I don’t have any problem with metaphorical content that isn’t meant to be taken literally. But here we actually have a literal, explicit point brought up. To go with some other interpretation, one that has no support in the text, over that obvious one, needs more support to me than “It is theoretically possible that it could mean this other thing.”, because, sure, but if we go by that standard we have to put every literal, explicit point up for discussion.
It depends on what it meant to her (Mark 12:34), physical =/= spiritual .
I don’t see what Mark 12:34 has to do with anything.
Would you give to your child guidance beyond what they are currently capable of understanding? Children develop, they don’t know everything as God does, but they do need stuff to their level of understanding to help them along.
Sorry Luke 21:3
Only if I couldn’t give them guidance that they were capable of understanding. Not being all-powerful and all-knowing, I would have to.
Means nothing in this context, since we have no knowledge of what it cost the expensive perfume donator, and Jesus does not use that cost when he defends her actions to the disciples. On top of that, the donation would be of equal cost and equal scope if it HAD been sold and given to the poor - “whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers”, and all.
Again spiritual=/= physical. The value was her heart, and her heart desired to give to God’s child (the best she could). It is the heart that matters to God. Diverting that gift would be negation her heart and thus the value of the gift in the spiritual.
No, it wouldn’t, because what she does to help anyone helps Jesus. Matthew 25:34-40. It’s no diversion at all.
Yes but her heart was made to help a certain way - that’s the part that I believe you are missing.
I have had a similar discussion about people who help out hikers on their journey. Some people criticize them that instead of gifting to these people who are able to hike the trail, why not help the homeless or some other form of charity.
My answer is that’s not in their heart, this is how they desire to give. Why should you criticize them wanting to help another person and how they desire to do it.
So yes helping the least of these does help Jesus, but her role, her heart, was formed to help in this way and this is the best expression of it. She must be free to give of her heart and not told her heart is wrong.
Then Jesus was wrong; what you do for others isn’t what you do for him, because it depends on what you personally want to do.
Just to add on the above, God does not look at the monetary value of giving, the widows mite shows this, God does not look at the efficiency of giving, as we would such as looking up a charities rating, God looks at the heart in giving, is it freely given out of Love, the physical form that it takes can be not what we expect but be perfectly right with God. Again we want physical standards to judge, but God doesn’t use that standard.
No this is exactly right. This is the reason Jesus can only do what the Father does. Why we share His very Spirit, in oneness with the Father. That woman is One with the Father at that moment, her actions is that of the Father and what she personally wanted to do was exactly what the father wanted to do. By doing this act she was as much anointed child of God and Jesus and was Jesus.
God is Love, God is indivisible, Love is indivisible, any act of love is a act of God, in oneness with God.
If one really TRUSTED in God, they wouldn’t need to pray, and no one can say in truth they know anything about God, Just Believe!
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:34
And we utterly destroyed them, … utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:6
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2
And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
So smote all the country … he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40
Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Why do you say this, it does not follow.
God is our parent, why would we not talk to him 
This is yours to reconcile with God is Love. If how you interpret it does not agree with a loving God then we have different gods.
In this thread we are discussing the God of the Bible, and how people interpret and/or ignore the verses contained within it. Do you interpret those acts as the acts of a “God Of Love”?
Maybe God is from Zimbabwe?
The scriptures are a text book, with God as the teacher, though the Holy Spirit. They are claimed in this book to be “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.
In Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
Again pointing to we need God to understand them.
So without God’s help on the verses you cite, I would just say you can have a worldly interpretation, which perhaps you can make a religion out of or something, that’s about all it’s worth in that form.
But here’s the thing; what that woman wanted to do was give her gift to Jesus. If she had not - if she had anointed the poor with it, or sold the perfume and given the money to the poor - Jesus says that whatsoever she does for that other person is done to him. Except, as you say, it would not be, because that woman wants to give her gift to Jesus, and giving it to someone else would be of lesser value to her. It wouldn’t be a heartfelt gift. So Jesus has it wrong; what he should say is, “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do 75% to me”.