“The poor you will always have with you…”

“the poor you will always have with you , but you will not have me…”
Matthew 26:11

Context:
6And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”

10But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. 13Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”

What do you think are the social, moral and spiritual implications of this statement by Jesus?

@divegeester said
“the poor you will always have with you , but you will not have me…”
Matthew 26:11

Context:
[i]6And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9F ...[text shortened]... i]

What do you think are the social, moral and spiritual implications of this statement by Jesus?

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.

@divegeester said
“the poor you will always have with you , but you will not have me…”
Matthew 26:11

What do you think are the social, moral and spiritual implications of this statement by Jesus?

That God will never choose to end poverty.

@vivify said
That God will never choose to end poverty.

Which God? Jesus?

@vivify said
That God will never choose to end poverty.

Jesus 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.

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

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.

@fmf said
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.

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.

@mchill said
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.

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

@fmf said
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

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. Not exactly a group that would have the resources to carry on an armed rebellion against the Roman empire - wouldn't you agree?

@mchill said
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.

Thanks for even more of the conventional narrative - drawn from your religion's one and only source - that you are a proponent of.

@mchill said
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.

Exactly.

Whoosh

@fmf said
Thanks for even more of the conventional narrative - drawn from your religion's one and only source - that you are a proponent of.

Thanks for even more of the conventional narrative.


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"

@mchill said
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"

What nonsense. Who told you that?

“The poor you will always have with you”
Jesus of Nazareth

If Jesus said poverty will always be with us, then why try to get rid of it?

@divegeester said
“The poor you will always have with you”
Jesus of Nazareth

If Jesus said poverty will always be with us, then why try to get rid of it?

Perhaps "Jesus" "said" that because the Romans had no desire or means of eradicating poverty?

[You can see what I am doing here.]