@Matias No, but he was reported telling that parable where the king slaughtered all his people who didn't submit to him. And the one about the rich man being tormented in the flames of hell.

He also told the Samaritan woman that he wouldn't heal her daughter because he was only sent to the "house of Israel," and it wasn't right to take the "children's bread" and "throw it to the dogs (Gentiles)."

@Matias That's how I recall it as well

@Matias, @birdingnut Do you have the references for those two texts you have cited as I can't remember them. Perhaps we need a wider context.

@Matias, @birdingnut It is important to recognise that these texts were written some time after any historical event and for a particularly harsh and traditionalistic audience. Homily and allegory are essential for an oral culture. We mustn't forget also the rhetorical investment the authors may have had in cajoling their audience. That being said, the Gospels are tremendous literature from Late Antiquity. Read them as you would Chaucer or Thomas Hardy rather than religious propaganda and they come truly alive. I can't imagine how brilliant they would be in Classical Greek!

@Geoffrey51 Just google them! Luke 19:27- 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, He said those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

@Geoffrey51 Luke 16:19-31 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side

@Geoffrey51 Mark 7:25 as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

@Matias You've not written a profile or answered the profile questions, so I'm suspicious. Are a Trump follower?

@Geoffrey51 What?? People don't use Chaucer or Thomas Hardy to beat people over the head and as an excuse to vote for people like Trump and persecute minorities, destroy the environment, attack the LGBTQ community, oppress women, etc. Your analogy has nothing to do with the subject..you seem to be trying to present Christianity as harmless literature.

@birdingnut Hi Birdingnut. Please see below the contexts within which previous texts were written. These are not the words of a historical Jesus but an author on a mission, retrospectively creating a history

Luke - The Ten Talents - killing of the enemies

Contex. This is not the words of the author's Jesus but the words of the King within the story. Before the parable the tax collector has been enlightened.

It seems the point being made by the author to include this parable here is to juxtapose the insight gained by the tax collector against the intransigence and faithless demenour of the King's people. This is a brutal age and also overseen by The Roman Empire. Insurrection would mean the replacemnt of what Rome has seen as an ineffectual King. The only course of action is to ensure social stability.

Bearing in mind that Judea is a client state of Rome and the Herod's are hated by their subjects, we clearly see the situation that is being alluded to. Rome would not condone a rebellion against its state puppet. On the surface at least, the parable is a cautionary tale about toeing the line.

We can of course allegorise this as Jesus leaving his Kingdom and assessing those who have listened to his teachings and implemented them, but that is an essay in itself!

@birdingnut - Rich Man and Lazarus

The author here is not recommending the torture of the Rich Man. What is being referred to is Gehenna, a fiery rubbish dump on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Rabinnical Judaism frequently uses this location as a representation of Purgatory and so the text acknowledges the ultimate salvation of the Rich Man.

Hell, or eternal damnation was not an acknowledged concept in Rabbinic Judaism and so is not a consideration in this text. In fact there is no mention of Hell in either OT or The Gospels but gets a showing in Revelations. This means the idea of Hell was not an aspect of Christian Theology until around 70 AD. It is likely that the concept is inserted into the Christian doctrine from Roman/Greek religious ideas as Christianity is the greatest syncretiser ever.

Noteworthy that the Rich Man is not addressing God but Abraham here adding another layer of interpretation.

@birdingnut - MARK

The Gentile Mother

To get this into context we must examine the author's sense of mission. He doesn't get Jesus to refuse the healing of the child. The backdrop is the exclusivity that Jews held within their culture over the others, The Gentiles. This is not about food, sick children or healing. This story identifies 'The Children' the Jews; and 'The Dogs' the Gentiles.

The knowledge of the Messiah must be for the Jews first, acknowledged by recognition and faith. The ministry to the Gentiles would follow after his death. The woman's child is healed, i.e her desire for salvation from the Messiah, due to her faith. For the author the mission of the Messiah is for all, but Judaism must receive it first.

And there we have it. Parables are equivalent to short story compendia. The tales here could quite easily be Stephen King shorts within a C20th writers' anthology.

It is necessary, if we wish to understand texts, to recognise the context in which they are written. To read, for example, Macbeth without an acknowledgement of James I's investment or the Elizabethan concept of Venice which lies beneath The Merchant of Venice the loses a richness in its authorship. The texts are not responsible for the actions of others. It is interpretation and perception of the readers that give the texts another life, but the life imbued by the audience not the writer. Thomas Hardy could be criticised for his exploitation of poverty to books, but that is no reflection of the text. Likewise Chaucer reveals a class structure which could insight the hoi poloi to insurrection if it weren't for the common religious objective of the cast of characters and injection of humour in The Canterbury Tales. (Curious that it is written in MIddle English rather than Latin or French, the lingua franca of the time and location). As far as harmless literature is concerned, there is no such thing. All literature has the potential to make change, and all change is unsettling or dangerous in its context. Generally, some forms of Christianity identify the as abhorrent, but that doesn't denigrate the quality of its written text. The Iliad has survived for thousands of years, despite its focus on the glory of war,military values over family, persecution, revenge, cue Game of Thrones, as has the work of Plato discussing the ways to make life better for everyone. Literature presents challenges, in whatever era it is written. And quality is identified when it is still read today.

Thank you for sharing that