The Gospels. Any 'Difficult' verses?

whirlingmerc · Mar 14, 2017

Matthew 16:28 some people standing there will not die till they see the kingdom of God come with power might be one

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
a quote from Ps 82

might be a couple

oldbadger · Mar 15, 2017

Deeje said:
You will have to help me out here OB....who are you talking about?

Bartholomew was not that disciples first name. It was his second name, his parental name.
Every Galilean Jew, like many Northern Eutopen males...... heh..... I'm talking to a JW, so only the bible can count. It's pointless me talking about Bar == Son of and Tholomew in fact having been Talmai, or Tolmai etc..,..
All I can do is suggest that this disciple's name was Nathaneal Bar-Tholmai or very close to that.

Here comes the bible, and you will see no Nathaneal in Mark and no Bartholomew in John..... I accept the Scholar's idea on this. You would need to see the bible entries?

Mark {3:14} And he ordained twelve,
that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, {3:15} And to have power to heal
sicknesses, and to cast out devils: {3:16} And Simon he
surnamed Peter; {3:17} And James the [son] of Zebedee,
and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them
Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: {3:18} And
Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and
Thomas, and James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, {3:19} And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him:

John {1:45} Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto
him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and
the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.{1:46} And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?

There is much more detail about the disciples' names but that is just about Nathaneal Bar-Tholomew.

For Jews, hospitality was an expectation and a duty.

Oh.... really? So Jesus was wasting his breath when he told his disciples....? :-
Mark {6:11} And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

"In patriarchal times, though Egyptians and others practiced hospitality, the Semites were most notable for this quality. Care for the traveler was viewed as an integral part of living, and great was the courtesy extended the visitor, whether a stranger, a friend, a relative, or an invited guest.
From the Bible accounts we learn that hospitality was customarily extended to a traveler. He was greeted by a kiss, particularly if a relative. (Gen 29:13, 14) His feet were washed by a member of the household, usually a servant (Gen 18:4), and his animals were fed and cared for. (Gen 24:15-25, 29-33) He was often asked to stay for the night and sometimes even for several days. (Gen 24:54; 19:2, 3) The visitor was regarded as under the householder’s protection during his stay. (Gen 19:6-8; Judg. 19:22-24) On departure, he might be escorted partway on his journey.—Gen 18:16.
The importance with which the extending of hospitality was viewed is seen in Reuel’s remarks when his daughters spoke of the “Egyptian” traveler (actually Moses) who had helped them in watering their flock. Reuel exclaimed: “But where is he? Why is it that you have left the man behind? Call him, that he may eat bread.”—Ex 2:16-20." (Insight Volume 1 Hospitality)

Things had changed somewhat..... by the early 1st century. Jesus explained the reasons for his mission, and pointyed out just how much 'things' had changed....

Can you provide a source for this OB? What period is this referring to?

Early first century?
I don't think that numismatic scholarship will help a JW, because only bible writings have authority for you.... is that correct? In which case you will have to read the number of times that Jesus insisted upon Mercy before Sacrifice, his utter revulsion at the Temple's takings, Money changing fees, Temple Head taxation, and John the Baptists comments about the priesthood. JtB was immersing for the Remission of Sins to save the poor peasant pilgrims such vast charges.

And..... pilgrims got fleeced for every meal, bed and service they received whilst in Jerusalem or its suburbs.... your belief that the locals gave hospitality for nothing is strange to me.

The Bible is the word of God.....if we did not believe that, then how could we accept anything that is written in it as truth?

Which looks like what I wrote in my post, Deeje.
I wrote:- Although I would not expect any JW to find any difficulty with any writing in the bible,......
:shrug:

Finding fault with the Bible and Christianity has become a passtime for some people. Perhaps the one accusing others of being deluded are themselves deluded by God's adversary. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Absolutely correct....... you will know them by their fruits..... and 2000 years of looting, pillage, slavery, rape, murder... by Christians, has not given 'general Christianity' a good name.

I am very cautious about what is written in thre NT, and cannot declare that believe in it all. But I do believe in some of it. What more can I say?

The arrogant Jewish leaders found every excuse NOT to accept the invitation,

That was a problem.... Jewish leaders had become greedy, careless of the old ways, customs andc laws, quislings to the invaders, they stooped to pagan Gods and they were hellenised hypocrites.

You might not be able to accept that they stooped to pagan Gods, but it can be proved quite easily that the only coins acceptable as Temple Head Tax payment had the image of Melgarth Heracles upon their faces.... Baal to Jews. You could not make it up! Jesus was rather offended by it all.....

I know that in the bible the Priests answered that the head on the coin AND THE INSCRIPTION ON REVERSE was Caesars, but in fact the head was Baal's but the inscription KAP on the reverse was Caesar's (since 19BC), so they saved themselves from the crowd with that half-lie. The bible's account is therefore correct.

