Was Jesus Really Tempted by Satan?

There is an assumption that to change the meaning of an ancient text to a modern reader, somebody needed to change the text itself. That just isn't so. The passage of time will change the associations of the characters and incidents. You read a different story than First Century readers, because the words mean different things to you than the same words meant to them.

The very fact that you describe the incident as a "temptation" shows the passage of time has done its work. A First Century Jewish preacher met with Satan. A First Century Jew didn't see Satan as an enemy of God. Satan is God's loyal servant. According to Job 1, Satan is either a Son of God or a companion of the Sons of God. Either way, the Jewish Satan is someone who speaks to God face to face, who is received by God with honor, and who faithfully does God's work on Earth. That work does not include tempting human beings.

The desert incident occurs early in Jesus' public career. Satan tells a disciple of John the Baptist what the disciple's mission will entail: miraculous feedings, direct political action, and courting physical peril. Jesus rejects all three ideas, in part because they are not elements of John's ministry, but as Christian Luke tells us (4: 13), when Satan had finished every "temptation," he departed from Jesus for a time. And in that meantime, Jesus adopted into his ministry miraculous feedings, direct political action and placing himself in physical peril.

You don't see this as a story about a Jewish preacher making spiritual preparations to preach to Jews about achieving First Century Jewish national aspirations through personal religious renewal. You read it as a story about God being detained on the threshold of bringing salvation to all humankind. Even if you don't believe in God, or that Jesus was God, you still think that's who the characters in the story are "supposed to be."

Luke's "devil" is already not the Jewish angel who loves and is loved by God, even just a generation or two after Jesus died. Your "devil," more than fifty generations later still, is more of a comic book supervillain than Luke's, the losing field marshal in some celestial battle, getting ready to swim forever in a lake of fire.

ATS won't leave your thread in this section unless you claim some conspiracy. But Nicaea wasn't about setting the canon. Dan Brown made that up, with the same attention to accuracy as his placement of Versailles north of Paris, and the same grasp of religious history as his casting a devout Jewess as a pagan priestess.

John the Baptist is historical. He probably had disciples. It is plausible that one of them would have taken the repentance ministry on the road. Before he did, that one would plausibly have gone on retreat. What Jesus saw and heard is psychologically realistic for a vision in that context. He would have told his disciples about it. They would have considered the story important for many reasons, including to explain that Jesus was John's legitimate successor, even though Jesus' ministry was so different from the Baptist's. They would have told their disciples, and eventually some of those would have written it down.

Nothing about getting the story written down suggests a conspiracy. Nothing about how the casual interpretation of that written version has changed suggests a conspiracy.

-

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
Was Elijah transported through time to be a witness to this event?

It could have been an obi-wan style moment?

use the force jesus!!

I dont know if he was ever tempted in the desert.. but I know he was tempted with the all the kingdoms of the land.

Jesus was tempted by Satan. However, Chuck Norris made Jesus his bitch with no temptation needed.

reply to post by AQuestion


I agree that we must read the Bible in context, and realize that these charactors were real people with human frailty and innocence. The way the Bible tells it, poor Moses, was "a fish out of water!" He was very confused by God's tests and requirements. Certain a recultant "super hero."

I think thats an interesting take on the "temptation" you put forward, that it was a test for Satan, as much as for Jesus. Satan wasn't privy to God's plan and had to check this out, to find out if this Jesus guy was the real thing. I like that.

Since God is suppose to know all from beginning to end...Jesus would not have ever failed! Then it was a very futile attempt on Satan's part to tempt Jesus! And..Satan would know who Jesus is.. Since Jesus Is half human and half God, then it would seem that He has a much bigger advantage over being tempted than we do! If He was tempted, then it could only been done with God knowing it and knowing Satan would fail...all part of the plan.
Also ..if the temptation had succeeded, then that means God's plan to insert Jesus at that time in history as Savior of humanity failed and his insight on the situation failed also. Not God's option, I would say....

If you was in the desert for 40 days on a hunger strike. you to would have a visit from all sorts of things.
maybe get a visit from the Tax man (They can find anyone)

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Beavers

Originally posted by windword
First off let me say that I am NOT a Christain

firstly.. if you aren't a christian, why are you asking for evidence about a character you don't believe exists?

secondly, if you don't believe, why do you even give a #?

