-Removed-If I had been a disciple at that time, I would have reacted the same way. Those people experienced a level of poverty many folks today are only dimly aware of. Looking back some 2000 years however, I'm inclined to cut this lady some slack, since she sincerely believed Jesus was who he claimed to be. The money obtained from selling this oil could have fed a number of people of course, but when compared with the gift of eternal life in heaven to all the world, this flask of scented oil seems a bit trivial.
@vivify saidJesus does seem indifferent towards the poor in those verses. Yet, earlier in Matthew 6:25, He advises NOT to worry about the necessities of life, as if implying that the "Father" will provide.
That God will never choose to end poverty.
Yet there is death and suffering from starvation and thirst throughout the world.
For those who have their needs met here on earth, looking towards eternity is much easier than those who truly suffer without the basics.
There is a contradiction between scripture and reality
1 edit
If the Roman empire, the Flavian family in particular ~ with Paul as one of its operatives ~ did have a hand in encouraging [or even shaping] the cult of personality centered on Jesus - in order to undermine the perennially rebellious Jews in one of its troubled eastern provinces - then this bit of scripture [Matthew 26:11] would fit with that hypothesis completely, as does self-serving stuff like Romans 13:1, Mark 12:17 and Matthew 6:34.
2 edits
@fmf saidNo, I don't think so.
If the Roman empire, the Flavian family in particular ~ with Paul as one of its operatives ~ did have a hand in encouraging [or even shaping] the cult of personality centered on Jesus - in order to undermine the perennially rebellious Jews in one of its troubled eastern provinces - then this bit of scripture [Matthew 26:11] would fit with that hypothesis completely, as does self-serving stuff like Romans 13:1, Mark 12:17 and Matthew 6:34.
Jesus and his disciples were looked upon by the Romans as a bunch of minor-league, goofball religious zealot's whose only crimes were not worshiping the emperor of Rome as a God, and (on rare occasion) clogging the streets. Paul may have been a citizen of Rome, but it's highly unlikely he had any influence on Roman policy, even at a local level.
1 edit
@mchill saidThanks. I am well aware of the conventional narrative that has been internalized by most people.
No, I don't think so.
Jesus and his disciples were looked upon by the Romans as a bunch of minor-league, goofball religious zealot's whose only crimes were not worshiping the emperor of Rome as a God, and (on rare occasion) clogging the streets. Paul may have been a citizen of Rome, but it's highly unlikely he had any influence on Roman policy, even at a local level.
Armed rebellions by Jews against the Romans empire: many
Armed rebellions by Christians against the Romans empire: none
2 edits
@fmf saidHave you considered the "conventional narrative" may be more factual than you think? The vast majority of Jesus' disciples were poor and unarmed. They were fishermen, carpenters, farm laborers, and doctor or 2, and their wives and children. Not exactly a group that would have the resources to carry on an armed rebellion against the Roman empire - wouldn't you agree?
Thanks. I am well aware of the conventional narrative that has been internalized by most people.
Armed rebellions by Jews against the Romans empire: many
Armed rebellions by Christians against the Romans empire: none
@mchill saidThanks for even more of the conventional narrative - drawn from your religion's one and only source - that you are a proponent of.
Have you considered the "conventional narrative" may be more factual than you think? The vast majority of Jesus' disciples were poor and unarmed. They were fishermen, carpenters, farm laborers, and doctor or 2, and their wives and children.
@fmf saidThanks for even more of the conventional narrative.
Thanks for even more of the conventional narrative - drawn from your religion's one and only source - that you are a proponent of.
I'm sorry this may not be what you want to hear, but I would point out that this is not drawn from my "religion's one and only source" All available historical records and archeological evidence support no other "narrative"