Kenny · Mar 15, 2017

Deeje said:
The "clergy" were actually an invention of the early church. There is no mention of an earthly priesthood for Christianity at all. This was a position that was in the future, in heaven. (Revelation 20:6) This class of men became the leaders of an apostate church with high sounding titles and fancy garb designed to make them stand out from the flock. No such distinction was ever made in the first century.
Even Jesus as the son of God did not wear any kind of clothing that distinguished him from his apostles or countrymen. On the night of his arrest, Judas had to kiss the man to identify the one they had come to arrest.

The clergy were raised above the common folk and their titles were designed to give them prestige and pride of place at any gatherings. Quite Pharisaical actually.

I can assure you that no first century Christians dressed like this....

I agree about the dress (although I don't think that was the subject matter). Most "clergy" in the Evangelical side do not wear costumes.

No Christian was to be raised above his brethren....as Jesus said..."all you are brothers"...he wasn't talking about fellow clergy, he was talking about fellow Christians in general. Those assigned as shepherds in the congregations were not to be given special dispensation as Paul made clear. Even as an apostle, he worked for his own keep so as NOT to place a financial burden on his brothers. (1 Thessalonians 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10)

There are multiple problems with this statement.

1) You are talking about an Apostle vs other positions - and in the context of Thessaloniki vs other areas
2) One hasn't considered the fact that Jews were accustomed to support the Levites (clergy)
3) It doesn't address the fact that people did give Phil 4:15 Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; 16 for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need.(supplying the need for money in Thessalonica)
4) It doesn't address the fact that he said he had every right to receive monies: 1 Cor 9:6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who don't have the right to not work for our living? (In context of a minister who IS working by teaching spiritual truths but not holding a secular job--as did the Levites--because it is still considered work) 7 Who joins the army and pays their own way? Who plants a vineyard and doesn't eat its fruit? Who shepherds a flock and doesn't drink its milk? 8 I'm not saying these things just based on common sense, am I? Doesn't the Law itself say these things? 9 In Moses' Law it's written: You will not muzzle the ox when it is threshing. Is God worried about oxen, 10 or did he say this entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake because the one who plows and the one who threshes should each do so with the hope of sharing the produce. 11If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it so much to ask to harvest some material things from you?

One just can't take one scripture without context and in light of all other scriptures and declare an overall position on the matter.

Riders · Mar 15, 2017

oldbadger said:
Bartholomew was not that disciples first name. It was his second name, his parental name.
Every Galilean Jew, like many Northern Eutopen males...... heh..... I'm talking to a JW, so only the bible can count. It's pointless me talking about Bar == Son of and Tholomew in fact having been Talmai, or Tolmai etc..,..
All I can do is suggest that this disciple's name was Nathaneal Bar-Tholmai or very close to that.

Here comes the bible, and you will see no Nathaneal in Mark and no Bartholomew in John..... I accept the Scholar's idea on this. You would need to see the bible entries?

Mark {3:14} And he ordained twelve,
that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, {3:15} And to have power to heal
sicknesses, and to cast out devils: {3:16} And Simon he
surnamed Peter; {3:17} And James the [son] of Zebedee,
and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them
Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: {3:18} And
Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and
Thomas, and James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, {3:19} And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him:

John {1:45} Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto
him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and
the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.{1:46} And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?

There is much more detail about the disciples' names but that is just about Nathaneal Bar-Tholomew.

Oh.... really? So Jesus was wasting his breath when he told his disciples....? :-
Mark {6:11} And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

Things had changed somewhat..... by the early 1st century. Jesus explained the reasons for his mission, and pointyed out just how much 'things' had changed....

Early first century?
I don't think that numismatic scholarship will help a JW, because only bible writings have authority for you.... is that correct? In which case you will have to read the number of times that Jesus insisted upon Mercy before Sacrifice, his utter revulsion at the Temple's takings, Money changing fees, Temple Head taxation, and John the Baptists comments about the priesthood. JtB was immersing for the Remission of Sins to save the poor peasant pilgrims such vast charges.

And..... pilgrims got fleeced for every meal, bed and service they received whilst in Jerusalem or its suburbs.... your belief that the locals gave hospitality for nothing is strange to me.

Which looks like what I wrote in my post, Deeje.
I wrote:- Although I would not expect any JW to find any difficulty with any writing in the bible,......

Absolutely correct....... you will know them by their fruits..... and 2000 years of looting, pillage, slavery, rape, murder... by Christians, has not given 'general Christianity' a good name.

I am very cautious about what is written in thre NT, and cannot declare that believe in it all. But I do believe in some of it. What more can I say?

That was a problem.... Jewish leaders had become greedy, careless of the old ways, customs andc laws, quislings to the invaders, they stooped to pagan Gods and they were hellenised hypocrites.