I'm not asking for evidence, but discussing the possibility of the story having been manipulated. I was raised Christian, and while I don't prescribe to the doctrines of Christianity, I do believe in the "Christ" consciousness and value all paths to enlightenment.

I think this story reveals a break in charactor of the biblical representation of this man I believe was a charismatic rabbi that spoke to the masses, who was the son of a carpenter.

Just an observation.

Out of character? Jesus fasted for 40 days, didn't eat anything. Dude anything said and done would be out of character on the 40th day of a fasting for anybody.

What is interesting to me is that when Jesus replied with scripture ONE time for each of the temptations, there wasn't a rebuttal...

We ordinary folk tend to keep going and going with rebuttals, don’t we?.

reply to post by eight bits


Thanks for pointing out the Satan of the Book of Job is distinctly different from the NT Devil. I am at peace with the role of the OT Satan. So where does this NT Devil come from?

I see your point on the way and nessecity of the meeting Jesus had with Satan, and that it HAD to happen, I can agree with you. However I can't go so far as to say that there is NO conspiracy within the machinations of the Roman Catholic Church and the Bible. There is something evil afoot, and it grows stronger every day. I don't have the answer.

I have a geat affinity for the Jewish/Essene rabbi, Jesus, and feel as if I heard his message in my own ear. I also feel as tho I have stood before the Angel of God, who is represented in the Book of Job. His presence was that of the fire of a great oven, a trial in which the end result is a strength such as the forging of steel, a walk through the fire. I am certainly not at the end of my "test."

As for Dan Brown, I haven't read his books, and I watched his movies as action films and entertainment, but not truth. I have researched the gnostic texts and read many other books that shed light on the life of and put forward the theory of Jesus having survived the crucifiction and going to France, where he had a family and set up his church. "The Sign of the Dove, is one them.

I have only barely scratched the surface of the story of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, and the First Council of Neceae. I was reading, and haven't finished reading it, "All Roads Lead to Rome" here on ATS. If you haven't seen it, go take a peak. It is the basis for my question and this thread. I am no expert on the subject, so pardon me if I come accross as a "know it all." I do not!

Peace

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
Ok I am a Christian and a little plug for myself youtube.com... I just made a documentary called Age of Deceit: Fallen Angels and the New World Order...

but to address your point, a couple of things. The scriptures were written and considered inspired prior to the Council of Nicea. This is documented fact. A lot of what people consider Christianity today (zeitgeist claims etc) are all actually the post Constantine paganized version of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church in essence is a Satanic organization. The dark history of "Christendom" we consider today, are largely due to the Catholic Institution. Christianity was never meant to be institutionalized. But consider this...

Assuming that Satan DID tempt Jesus, these are the implications. One, Satan does have legal authority over the earth. This makes sense with conspiracy theories, and all the Satanism and Luceferianism behind the world elite. Second, if Satan offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the earth" ya think he might have offered the same thing to the world elite? Just something to think about.

I do think it's literal. I think the bible is full of amazing things about the true nature of reality, dimensions, etc. There are even time travelers in the bible. Consider Elijah...he get's taken out by God, and appears again way later in the book when Jesus was transfigured. Was Elijah transported through time to be a witness to this event? Something to consider.

Anyways, in short, yes, I do believe the temptation account to be true. Whether it was a literal physical experience, or a spiritual (meta-physical) event? I don't know.

Spot on.
Also I might add that in order for Jesus to suffer the same afflictions and pain as man he also needs to suffer temptation. There is no man on earth who has never been tempted in one way or another. It was just another way of proving how man can overcome sin as long as we are in constant connection with the Lord. That happens through, prayer, studying the word fasting and following the law.

From what I gather from the New Testament, Jesus didn't deal directly with Satan but rather Beelzebub, sort of Satan's right-hand demon. He basically admits it in Mark 20:30, where he talks about using Beelzebub to do good things, like curing people, as a way of dividing the powers of Hell and turning them against each other -- "divide and conquer."

Jesus was a very busy sorcerer and necromancer, particularly in his last days, and was accused by many, even his own people, of being possessed (or infected) by demonic influence. But Jesus ignored them, and even bragged he was greater than Solomon when it came to handling demons. It was not long after that Jesus started acting really aggressive and booted the moneylenders out of the Temple, and started talking about setting the world on fire. He became a visible problem to the Pharisees, and paid for it.

