The Gospels..... those 'Difficult' verses!

[oldbadger]

I don't get it.
Why, for instance, would the gospel of Mark include an anecdote about Jesus being told that his Mother and brothers had come to speak with him, waiting outside, and Jesus told his followers 'You are my Mother and my brothers'. ??

Mark: And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? {3:34} And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

There must be many other verses which Christians could find difficulty with.... do you know any more? This is intended as a debate, obviously, but a list of these strange verses would be useful....

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by bjs]

The thing therefore to do would be to identify the features that either have a scope than simply that of Jerusalem or with hindsight that did not happen in the first century. For example, Jesus mentions the son of man coming with his angelic hosts and judging all peoples.


JW

[oldbadger]

You misquoted me

Tam..... I looked through the posts carefully, and I do not believe that I misquoted you anywhere.
So that I can see any error of mine and apologise for it, please will you show me where I misquoted you?
OB

[oldbadger]

[Replying to post 1 by oldbadger]

Difficult in what sense?

Difficult to accept/follow in daily life? In Luke 6:29-30 Jesus said, “If someone takes your cloak, don not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand is back.�

Difficult to understand? In Mark 13 Jesus appears to mix teachings about the end of the age with a teaching about the destruction of Jerusalem. It is similar to the prophet Joel, who compared the army of the Lord to a swarm of locusts, or maybe he was comparing the swarm of locusts to the army of the Lord. I’m not sure. Similarly, Jesus used the destruction of the coming Temple as a lesson about the end of the age, but it is hard to tell when is talking about which event.

Hi....
Thankyou for your input.
You asked, 'Difficult in what sense?'
There are many types of negativity, difficulty, embarrassment etc.... and most, of these tend to show that the subject matter about and around that 'pericope' is probably genuine.

On the other hand some difficulties do exactly the opposite (sadly!).

Can I show you?

I personally perceive this pericope to be absolutely true:-
Mark: 15:34} And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

In this next one I personally perceive that the gospekl account is absolutely false and I can show why:-
Matthew {22:19} Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.Now in some bibles that coin reads denarius. It doesn't matter. That coin was never a denarius, it was a half shekel, which embarrasingly for the priests showed the head of Baal on it, and had a graven image on the reverse. Buit it did had Caesar's initial on the reverse! Jesus was very clever! More clever than the gospels show, because the priests' half-lie (the image was Baal's!!!) was not challenged by Jesus... he just wanted them to know that he knew about the offensive coins used in the head-tax.

Now..... here comes the proof. If you read Exodus 30:13 you will see that God commanded that sanctuary head tax be paid with the half-shekel.

See? A difficulty, especially for those who believe that every word is divine.

[tam]

In this case, the will of His mother and brothers is not the will of His Father. His mother and brothers are coming to take Him in hand; and prevent Him from carrying out the will of His Father.

This stands in stark contradiction to the willingness with which Mary accepted her role as a virgin mother. Given she had been visited by an angel it is inconceivable she forgot that her son was divinely inspired. Either we accept that Mary was party to God's plan from the incarnation or we take her to be ignorant of her son's actions. This could only be so if he didn't trouble to tell her. Yet she was aware of his abilities at Cana.

Something addeth not up, methinks.

I see no reason to think that she no longer believed Him to be the Messiah. But there is a difference between believing your son to be 'divinely inspired' and believing that everything He is doing is as it is supposed to go.

Perhaps she feared for Him. Perhaps she thought He was going too far.

Either way, His family came to take control of Him, and we are told that His brothers did not believe Him, not until later.


Even Peter, who knew that his Lord was the Christ, contradicted what Christ said would happen (Him being put to death):

"Lord this will NEVER happen to you."


Fear, anger, jealousy, even arrogance... all of these can interfere with our faith.


So the disciples worried about the storm, even though Christ was with them; His own brothers did not believe Him; some of the disciples were concerned about how Christ spoke about/to the Pharisees; Judas betrayed Him; etc.




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

You misquoted me (and you also attributed something to Christ that He did not say)

Tam, my 'take' that Jesus clearly said that loyal or good friends beat bad family is absolutely as clear as daylight!