You might not be able to accept that they stooped to pagan Gods, but it can be proved quite easily that the only coins acceptable as Temple Head Tax payment had the image of Melgarth Heracles upon their faces.... Baal to Jews. You could not make it up! Jesus was rather offended by it all.....

I know that in the bible the Priests answered that the head on the coin AND THE INSCRIPTION ON REVERSE was Caesars, but in fact the head was Baal's but the inscription KAP on the reverse was Caesar's (since 19BC), so they saved themselves from the crowd with that half-lie. The bible's account is therefore correct.

Not everyone who gripes and complains about Christians and the religion is against the bible as the other poster said here. I have criticized the bible and Christianity a lot on RFs however I do believe also that some of the bible is right. I think some is some isn't.

As much as christians would like to claim me as someone against them here the actual truth is, that I miss being in a Christian church at times and I will probably be visiting the UNity church some this year. They teach belief in the Christ self, and teach the bible. They are Universal but people from other beliefs can come and hear the Gospel and apply it to their religion.

They don't teach the bible as the perfect inerrant God inspired perfect word of God though. SO but they do teach the bible. I'm a Zen Buddhist and Earthbased Pagan, Unity is metaphysical Christian, so eventually I may add metaphysical new age Christian to my list of religious beliefs.

ANyways I don't agree with the sentiment or that everyonein the new Testament was against Paganism though. The 3 wise men who were Astrologers visited Jesus at birth and brought him Incense which is fire, Gold, which is stone, and myrrh which is symbolic for water.

oldbadger · Mar 15, 2017

Riders said:
Not everyone who gripes and complains about Christians and the religion is against the bible as the other poster said here. I have criticized the bible and Christianity a lot on RFs however I do believe also that some of the bible is right. I think some is some isn't.

As much as christians would like to claim me as someone against them here the actual truth is, that I miss being in a Christian church at times and I will probably be visiting the UNity church some this year. They teach belief in the Christ self, and teach the bible. They are Universal but people from other beliefs can come and hear the Gospel and apply it to their religion.

They don't teach the bible as the perfect inerrant God inspired perfect word of God though. SO but they do teach the bible. I'm a Zen Buddhist and Earthbased Pagan, Unity is metaphysical Christian, so eventually I may add metaphysical new age Christian to my list of religious beliefs.

ANyways I don't agree with the sentiment or that everyonein the new Testament was against Paganism though. The 3 wise men who were Astrologers visited Jesus at birth and brought him Incense which is fire, Gold, which is stone, and myrrh which is symbolic for water.

A very good post, I think

Oh what a brilliant point about the three wise men!
I need to copy and snuck that point away in my NT notes!

I don't think we have a Universal Church around here but I'm most impressed with reports about it. The MO being the extension of love and understanding before all else is a winner, methinks.

But I don't mind JWs. I know that they have an almost rigid 'take' on the bible and pay less attention to historians, archeologists, scientists etc, even when these sages find 'friendly' evidence supporting the bible.

Their absolute devotion to their life rules does make them highly trustworthy, honest and fair in everything that they do. They have an umblemished reputation around here.

URAVIP2ME · Mar 15, 2017

Thief said:
yep...everyone wants to live forever
but that can't happen in the chemistry
chemistry fails
it is the spirit everlasting that is .....everlasting
the body was made to form a unique spirit on each occasion
it does that
I believe we can survive the last breath and THEN live forever
with God and heaven
If I spend one years time with each spirit now in flesh
I will be busy for more than 7billion years in the next life

Christendom generally teaches No middle ground. Either its heaven or a non-biblical hell taught as Scripture.
Whereas Jesus taught that humble meek people will inherit the Earth - Matthew 5:5
Inherit Earth forever once the wicked are gone - Psalms 37:10-11; Psalms 37:29; Proverbs 2:21-22.

To me, Adam's original chemistry would enable him to live forever on Earth.
By breaking God's Law then Adam developed sickness and death.
Since we are innocent of what father Adam passed down to us, thus we can be part of God's original purpose to live forever on Earth. That is the reason for Jesus' ransom paid for us - Matthew 20:28.
If we were immortal spirits we would Not need a resurrection. The immortal do Not die. Like Adam we die.
Since we can Not resurrect oneself or another we need someone who can resurrect us. Jesus can and will.
Jesus will bring an end to enemy death on Earth -> 1 Corinthians 15:26, thus enabling people to live forever on Earth. - Isaiah 25:8

URAVIP2ME · Mar 15, 2017

KenS said:
I don't think I can agree with that position of no paid clergy class.
But a big YES on everything else.

