to hoard the gifts of G-d. Jesus adds the final verse about slaying of enemies to emphasize that this is no idle thing, that on His return there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" as He states in other verses. If you look back, you will see where I examined this parable verse by individual verse to indicate the boundaries of the parable and who in the parable is speaking. Before we talk about the meaning of the parable, we have to agree on what verses constitute the parable, and you are still not convinced.

Let me give you an example of dealing with yourself on this. Let's say I am one of those who seeks to disprove the Bible. I point out the following verses of Isaiah 22:

"[12] And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth:
[13] And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die."

"Here," I say, "we have an example of Isaiah contradicting the word of the Lord, telling us there is joy and gladness when the Lord says there should be weeping and mourning. Isaiah tells his listeners to just eat and drink wine, for tomorrow we'll be dead. What kind of morality is it to teach his listeners to just eat and drink wine and do no good works? It proves Isaiah was no prophet, that he contradicted his own words...etc., etc."

Now let's say you argue with me, convinced I can be made to see reason. But no matter what you say, I will refuse to see that verse 13 is still the Lord talking and condemning, but I will insist it is Isaiah himself saying this, and when you have tired yourself explaining the obvious 10 times over, I will say, "See, you are just frustrated because your position is wrong." Fun, huh?

 

[upset1]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Another:

Question: Why did the Israelis kill a religious leader?
Answer: They were practicing for Easter.

Real Answer: The Isrealis answered the prayers of that religious leader.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

I don't understand your point of view on this. Didn't G-d slay His enemies? Didn't the Israelites slay the Canaanites? Is there not the promise of G-d, "Vengeance is Mine?" Don't the prophets indicate that G-d will be avenged on His enemies? Why, then, is this parable such a stumbling block for you? I will say again, that the nobleman in the parable is Jesus at His second coming- an event which is still in the future, at the culmination of Armageddon. In your own opinion, when the Messiah comes, will He or will He not have vengeance on the enemies of G-d?

Walwor you really are a trip. It seems that you just create boundaries and hidden meanings that you find in Luke 19.

NO G-d in the Old Testament ever did say to slay His enemies before Him. Your analogy is like comparing lamp posts to moon beams.

Jesus said in his returning Nobleman parable on the second appearance or his second coming in Luke 19:27 as the Nobleman.

Luke 19

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

You use the comparisons of this parable with the Hebrews (not yet Israelites) killing the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites being only one of those who occupied the land. You then quote that G-d said vengeance is mine followed by Old Testament prophets who foresee G-d’s vengeance on His enemies.

Jesus aka the nobleman state in a ‘parable’ that those who don’t think they should be ruled over by Christ or a later appearance of Jesus as the Nobleman should be slain in his presence.
In the Old Testament, it is not G-d who wants Joshua and the Hebrew people to slay the people of the land simply because they didn’t believe on the One G-d and Creator.

The Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites were all to be slain because they were immoral evil peoples who sacrificed their children in fires to their primitive gods. Also that the continued existence of these people could pollute the Hebrews with the existence of a foreign god who wanted children burned in flames.

It was G-d Himself that commanded the Hebrews to battle these evil people but there is no reference that G-d wanted them slain before Him. Even though these people were stronger and mightier than the Hebrews, G-d made these people to become weakened and confused just like the Arab countries who attack Israel to this very day in five wars.

When G-d said that “vengeance was His”, He was referencing that men should not kill other human beings in response to being attacked or killed but that is to be left to G-d Himself. In other words G-d did not order the Hebrews to slay anyone because they DON’T BELIEVE ON HIM…

G-d did not say through the prophets that He would destroy those who did not believe in G-d but instead that those nations that came against Israel and His people would be destroyed by G-d Himself and not by the hand of any man. In other words He is not asking any humans to slay the enemies of Israel but that G-d would destroy these people like He did with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

There is just no analogy between your Luke 19 parable and the
Old Testament G-d.

I've stated the lesson of the parable. The reader, or listener, is to learn not to hoard the gifts of G-d. Jesus adds the final verse about slaying of enemies to emphasize that this is no idle thing, that on His return there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" as He states in other verses. If you look back, you will see where I examined this parable verse by individual verse to indicate the boundaries of the parable and who in the parable is speaking. Before we talk about the meaning of the parable, we have to agree on what verses constitute the parable, and you are still not convinced.

So if I correctly understand your interpretation of this parable you are saying 1) that hoarding his gifts will result in their being slain on his return as a Nobleman and/or 2) that those who do not want to be reigned over by Christ are to be slain in his presence by others?

Yes you have outlined your boundaries of this parable to say what you think it says. You think that I should be convinced of your parables meaning because you have found restrictions within it and you find that newer versions which change words to make the parable meaning clearer. As I last stated, the opinion of the Christian world has used this parable over the centuries to persecute, torture and murder the Jewish people who ‘refused to have him reign over them.’ Your parable boundary arguments just don’t hold water as it appears that Christianity has seen this parable in a very different light than you.


Let me give you an example of dealing with yourself on this. Let's say I am one of those who seeks to disprove the Bible. I point out the following verses of Isaiah 22:

"[12] And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth:
[13] And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die."

"Here," I say, "we have an example of Isaiah contradicting the word of the Lord, telling us there is joy and gladness when the Lord says there should be weeping and mourning. Isaiah tells his listeners to just eat and drink wine, for tomorrow we'll be dead. What kind of morality is it to teach his listeners to just eat and drink wine and do no good works? It proves Isaiah was no prophet, that he contradicted his own words...etc., etc."

This is typical of those who twist this Isaiah verse which clearly says but is not veiled in parables. If you read the entire Isaiah 22 chapter, you will see that this is the prophet telling the Hebrew people that because of their iniquity and sins, He will punish them into exile from the land promised to their forefathers. History has clearly shown this occurred and all except the tribe of Judah who stayed in the south of Israel were taken off into the Diaspora. Ergo the prophecy of Isaiah came true and he was a true prophet.