Your 'take' is clear, in that you have clearly made your point about what you believe Christ to have been saying.


But it is not what He said.

He did not say good friends are better than bad family. He did not speak about family being bad or good; or friends being bad or good.


He spoke the truth. That His "family" are those who obey the will of His Father in heaven.

“Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?� Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers. For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."

No Tam..... the above is clearly a Christian edit, imo. See what the first report says in G-Mark:
{3:33} And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? {3:34} And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! {3:35} For whosoever shall do the will of God,
the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

There, as clear as can be..... Jesus and JohntB both wanted a return to the old laws that protected all, and the poor, long ignored by fat, greedy, dishonrest, corrupt, quisling priests. And the WILL OF GOD was exactly that, which, if you like, wopuld have retirned heaven to earth, I expect.

Wow! Those two contending verses....... yet another p[erceived difficulty?

I don't see ANYTHING that you are seeing here. Those two accounts are the same. They are not contending verses. In both passages, He says that His mother, brother, sister, etc, are those who do the will of God (who is His Father in heaven).

How you get 'John and Jesus wanted to return to the old laws' from these words, I do not know.

Peace again to you, and to your households, your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

And to you and yours.
from OB, a tatty old pagan.

[/quote]


I thank you for your wish of peace.


Peace again to you and yours,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

[Replying to post 17 by William]

2000 years of twisting and turning along the less-than-strait-and-narrow path is what has shaped Christendom and painted a strange and foreign picture of Jesus in the image of some weird effigy which the establishment can better identify with.

Yes. Absolutely!


People changing what He said (or says) for their own purposes/agendas; etc; or even watering down the truth to make it more palatable to others, making the truth easier for them to accept... even though once you change the truth now it is no longer the truth at all.


People making 'Jesus' into their own image as well.



Peace to you William,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

You misquoted me

Tam..... I looked through the posts carefully, and I do not believe that I misquoted you anywhere.
So that I can see any error of mine and apologise for it, please will you show me where I misquoted you?
OB

Please look at post 6, and then what you quoted me as saying in post 7.


You removed the verse in between those two sentences (in your quote of my words in post 7), so it looks like the thing I find no problem with is the first sentence. When in truth, what I saw no problem with was the verse (the words my Lord actually said) that you left out.


I don't need you to apologize. I just had to point it out.


Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Either way, His family came to take control of Him, and we are told that His brothers did not believe Him, not until later.

If Jesus was divine there would be no doubt, among those he lived with him, of his credentials. If there was doubt, why would anyone expect people 2000 years away to believe when those closest entertained doubt? A preaching God would surely prevail against human doubt. He clearly failed to do this in the cases you quote.

Of course we could attribute the blame to the pupils rather than the teacher. It depends where one's interests lie.

[bjs]

[Replying to oldbadger]

I think that you are somewhat confused here. Exodus 30:13 does describe something like a sanctuary head tax that was to be paid with a half-shekel.

However, In Matthew 22 the context was the head tax paid to the Roman Empire (to Caesar). That is an entirely different tax going to an entirely different organization. The tax paid to Caesar was a paid with a denarius. The author of Matthew got the details correct.

[oldbadger]

I think that you are somewhat confused here. Exodus 30:13 does describe something like a sanctuary head tax that was to be paid with a half-shekel.

......something like..... !
bjs, if you can;'t be absoluitely sure that Geneis 30:13 requires an annual head-tax from each male for the sanctuary, then you are confused, not me.

However, In Matthew 22 the context was the head tax paid to the Roman Empire (to Caesar). That is an entirely different tax going to an entirely different organization.

Wrong. Circa 6AD Augustus ordered a kidney count from the sacrificial lambs of one major feast at the Temple, such interest leaving me in little doubt that a % of the Temple Head-Tax, exchange fees, sacrificial lamb sales and even priests' fees were paid in tribute or other charge to Rome.

The tax paid to Caesar was a paid with a denarius. The author of Matthew got the details correct.

Now why would the priests have had a denarius with them in the Temple, when many hundred-weights of silver shekels were present?

Please can you show details of Roman taxation in the Samaritan and Jewish provinces circa 30Ad? Historians are having some difficulty with these details, and this causes me to question your post fairly directly.