Jesus, nor his followers, were part of a paid clergy class.
Jesus taught to teach for free according to Matthew 10:8 B.
So, to me, 'paid clergy' developed after the 1st-century teachings of Christ ended - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30

URAVIP2ME · Mar 15, 2017

whirlingmerc said:
Matthew 16:28 some people standing there will not die till they see the kingdom of God come with power might be one
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
a quote from Ps 82
might be a couple

Please continue reading after Matthew 16:28 to Matthew 17:9
The reason to me is because that transfiguration scene was only a VISION - Matthew 17:9
Those people had a preview, a coming attraction, of Matthew 25:31-33 which will Not be a vision but a real happening at the soon coming ' time of separation' to take place on Earth.

John 10:34 is in connection to Psalms 82.
Those human judges were referred to as gods. ( small letter "g" )
Even Moses was ' god ' to Pharaoh according to Exodus 7:1
In other words, those human 'gods' were to use God's judgement as to say what was right or what was wrong.

oldbadger · Mar 15, 2017

URAVIP2ME said:
Jesus, nor his followers, were part of a paid clergy class.
Jesus taught to teach for free according to Matthew 10:8 B.
So, to me, 'paid clergy' developed after the 1st-century teachings of Christ ended - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30

But......
Matthew {10:10} Nor scrip for [your] journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Thief · Mar 15, 2017

URAVIP2ME said:
Christendom generally teaches No middle ground. Either its heaven or a non-biblical hell taught as Scripture.
Whereas Jesus taught that humble meek people will inherit the Earth - Matthew 5:5
Inherit Earth forever once the wicked are gone - Psalms 37:10-11; Psalms 37:29; Proverbs 2:21-22.

To me, Adam's original chemistry would enable him to live forever on Earth.
By breaking God's Law then Adam developed sickness and death.
Since we are innocent of what father Adam passed down to us, thus we can be part of God's original purpose to live forever on Earth. That is the reason for Jesus' ransom paid for us - Matthew 20:28.
If we were immortal spirits we would Not need a resurrection. The immortal do Not die. Like Adam we die.
Since we can Not resurrect oneself or another we need someone who can resurrect us. Jesus can and will.
Jesus will bring an end to enemy death on Earth -> 1 Corinthians 15:26, thus enabling people to live forever on Earth. - Isaiah 25:8

Catholics (which means common) ...believe in purgatroy

Thief · Mar 15, 2017

URAVIP2ME said:
Christendom generally teaches No middle ground. Either its heaven or a non-biblical hell taught as Scripture.
Whereas Jesus taught that humble meek people will inherit the Earth - Matthew 5:5
Inherit Earth forever once the wicked are gone - Psalms 37:10-11; Psalms 37:29; Proverbs 2:21-22.

To me, Adam's original chemistry would enable him to live forever on Earth.
By breaking God's Law then Adam developed sickness and death.
Since we are innocent of what father Adam passed down to us, thus we can be part of God's original purpose to live forever on Earth. That is the reason for Jesus' ransom paid for us - Matthew 20:28.
If we were immortal spirits we would Not need a resurrection. The immortal do Not die. Like Adam we die.
Since we can Not resurrect oneself or another we need someone who can resurrect us. Jesus can and will.
Jesus will bring an end to enemy death on Earth -> 1 Corinthians 15:26, thus enabling people to live forever on Earth. - Isaiah 25:8

we were never meant to live forever
that broken law you mention was a test.....

Man needs to have curiosity....even if death is the pending factor

by making the choice...Adam and Eve proved the alteration made in the garden had taken old

we ARE that creature searching for knowledge
even as death is at hand

Kenny · Mar 15, 2017

URAVIP2ME said:
Jesus, nor his followers, were part of a paid clergy class.
Jesus taught to teach for free according to Matthew 10:8 B.
So, to me, 'paid clergy' developed after the 1st-century teachings of Christ ended - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30

I would have to disagree... paid clergy started with the Levitical priesthood that received the tithes.

Deeje · Mar 15, 2017

whirlingmerc said:
Matthew 16:28 some people standing there will not die till they see the kingdom of God come with power might be one

Jesus was referring to Peter, James and John, who witnessed Jesus in his kingdom glory at the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2)

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
a quote from Ps 82

might be a couple

Understanding that the word "god" in Greek simply means someone with power and authority or "a mighty one" gives this scripture real meaning. In the verse quoted above, Jesus was referring to human judges in Israel who had a certain level of power and authority over God's people. If God called human judges "gods" then Jesus said the term didn't mean what those Jews were accusing him of....saying that he was claiming to be God. All Jesus ever claimed to be was "the son of God". Read John 10:31-36.

whirlingmerc · Mar 15, 2017

Deeje said:
Jesus was referring to Peter, James and John, who witnessed Jesus in his kingdom glory at the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2)

Understanding that the word "god" in Greek simply means someone with power and authority or "a mighty one" gives this scripture real meaning. In the verse quoted above, Jesus was referring to human judges in Israel who had a certain level of power and authority over God's people. If God called human judges "gods" then Jesus said the term didn't mean what those Jews were accusing him of....saying that he was claiming to be God. All Jesus ever claimed to be was "the son of God". Read John 10:31-36.