So I suggest that if you believe any of that Bible stuff at all, and actually read the story of what happened, not only was Jesus tempted by Satan -- or at least Beelzebub -- but actually infected and influenced. And it ended up with him being crucified for being a sorcerer and a dangerous claimant to the Jewish throne with a large and unstable following.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
From what I gather from the New Testament, Jesus didn't deal directly with Satan but rather Beelzebub, sort of Satan's right-hand demon. He basically admits it in Mark 20:30, where he talks about using Beelzebub to do good things, like curing people, as a way of dividing the powers of Hell and turning them against each other -- "divide and conquer."

Jesus was a very busy sorcerer and necromancer, particularly in his last days, and was accused by many, even his own people, of being possessed (or infected) by demonic influence. But Jesus ignored them, and even bragged he was greater than Solomon when it came to handling demons. It was not long after that Jesus started acting really aggressive and booted the moneylenders out of the Temple, and started talking about setting the world on fire. He became a visible problem to the Pharisees, and paid for it.

So I suggest that if you believe any of that Bible stuff at all, and actually read the story of what happened, not only was Jesus tempted by Satan -- or at least Beelzebub -- but actually infected and influenced. And it ended up with him being crucified for being a sorcerer and a dangerous claimant to the Jewish throne with a large and unstable following.

That's a deeper look into and a different take on the miracles of Jesus, interesting. So do you think this "infection" was divine and served God's purpose or was it a weakness and led to a to the man's down fall?

Originally posted by windword
That's a deeper look into and a different take on the miracles of Jesus, interesting. So do you think this "infection" was divine and served God's purpose or was it a weakness and led to a to the man's down fall?

I'm of a fringe opinion that Jesus was a student of the occult works of Solomon, and who had a minor claim to the lineage of David (and the throne) through his mother and his aunt, Salome. He was primarily interested in political gain -- that whole "King of the Jews" thing didn't just appear out of thin air, and that part of the story has been mostly lost. Jesus essentially manipulated his cousin John the Baptist, had him beheaded, stole his teachings, and took over his following as a way to quickly gain supporters. This is clearer in the rediscovered Gnostic texts, particularly his affair with Salome. (See the Gospel of Thomas)

Jesus taught his closest apostles the art of demon casting, and they used that to gather larger crowds and financial support their group. Jesus himself came from a very wealthy family, but demon work was also a huge part of the ministry, though it's not focused on these days, for obvious reasons.

And as the demon work and the number of people grew, Jesus clearly became more ambitious while at the same time very psychologically unstable. People said he was insane. The most interesting thing is how over the following centuries people took the story of this failed political madman and turned it into a philosophical "victory."

I don't think there was anything divine about it. I just think it was a consequence of an ambitious and unstable man doing very questionable and dangerous things.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
Ok I am a Christian and a little plug for myself youtube.com... I just made a documentary called Age of Deceit: Fallen Angels and the New World Order...

but to address your point, a couple of things. The scriptures were written and considered inspired prior to the Council of Nicea. This is documented fact. A lot of what people consider Christianity today (zeitgeist claims etc) are all actually the post Constantine paganized version of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church in essence is a Satanic organization. The dark history of "Christendom" we consider today, are largely due to the Catholic Institution. Christianity was never meant to be institutionalized. But consider this...

Assuming that Satan DID tempt Jesus, these are the implications. One, Satan does have legal authority over the earth. This makes sense with conspiracy theories, and all the Satanism and Luceferianism behind the world elite. Second, if Satan offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the earth" ya think he might have offered the same thing to the world elite? Just something to think about.

I do think it's literal. I think the bible is full of amazing things about the true nature of reality, dimensions, etc. There are even time travelers in the bible. Consider Elijah...he get's taken out by God, and appears again way later in the book when Jesus was transfigured. Was Elijah transported through time to be a witness to this event? Something to consider.

Anyways, in short, yes, I do believe the temptation account to be true. Whether it was a literal physical experience, or a spiritual (meta-physical) event? I don't know.

I believe it to be a true account also, because it can happen in our own lives. It's a spiritual process of soul growth where a person has to make a choice...do I take it or do I not or do I live with it and keep my sanity? Many have sold themselves out for money or recognition or sold someone else out for their own gain, but I think a person can only live that way for so long without harming themselves spiritually. I have stated that the path Christ walked is a path that everyone will walk eventually. It doesn't happen exactly the same way it did for the christ 2000 years ago, but the events we experience in life put us through the same process.

