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....

[oldbadger]

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 yours,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Tam......... I needed to reduce your post and just answer the above.,...ok?
Your 'who is his father in heaven' was never written in G-Mark, true?
G-Matthew copied G-Mark, so the scholars have decided, and I believe them.
Therefore G-Matthew has copied G-Mark and THEN ADDED that last sentence.
Therefore I discount that last part.

How did I get that Jesus and JtB wanted the old laws back?
It's fairly obvious to me that The Priesthood had discarded many of the 613 in favour of their own greed, helenised activities etc etc.

Let me ask, would you still support the laws that prottected, supported and looked after the poor? Jesus certainly was...... that was his mission imo. I'm not a Christian Tam.

Look at the passage again....... the true one imo...

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.

The Will of God........ the 613 laws were the Will lof God. What others do you know about for the Jews?

[bjs]

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.

That is to say the least an unusual interpretation. Almost every scholar views the tax implemented by Augustus in 6 AD as a Roman tax. It was a poll tax, along with a land tax, that was placed on the entire Roman Empire, not just Judea. It is difficult to conceive of this as a Temple tax, since most of the people paying it had no relation to the Temple in Jerusalem.


http://www.ancient.eu/article/905/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

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.

While it is true that information from that region at that time is limited, the Empire-wide poll tax was still in place. Historians almost universally agree that this was the tax in question.

I am a little confused why you are so attached to the idea that the temple tax established in Exodus would be referred to as paying taxes to Caesar. If they were talking about a Temple tax, why would they ask "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

The underlying trap for Jesus was that he was being asked to support a tax that went to the Roman Empire. His opponents thought that if he supported the tax the crowd would turn against him, and if he opposed it he would be arrested for sedition. The idea that this was religious tax established hundreds of years before in the Jewish law does not make sense.

[oldbadger]

I am a little confused why you are so attached to the idea that the temple tax established in Exodus would be referred to as paying taxes to Caesar. If they were talking about a Temple tax, why would they ask "Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

I can see that tyou are confused.
The Romans took a % of the Temple charges, fees and head-taxes.
Hence the question 'Is it right.../' etc.
Jesus's request 'show me a coin' was much more clever than reported.

The underlying trap for Jesus was that he was being asked to support a tax that went to the Roman Empire. His opponents thought that if he supported the tax the crowd would turn against him, and if he opposed it he would be arrested for sedition. The idea that this was religious tax established hundreds of years before in the Jewish law does not make sense.

The laws of old still stood. The Temple Head-Tax still stood. The coins were still being minted. Rome took a %. Therefore the qurestion applied to the Temple Head Tax.
There was not another Roman Head Tax...... even Syrians had to pay head tax to the Temple.
The Roman Denarius was known in the Jewish provinces but the peoople did not like using it, trhey preferred to use Syrian currency.


Look........ don't take my word for it. I picked one of several authorities on the subject of taxation and coinage in Judea and Jewish provinces circa early 1st century. Please read trhe one paragraph extracted and then go to the full article and read the lot. That will save me lots more writing.

Here we go:-
http://magazine.nd.edu/news/biblical-ta ... plausible/

By Ed Cohen.... an extract from his work:-
As for the Roman coin Jesus calls for, a silver denarius, these did exist during the time of his ministry, and they would have borne the likeness of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. But while denarii would have been recognized by people in Jewish Palestine during Jesus’s time, Udoh says, archeological findings suggest they were not the silver coin being used at the time. That coin was the Tyrian shekel.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Romans took a % of the Temple charges, fees and head-taxes.

Here we go:-
http://magazine.nd.edu/news/biblical-ta ... plausible/

I don't think they did and anyway that is the exact opposite of what the article you sited says...

" Any assessments by Rome, he says, likely would have been based on agricultural production and paid in-kind with farm products like grain. "

"He also finds no evidence of a direct tribute requiring payment in Roman money."

[Joe1950]

This discussion demonstrates a deeper problem with Biblical interpretation. Since the NT was written well after the death of Jesus (if there was such a person) any direct quotes would be guesses. they would reflect what the writer of the gospels felt was the "spirit" of what this man said.
If you stop accepting a "literal" interpretation you solve most of the many problems of contradictory statements or errors.
"Render to Caesar" then simply becomes a common sense advice. Give the government the taxes it is owed. Pray to your god. Easy.
Who is my brother and sister? Well, spiritually speaking, everybody. Not just mom and my biological family. Now, isn't that a nice sentient no matter what particular wards were used?

In today's world where everything is on videotape and documented we see presidents (one in particular) denying what he said just a few months ago. Even though the evidence is clear. He is on tape saying it ! 2000 years ago with no transcripts and no video how much more likely that any "exact" wording is going to be wrong? The men who wrote the Bible did not hear any words of Jesus. they were writing about the "essence" of his preaching as best they knew it.