Yes that transfiguration is a possible interpretations but there are more ... resurrection is another... ascension... the miracles of the apostles...

Yes but god in this case referred to a psalm where God referred to corrupt judges... and so in a sense god... in a sense of authority in a sphere.. . but not God with a capital G... that's how I look at it

Deeje · Mar 16, 2017

oldbadger said:
Bartholomew was not that disciples first name. It was his second name, his parental name.

Thank you that is all I needed.

oldbadger said:
All I can do is suggest that this disciple's name was Nathaneal Bar-Tholmai or very close to that.

"Na·thanʹa·el.....Presumably the name of Bartholomew, hence one of Jesus’ 12 apostles. Bartholomew, meaning “Son of Tolmai,” was a patronymic term (that is, a designation derived from his father). The apostle John uses his given name Nathanael, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke call him Bartholomew. When doing so they associate Philip and Bartholomew together, in the same way that John links Philip with Nathanael. (Mt 10:3; Mr 3:18; Lu 6:14; Joh 1:45, 46) It was not uncommon for persons to be known by more than one name. For example, “Simon the son of John” also came to be known as Cephas and Peter. (Joh 1:42) Nor was it exceptional for Nathanael to be called Bartholomew, or the “Son of Tolmai,” as another man was called simply Bartimaeus, or “Son of Timaeus.” (Mr 10:46) The two names, Nathanael and Bartholomew, are used interchangeably by Christian writers of following centuries." Na·thanʹa·el.....(Insight Volume 1)

oldbadger said:
Oh.... really? So Jesus was wasting his breath when he told his disciples....? :-
Mark {6:11} And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

Hmmmm....we seem to have some crossed wires here. When Jesus' disciples were sent out to preach, this was his instruction to them.....in context.

Mark 6:7-12:
"He now summoned the Twelve and started sending them out two by two, and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 Also, he gave them orders to carry nothing for the trip except a staff—no bread, no food pouch, no money in their belts— 9 but to put on sandals and not to wear two garments. 10 Further, he said to them: “Wherever you enter into a home, stay there until you leave that place. 11 And wherever a place will not receive you or listen to you, on going out from there, shake off the dirt that is on your feet for a witness to them.” 12 Then they set out and preached that people should repent, 13 and they expelled many demons and greased many sick people with oil and cured them."

Hostility towards Jesus and his disciples from the Jews was mounting as the Pharisees bad mouthed this 'fake messiah' and his disciples. Only those who listened and extended the customary hospitality were favored with the life saving message that was brought to them.

As it was also customary to wash the feet of those who were guests in your home...'shaking the dust off their feet' meant that they were not extended that courtesy and it was used as a witness against them.

oldbadger said:
by the early 1st century. Jesus explained the reasons for his mission, and pointyed out just how much 'things' had changed....

Do you mean in Judaism? I agree. The Pharisees had turned the worship of Jehovah into a rigid, nit picking burden around the necks of God's flock. ....any wonder they were "lost".
This is why Jesus told them that 'his yoke was kindly and his load was light', unlike what the Pharisees taught them. Jesus had no time for that hypocritical, apostate system or the traditions of men that were taught as doctrines. (Matthew 15:7-9)

oldbadger said:
Early first century?
I don't think that numismatic scholarship will help a JW, because only bible writings have authority for you.... is that correct?

No, OB, we do accept certain verifiable historical accounts as well. We are not that narrow.

In which case you will have to read the number of times that Jesus insisted upon Mercy before Sacrifice, his utter revulsion at the Temple's takings, Money changing fees, Temple Head taxation, and John the Baptists comments about the priesthood. JtB was immersing for the Remission of Sins to save the poor peasant pilgrims such vast charges.

It would be good if you could back up your statement with scripture here OB. That way I can give you a fuller explanation.
Mercy before sacrifice meant that the religious leaders were concentrating on the rigid letter of the law, rather than on the spirit that inspired it, which was love. (Matthew 22:38-40) Love was the one thing they lacked.

Jesus' anger at the money changers at the temple was completely understandable. They were supplying sacrificial animals right inside the temple for profit, extorting their own brothers and making a mockery of the sacrificial arrangement. That is what made Jesus so angry. He was a Jew under Jewish law but he was not going to condone that illegal behavior, right in his Father's house of worship.

The contribution of the needy widow was praised by Jesus, so I don't see a problem with money per se. (Mark 12:41-44)

John the Baptist was 'preparing' the repentant Jews for accepting their Messiah. (Mark 1:7-8) Up until that time, Jews did not baptize anyone. The only thing Jews 'baptized' up until then were their utensils, by washing them.
John's disciples had to be baptized again as Christians.

And..... pilgrims got fleeced for every meal, bed and service they received whilst in Jerusalem or its suburbs.... your belief that the locals gave hospitality for nothing is strange to me.