For me, it was very close to the actual events step by step. We don't have to be nailed to a cross to be crucified or stoppped dead in our tracks. The healing took place in the tomb and the large boulder represents our letting go of the past and a purification, and a new beginning from that moment.

At one time I thought about writing a book of the steps the christ took leading up to his resurrection and what they mean and I was even told I would, but I'm not. John the Babtist losing his head represents loss of ego...I think. I even experienced an unattachment to my own body. It was very strange. I communed with the Christ consciousness one-on-one and the only reason I'm admitting this is so people know that the path is not experienced by only one man. The path is an initiatory one where steps are taken and it's like passing through the fire. At one point I thought the blood would come through my skin.At this stage, a person could be going through chemo and experience a total remission. This is the time in the desert. I know it sounds strange, but I was shown for a reason. I see people that go through the stages and not realize they are walking the path. When they survive this process, they usually have a spiritual experience of some kind. It's not easy to go through, but that's life and growth. Being anointed is attaining the christ consciousness. It is real. Maintaining that level is not so easy.

The Sphynx...it's a question that must be answered at a certian point in our lives;not exactly a riddle.

reply to post by windword


according to himself he revealed a great deal to the disciples and to some who believed. Something along the lines of it being more than all the books of the world could abide.

Bragging isn't wrong if it's bragging about God, btw.

reply to post by windword


Just as Adam had been tempted, so Jesus as the second Adam must pass a test of obedience. Who actually ever heard the Satan tempt Adam? So it is with Jesus. It does not seem reasonable to think that Jesus would describe his 40 days in the desert experience. Probably he was questioned and responded to give the answers that then became part of the testmonies to him.so what happened when you were in the desert alone? Point is one of obedience.Type thing. One must remember that these stories were oral for many years. it is actually ridiculous to think that the son of god could not overcome satanic temptation but the point is obey god.

You all make some compelling points. I'm sure that Jesus was very likable and a good talker. He was willing to share and you're right, his friends probably urged him to tell his stories and answer their questions.

King David had scribes follow him and write down his every word, he was eccentric that was. Jesus could very well have had a gaggle of reporters/papparazi, and in even more intimate discussions, may have been assigned a scribe.

As I said in my OP, I don't have a problem with the idea of his "vision quest" and conversation with Satan, but I understand better now the metaphysical importance of it being included in his history.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
I don't think the words of Jesus were meant to be taken literally. However organized religion has taken the opportunity to present it as science fact so they could control the masses.

^ this guy, lol.
One day everybody shall meet their maker.

reply to post by windword


You didn't really answer the point though, that if what the Bible says about Jesus wasn't an accurate description of events that some early Christians had themselves witnessed or people that they knew and trusted had witnessed, why would they have been prepared to die for their fatih at the hands of the Romans? Why would anyone die for a faith based on a lie that they would have been party to? All that some of them needed to do to escape been thrown to the lions was to signal their allegiance to Caesor worship.

The temptation of Jesus was one of these events that if it was just a made up fairy story then it would be hard to justify a cause worth dying for en masse. There is no evidence that Jesus was a liar... surely the Jews would have seized on any excuse to expose him as a liar, particularly as he accused the Jewish hierarchy of being liars and coming from their father the Devil - not sent by his heavenly father who he identifeid as Jehovah.

Also why if Jesus was a fraud also, would Caiphus & the Pharisees have bothered to have him put to death, when they knew Jesus was actually innocent of the charges they callously brought upon him. If he was a fraud & the miracles were a fraud, then surely they would have exposed him as a Charleton & a false prophet. However some of the Pharisees actually witnessed some of the miracles that Jesus performed and they knew this man posed an unimaginable threat to their nice little earner at the temple in Jerusalem. Caiphus in particular who was high priest came from a very wealthy family, which earned it's living at the temple. Jesus enraged their wrath when he turned over the tables called it "a cave of robbers" because of the scams they were running regarding animal sacrifices. Jesus and this "new religion" threatened their way of life and because he wouldn't rise up & fight the Romans as any decent Messiah ought....their only option was to get rid as soon as possible.

You also mention fulfillment of prophecies being convenient...however it should be remembered that the Jews were expecting "the Messiah" to be born around the time of Jesus' birth. This is why Herod had all the male children under 2 years of age killed, an event recorded by secular as well as Biblical writers.