Now read from the KJV version of this Isaiah 22 chapter:

Isaiah 22:17-18

17 Behold, the L-RD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.
18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

Do you see what Isaiah the prophet was actually referring to unabiguously?

Now let's say you argue with me, convinced I can be made to see reason. But no matter what you say, I will refuse to see that verse 13 is still the Lord talking and condemning, but I will insist it is Isaiah himself saying this, and when you have tired yourself explaining the obvious 10 times over, I will say, "See, you are just frustrated because your position is wrong." Fun, huh?

I choose not to argue or debate with you but simply to discuss and contrast your interpretation of Luke. You can say that I do not understand your view no matter how many ways you try to convince me. You seem to be the one frustrated as you have proved yourself wrong. Having fun yet?

 

[walwor]

aj-

Can I infer that, finally, after our long and winding thread of messages, that you are agreeing with me, not as to the substance of the parable, but at least as to which verses constitute the parable (which is what I meant by the "boundaries" of it)? That you are seeing that the verse of contention, Luke 19:27, was spoken by the nobleman in the parable, albeit the parable was being told by Jesus, which was the one thing I was trying to get across all along?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

aj- Can I infer that, finally, after our long and winding thread of messages, that you are agreeing with me, not as to the substance of the parable, but at least as to which verses constitute the parable (which is what I meant by the "boundaries" of it)? That you are seeing that the verse of contention, Luke 19:27, was spoken by the nobleman in the parable, albeit the parable was being told by Jesus, which was the one thing I was trying to get across all along? [/QUOTE]

1) Agree that you say that Luke 19 is a parable
2) Siince I can go only by main stream Christian denominations that the King James Version are not the same boundaries you find in said parable and have not been understandable to most Christians in your conclusions. i.e., their interpretation and use of this verse to murder the Jewish people over the centuries.
3) Agree that the Nobleman aslo known as Jesus wanted to slay those who did not believe in his divinity
4) I understand that you have found alternative meanings to this Luke 19 verse by boundaries in a parable which have not and are currently not accepted by mainstream Christianity.
5) That G-d either destroys by His own 'hand' those who are evil and obiminations to morality or gives the power and might to destroy evil but in no way does He order others to slay those who do not believe on Him.

YEP......

 

[walwor]

aj-

Well, Halleluiah, and Phew! What a struggle. I really think we should agree on the text under discussion BEFORE we attempt to debate its meaning. In any event, if you agree that the verse at hand is not spoken by Jesus to His disciples as a direct command, "Come slay My enemies before me right now," then you have to remove this verse from your list of evidence that Jesus, during His ministry, called for slaying people, implying that during His earthly ministry Jesus was an insurgent.

Your other point, that Christians later used this verse to justify persecuting or slaying Jews, may be true, but you can't apply meaning to what someone says based on how others interpret it. I prefer, and so do many Christians who support Israel, to look not at what Scriptural verses have been interpreted as, but what they actually say and mean. This may be a position unique to this place and time in history, but never too late, I say.

If we continue this discussion at all, let it be under a different or new thread, as I am tired of seeing the name of the originator of this thread every time I come here to read your responses, and his so-called "Great joke" which is probably the stupidest thing I've read on this board.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by walwor

Well, Halleluiah, and Phew! What a struggle. I really think we should agree on the text under discussion BEFORE we attempt to debate its meaning. In any event, if you agree that the verse at hand is not spoken by Jesus to His disciples as a direct command, "Come slay My enemies before me right now," then you have to remove this verse from your list of evidence that Jesus, during His ministry, called for slaying people, implying that during His earthly ministry Jesus was an insurgent.

Don’t be so certain as yet about who said what about ‘slaying my enemies in front of me’ in the Luke verse. You said, and I quote, Walwor “I will say again, that the nobleman in the parable is Jesus at His second coming- an event which is still in the future, at the culmination of Armageddon.”

In the parable, if it is really Jesus abeit the Nobleman in the second coming saying that he, Jesus Christ, in a future return wants his enemies slain in front of him because they do not believe that he is god or that they hoard funds given to them by Jesus, what is the lesson Christ was taking to get across in his parable?

Your other point, that Christians later used this verse to justify persecuting or slaying Jews, may be true, but you can't apply meaning to what someone says based on how others interpret it.

Why not? Christianity for the most part has interpreted this Luke verse as it reads in the parable of Jesus and later being the Nobleman wanting to slay his enemies (the Jews) because they refuse to believe a man’s word that he is a god. In the second part of this statement, how can I apply meaning to what someone (you) says based on how you interpet it?

I prefer, and so do many Christians who support Israel, to look not at what Scriptural verses have been interpreted as, but what they actually say and mean. This may be a position unique to this place and time in history, but never too late, I say.

Your statement makes very little sense to me. Jesus’ enmity toward his Jewish enemies who refuse to believe his divinity and possible hoard money that he has given them (parable understanding). Why do you think Christians support Israel now? How can Christianity support 1) those who allegedly killed Christ 2) who do not believe that he was anything but an ordinary man or 3) are the sons of the devil or Satan? Could it possibly be for another reason like the New Testament prophecy that before Christ can return for his second coming without Israel being in the hands of the Jews and the Temple being rebuilt? Is that the real reason?

If we continue this discussion at all, let it be under a different or new thread, as I am tired of seeing the name of the originator of this thread every time I come here to read your responses, and his so-called "Great joke" which is probably the stupidest thing I've read on this board.

Okay, lets go to USA Chat > Religion/Ethics > the Meaning of Parables. I will copy this response at that thread.