You misunderstood. It was the hospitable ones that Jesus knew would accept the kingdom message. That is why he told the apostles to take no provisions....their needs would be supplied, but not for long. (Luke 10:3-7)

Jesus said.....
Matthew 10:16-18:
“Look! I am sending you out as sheep among wolves; so prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard against men, for they will hand you over to local courts and they will scourge you in their synagogues. 18 And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations.".....

22 And you will be hated by all people on account of my name, but the one who has endured to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives."

There was going to be hostility, but not from those who embraced the Christian message. Love would identify those ones. (John 13:34-35; Hebrews 13:1-2)

oldbadger said:
you will know them by their fruits..... and 2000 years of looting, pillage, slavery, rape, murder... by Christians, has not given 'general Christianity' a good name.

You do realize that they weren't real Christians then, don't you? Unless you produce the fruits, you can't realistically call yourself a footstep follower of the Christ. If there was "looting, pillage, slavery, rape, murder... by Christians"....then they weren't Christians...only calling themselves such.
The "weeds" of Jesus' parable were sown early in the piece. You aren't accepted as a disciple of Christ just because you wear a label.....it's by their "fruits" or actions that you can tell the real ones.

I am very cautious about what is written in thre NT, and cannot declare that believe in it all. But I do believe in some of it. What more can I say?

As I said, it's all or nothing for me. If God can create the universe, then that same power can inspire and preserve his word. If it's in the Bible, then to me I must accept all of it, because God would not preserve some and not all. That just makes no sense....Jehovah is a God of order, not confusion.

oldbadger said:
That was a problem.... Jewish leaders had become greedy, careless of the old ways, customs andc laws, quislings to the invaders, they stooped to pagan Gods and they were hellenised hypocrites.

Yes I accept that they were all that Jesus said they were, and deserving of the condemnation they received. (Matthew 23:37-39; Matthew 23:13-33)

You might not be able to accept that they stooped to pagan Gods, but it can be proved quite easily that the only coins acceptable as Temple Head Tax payment had the image of Melgarth Heracles upon their faces.... Baal to Jews. You could not make it up! Jesus was rather offended by it all.....

Not sure I understand the importance of this...? If Jesus did not mention it, why make something of it? He wasn't backward when it came to pointing out the misdeeds of the Pharisees.

"In all the dealings the Tyrians had with Israel, there is no indication that, as a people, they were interested in the worship of Jehovah; their association was particularly a commercial one. Racially they were Canaanites, and religiously they practiced a form of Baal worship, their chief deities being Melkart and Astarte (Ashtoreth). When Ethbaal was king of the Sidonians (including Tyre), his daughter Jezebel married Ahab, the king of the northern kingdom of Israel. Jezebel was infamous in her determination to blot out the worship of Jehovah.—1Kings 16:29, 31; 18:4, 13, 19." (Insight Volume 2)

I know that in the bible the Priests answered that the head on the coin AND THE INSCRIPTION ON REVERSE was Caesars, but in fact the head was Baal's but the inscription KAP on the reverse was Caesar's (since 19BC), so they saved themselves from the crowd with that half-lie. The bible's account is therefore correct.

Is there a point to that? Are we laboring under any assumptions that the activity and attitude of the Jewish religious leaders were approved in any way by Jesus?

Deeje · Mar 16, 2017

oldbadger said:
Oh what a brilliant point about the three wise men!
I need to copy and snuck that point away in my NT notes!

I might just make a clarification on the three wise guys.....

First of all, the Bible doesn't say how many there were....and secondly, these were pagan astrologers from Babylon who were used as dupes by satan in an attempt to get Jesus killed as a young child.

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it was Jewish shepherds who were told about the event by Angels.

The account about the magi was a bit later because the astrologers, who were most certainly not sent by God, were not directed to Bethlehem but to Jerusalem and a wicked and jealous king. When the astrologers asked about the one "born to be king of the Jews", Herod was outraged at the thought of any usurper taking the throne from his own sons....so he plotted Jesus' murder, by asking the magi to find the child and report back to him. Thanks to God, they didn't.

By carefully ascertaining the prophesied place of the Messiah's birth from the religious leaders, and when the astrologers first saw the star that guided them to Jerusalem, Herod had all the male children 2 years of age and under put to death.

There was nothing evil about the astrologers' intentions concerning Jesus. They were just dupes, and by the time they arrived with their gifts, Jesus was a young child, possibly two years old, and living in a house....he was not a newborn in a stable. (Matthew Chapter 2)

Just wanted to clear that up.....

oldbadger · Mar 16, 2017

Deeje said:
Thank you that is all I needed.