The other events I have mentioned ie the Christians being tortured & put to death en masse & some of Jesus life are also attested to in the writings of Josephus and Roman writers, not just the Scriptures.

The name Jesus (Gr., I‧e‧sous′) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

The word Christ is an official title often added to the name of the person Jesus. the Greek Khri‧stos′ is equivalent to the Hebrew Ma‧shi′ach, “Messiah; Anointed One.” Thererore "Jesus Christ" distinguishes, Jesus the man from all persons with that name. As with his cousin John being identified as "John the Baptist"

Originally posted by JB1234
reply to post by windword

 

You didn't really answer the point though, that if what the Bible says about Jesus wasn't an accurate description of events that some early Christians had themselves witnessed or people that they knew and trusted had witnessed, why would they have been prepared to die for their fatih at the hands of the Romans? Why would anyone die for a faith based on a lie that they would have been party to? All that some of them needed to do to escape been thrown to the lions was to signal their allegiance to Caesor worship.

People volunteer to die for a cause everyday and many of those causes are based on a lie.

Ceasar did not send "Christains to the lions," Nero did in 69 AD. He did so because of problems in the city of Rome. There was a problem of overpopluation and unrest of captured slaves, many of whom were still practicing the religions of their home countries. There was disease and dilapitated structures as well as unemployment of the citizens. Nero set fire to the city to solve the problems and then blamed the fire, disease and famine of the religions of the slaves, having caused the displeasure of the Gods. He sacrified these people, as the "pound of flesh" the Roman citizens were demanding.

The idea that these individuals had a choice is a myth. The idea that denying their beliefs and pledging alligence to Ceasar is a myth. The idea that all that died were practicing Christains is a myth.

The temptation of Jesus was one of these events that if it was just a made up fairy story then it would be hard to justify a cause worth dying for en masse. There is no evidence that Jesus was a liar... surely the Jews would have seized on any excuse to expose him as a liar, particularly as he accused the Jewish hierarchy of being liars and coming from their father the Devil - not sent by his heavenly father who he identifeid as Jehovah.

Also why if Jesus was a fraud also, would Caiphus & the Pharisees have bothered to have him put to death, when they knew Jesus was actually innocent of the charges they callously brought upon him. If he was a fraud & the miracles were a fraud, then surely they would have exposed him as a Charleton & a false prophet. However some of the Pharisees actually witnessed some of the miracles that Jesus performed and they knew this man posed an unimaginable threat to their nice little earner at the temple in Jerusalem. Caiphus in particular who was high priest came from a very wealthy family, which earned it's living at the temple. Jesus enraged their wrath when he turned over the tables called it "a cave of robbers" because of the scams they were running regarding animal sacrifices. Jesus and this "new religion" threatened their way of life and because he wouldn't rise up & fight the Romans as any decent Messiah ought....their only option was to get rid as soon as possible.

I never said that Jesus was a fraud. I questioned the story of the temptation of Jesus because there were no witnesses. The story could very well have been made up or embellished, for all we know.

What Jesus taught wasn't new. It was controversial because he taught the secret knowledge of the jewish/essene myticism that had been kept hidden from the masses. He threated the status quo and empowered the lowly masses. He had to be stopped.

You also mention fulfillment of prophecies being convenient...however it should be remembered that the Jews were expecting "the Messiah" to be born around the time of Jesus' birth. This is why Herod had all the male children under 2 years of age killed, an event recorded by secular as well as Biblical writers.

The other events I have mentioned ie the Christians being tortured & put to death en masse & some of Jesus life are also attested to in the writings of Josephus and Roman writers, not just the Scriptures.

The First Council of Neceae met in 325 AD. 325 years after the fact. These politicians and popes were in no way concerned about the actual teaching of Jesus, but in creating a God and a religion that could ressonate with the conquered people of the Roman Empire and combine civil and religious law. All voices of descent were murdered. It only got worse as the religion grew. No good, in my opinion, came from this meeting, and should be held to high scrutiny, not blind faith. The evil that thrives just below the surface of this original plot had no intention of teaching the true meanings of the words of Jesus.

The story of the temptation of Jesus is a paradox to critical thinking, as discussed in this thread. As I have stated both in my OP and throughout this thread, I understand the metaphisics of the story, but question its "truthiness". Please check out the links in my OP and learn a little history.