"Na·thanʹa·el.....Presumably the name of Bartholomew, hence one of Jesus’ 12 apostles. Bartholomew, meaning “Son of Tolmai,” was a patronymic term (that is, a designation derived from his father). The apostle John uses his given name Nathanael, whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke call him Bartholomew. When doing so they associate Philip and Bartholomew together, in the same way that John links Philip with Nathanael. (Mt 10:3; Mr 3:18; Lu 6:14; Joh 1:45, 46) It was not uncommon for persons to be known by more than one name. For example, “Simon the son of John” also came to be known as Cephas and Peter. (Joh 1:42) Nor was it exceptional for Nathanael to be called Bartholomew, or the “Son of Tolmai,” as another man was called simply Bartimaeus, or “Son of Timaeus.” (Mr 10:46) The two names, Nathanael and Bartholomew, are used interchangeably by Christian writers of following centuries." Na·thanʹa·el.....(Insight Volume 1)

G-Mark called him Bartholemw. Matthew and Luke copied....

My orogonal comment that Bartholmew had a first name appears to be correct, then....

Hmmmm....we seem to have some crossed wires here. [/QUOTE]
I don't think so....... you mentioned that Jews were very hospitable. My point is simple. Jews were kind to people that they wanted tgo be kind to. A bit like folks today...

Do you mean in Judaism? I agree. The Pharisees had turned the worship of Jehovah into a rigid, nit picking burden around the necks of God's flock. ....any wonder they were "lost".

The Pharisees did not run things. They were not all in the Priesthood. So I don't agree that they were the central problem. The blood-heritage Priests and their Levite guardianms ran the system and the Temple.

No, OB, we do accept certain verifiable historical accounts as well. We are not that narrow.

OK...

It would be good if you could back up your statement with scripture here OB. That way I can give you a fuller explanation.

Really? So verifiable hostoric accounts won't was here, then?

Mercy before sacrifice meant that the religious leaders were concentrating on the rigid letter of the law, rather than on the spirit that inspired it,

No! Mercy before Sacrifice was clearly a call to avoid the Temple and Priesthood's money-go-round .........
That's why JtB and Jesus immersed in water for ext to nothing!

Jesus' anger at the money changers at the temple was completely understandable. They were supplying sacrificial animals right inside the temple for profit, extorting their own brothers and making a mockery of the sacrificial arrangement.

This is all wibbly wobbly! The money changers were exchanging provincial money for Half and Full Tyrian shekels.... and nothing more.
Jesus was angry at that...... and sacrificial fees, and heuve been pleased about the graven images and Baal head on the coins! Hypocrisy everywhere..... and mammon.

The contribution of the needy widow was praised by Jesus, so I don't see a problem with money per se. (Mark 12:41-44)

Totally different. The offering trumpets in the Women's Court received any coinage and was not compulsory

John the Baptist was 'preparing' the repentant Jews for accepting their Messiah. (Mark 1:7-8) Up until that time, Jews did not baptize anyone. The only thing Jews 'baptized' up until then were their utensils, by washing them.

No he wasn't. He was short-circuiting the Temple money go round which fleeced pilgrims. He was quite clear, imo.

John's disciples had to be baptized again as Christians.

Click to expand...

There were no Christians during any part of John's whole life. The word Christian did not exist then.

Not sure I understand the importance of this...? If Jesus did not mention it, why make something of it? He wasn't backward when it came to pointing out the misdeeds of the Pharisees.

Click to expand...

Jesus mentioned it alright....... very cleverly, and also fairly abruptly in his actions.

My perception of what Jesus intended seems to vary from yours...?

Click to expand...

Kenny · Mar 16, 2017

Couple of thoughts--hopes this enhances or augments understanding

old badger said:
The Pharisees did not run things. They were not all in the Priesthood. So I don't agree that they were the central problem. The blood-heritage Priests and their Levite guardianms ran the system and the Temple.

My understanding was that the two main players in the Sanhedrin were the Sadducees and the Pharisees with a couple of independents. Both were main players with the Sadducees as the main force. At least that is what my studies say. (I'm open for correction)

This is all wibbly wobbly! The money changers were exchanging provincial money for Half and Full Tyrian shekels.... and nothing more.
Jesus was angry at that...... and sacrificial fees, and heuve been pleased about the graven images and Baal head on the coins! Hypocrisy everywhere..... and mammon.

The place where they had the money changers was actually the hall for "the nations". Thus the scripture of Is 56:
"for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations".

If I am not mistaken, the reason was more than just corruption as you have said but also the fact that they had made it impossible for the nations to participate in the worshipping of God and for prayer (Gentiles). God wanted all nations to know Him

Again... if you have better information... let me know.

URAVIP2ME · Mar 16, 2017

Thief said:
Catholics (which means common) ...believe in purgatroy

I was taught that Catholic means: universal.
Where is purgatory found in the Bible.
When my Catholic uncle died, the priest said that he was a pious man, but that first masses (even pre-paid masses) would have to said for him to get him out of purgatory.
I wonder how that could be in harmony with Romans 6:7,23 which says the dead are freed, or acquitted, from their sins.
Since the dead are acquitted from their sins by their death, then wouldn't punishing them a second time for sins they have been freed from now be ' double jeopardy ' ?

Deeje · Mar 16, 2017

oldbadger said:
I don't think so....... you mentioned that Jews were very hospitable. My point is simple. Jews were kind to people that they wanted to be kind to. A bit like folks today...

Yes indeed, hospitality is not extended much at all today, but back in Bible times it was rightfully expected.

"Semites were most notable for this quality. Care for the traveler was viewed as an integral part of living, and great was the courtesy extended the visitor, whether a stranger, a friend, a relative, or an invited guest.
From the Bible accounts we learn that hospitality was customarily extended to a traveler. He was greeted by a kiss, particularly if a relative. (Gen 29:13, 14) His feet were washed by a member of the household, usually a servant (Gen 18:4), and his animals were fed and cared for. (Gen 24:15-25, 29-33) He was often asked to stay for the night and sometimes even for several days. (Ge 24:54; 19:2, 3) The visitor was regarded as under the householder’s protection during his stay. (Gen 19:6-8; Judg 19:22-24) On departure, he might be escorted partway on his journey.—Gen 18:16." *

Here we have Biblical examples of customary hospitality among the ancient servants of God.
Being a "guest" in someone's tent meant that the host had an obligation to care for their needs and offer his protection.
We can be a guest in Jehovah's tent if we are the sort that he will welcome, rather than those who practice what God condemns. (Psalm 15)

"The practice of hospitality in the first century of the Common Era continued much as it had been carried on in earlier times, although conditions had somewhat altered the extent of its practice. The Samaritans and Jews were not on good terms, so hospitality between them was often lacking. (John 4:7-9; 8:48) Also, domination by foreign nations had increased enmities, and the country roads were beset by robbers. Even some inns were run by dishonest, inhospitable men.
Nevertheless, among the Jews, the same amenities as in times past were generally observed toward the guest. He was welcomed with a kiss, his head was anointed or greased with oil, and his feet were washed. At banquets the guests were usually seated according to rank and honor.—Luke 7:44-46; 14:7-11." *

Jesus told his disciples to expect hospitality because those who loved the ways of the true God would extend it.
There is a great difference between what God commanded and what the Jewish leaders actually taught. No one is suggesting that the Jews were all hospitable, but it is what Jehovah taught them to do. They were not an obedient people.

oldbadger said:
The Pharisees did not run things. They were not all in the Priesthood. So I don't agree that they were the central problem. The blood-heritage Priests and their Levite guardianms ran the system and the Temple.

During the earthly ministry of Christ Jesus, the Pharisees exerted such great influence that prominent persons were afraid to confess him openly. (Joh 12:42, 43) One of such fearful ones evidently was Nicodemus, himself a Pharisee. (John 3:1, 2; 7:47-52; 19:39) There may also have been Pharisees who did not manifest bitter opposition or who later became Christians. For example, the Pharisee Gamaliel counseled against interfering with the work of Christians (Acts 5:34-39), and the Pharisee Saul (Paul) of Tarsus became an apostle of Jesus Christ.—Acts 26:5; Phil 3:5."

We have to remember that the synagogue had become the centre of Jewish worship after the dispersion. This is where the Pharisees dominated. There is no doubt that the whole Jewish system was corrupted by the time Jesus began his ministry, but Jesus concentrated his criticism towards the scribes and Pharisees. (Matthew 23:13-39)

"The Christian Scriptures reveal that the Pharisees fasted twice each week, tithed scrupulously (Matt 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; 11:42; 18:11, 12), and did not agree with the Sadducees in saying that “there is neither resurrection nor angel nor spirit.” (Acts 23:8) They prided themselves on being righteous (actually, self-righteous) and looked down on the common people. (Luke 18:11, 12; John 7:47-49) To impress others with their righteousness, the Pharisees broadened the scripture-containing cases that they wore as safeguards and they enlarged the fringes of their garments. (Matt 23:5) They loved money (Luke 16:14) and desired prominence and flattering titles. (Matt 23:6, 7; Luke 11:43) The Pharisees were so biased in their application of the Law that they made it burdensome for the people, insisting that it be observed according to their concepts and traditions. (Matt 23:4) They completely lost sight of the important matters, namely, justice, mercy, faithfulness, and love of God. (Matt 23:23; Luke 11:41-44) The Pharisees went to great lengths in making proselytes.—Matt 23:15." *

* Excerpts Insight Volumes.

The Gospels. Any 'Difficult' verses?

Well-Known Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Face to face with my Father

Well-Known Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Rogue Theologian

Rogue Theologian

Face to face with my Father

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Skanky Old Mongrel!

Face to face with my Father

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student