Was Jesus Really Tempted by Satan?

Originally posted by Sigismundus

‘And he comes to Beth Saida; and lo, they bring a blind man unto Iesous and they are begging him to lay his hands upon him – then Iesous takes the Blind Man by the Hand and leads him out of the Village apart and then he begins to spit into his eyes and to place his hands upon them…’

Healings in 1st century Palestine were linked to daemon exorcisms – since illness was thought to be caused by possession – (cf: the ‘exorcism’ of Peter’s mother in law of a ‘fever-daemon’ in the second canonical Greek gospel ‘according to Mark’ )

The stroy is a bit more complicated than you have here. He didnt spit into the mans eyes. He spit into his own hand and mixed dirt with it and made sort of a clay and then spread it over the man eyes. The significance here is that Christ was communicating that He had the same power to reconstruct this mans eyes, using clay, that God had in making man from clay or dirt at the beginning. "before Moses was I Am". Taking scritpture as a whole He was saying that He was the very same God that made man to begin with.

This goes light years beyond an explanation that Christ was using some form of majic. As well healings in the new testement are never referred to as demon exorcisms. Demon exorcisms are referred to as such and are never mentioned in conjuction with fever, palsy, leprosy ect.

What came to be recognized about Jesus is that he wasnt a traveling magicain but a whole new power was present in Him. He took on demon cases that no one could touch with just a word. And in cases where demons would speak through their captives Jesus was recognized for who He was. "We know who you are the holy one of god". He was also called "A great light" that had risen up amoung them.

reply to post by JB1234

Hi JB1234

If you REALLY REALLY REALLY believe that ‘All Scripture’ (i.e. anything written down on any writable surface, Gk. ‘Graphe’) is ‘god-breathed’ -- then you must ALSO believe that even a list of male temple prostitutes from the holy Temple of Diana at Ephesus is also ‘god-breathed’ - as well as all other scriptures from antiquity -including the the Graffiti on the walls of the 1st century Coliseum in Rome that states: 'Muscular Demetrius the Gladiator is in hopelessly in love with Marcus the pretty Boy from Ostia' are ALSO ‘god breathed’ -- and if you reallty believe that 'All Scripture' is 'god-breathed', then, of course, you must also believe that ALL of the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures that were eventually NOT included into later ‘Jewish’ canon of holy scriptures [‘that defiled the hands’ ] - more or less established (including Esther !) after 160 CE, but NOT before that - are also ‘god-breathed’ too –

So, according to your Weltanschauung and mistranslations, non canonical Books like e.g. The Scroll of the Book of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs being the Sons of Yakkov to all the Sons of Light in the Last Days (which the earliest Nazorean Messianists in Palestine regarded as ‘god-breathed’ and the Greek speaking Iesous of the canonical Greek gospels freely quotes from), and the Scroll of the Book of the Divisions of the Times into their Jubilees and Weeks (aka the Testament of Moses or ‘Jubilees’ which the Greek speaking Iesous of the canonical Greek gospels also freely quotes from) is also ‘god-breathed’ (i.e. canonical) and also The Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch, son of Jared, to all the Sons of Light in the Last Days (which the Greek speaking Iesous of the Greek canonical gospels freely quotes from as does the Epistle of Jude 1:14) is likewise ‘god-breathed’ as all the earliest Nazorean Messianists in Palestine certainly did, - and you must ALSO accept the ‘The Scroll of the Book of the Wisdom of Yehoshua ben Sirach’ (aka Ecclesiasticus or just plain ‘Sirach’, which the Greek speaking Iesous of the Greek canonical gospels freely quotes from) as part of your ‘god-breathed’ canon of holy ‘writings which defile the hands’ – not to mention several dozen others like The Scroll of the 'Brontologion' (or, 'How to Read the language of Thunderclaps') or 'The War Scroll' (1QM) etc. etc.

In other words, you plainly DO NOT know what you are talking about.

Moreover, you clearly DO NOT understand even the basics of 1st century Koine Greek syntax by your mis-translated confusion of 2 Timothy 3:16 which does NOT say ‘all Scripture is god-breathed’ at all, but rather ‘all scripture THAT IS god-breathed IS USEFUL for teaching, reproving …’ etc.

So don’t even go there. Rather, go back to school and learn the BASICS of your argument - otherwise you will be standing there hopelessly flailing your arms out in the dark, spewing empty aiir from an empty brain.

My advice to you: go out (NOW !!) and take a beginner’s course in 1st Century Koine Greek :

Then go and take a Beginner’s course in Theology 101 and learn what a CANON is and how those books that eventually came to be included in the CANON of Scripture (or rather, CANONS in the plural, different church groups in different cities in antiquity all held DIFFERENT canons of ‘scripture’) all came to be included ‘in the Protestant Bible’ (hint: the Roman Catholic Bible holds other ‘sacred-books’ not included in the Protestant Bible, and the Catholic ‘Old’ Testament is textually based on the 4th century Latin Vulgate which itself is based on a variant family of the Septuagint Greek LXX Old Testament and NOT the 1000 AD Masoretic pointed text alla the Leningrad Codex later used by Protestants) ;

Then - take a Basic Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls 101 Course so you’ll know EXACTLY what specific scrolls (and what specific families of copies of those scrolls) were the exact ones which were considered pre 68 CE to ‘defile the hands’ (i.e. to be sacred Scripture) among Messianic Jews and the earliest Christian communities in Palestine and Asia minor (can you say ‘during the lifetime of Jeeezuz’? can you say ‘during the life time of Paul’?)

Then we can have a NICE LONG discussion. Until then, you are just blowing smoke up everybody’s behind, and not fooling anyone by your jejune ignorance of even the most basic facts of this subject - of which you are not in any way shape or form qualified to discuss in any intelligent detail.

Sorry for sounding a little harsh but I do not wish to have my time wasted by persons like yourself you don't even have the basic facts straight in their heads....

reply to post by Logarock


Hey Logarock -

I’m not sure what version of text of the 2nd canonical Greek gospel (‘according to Mark’, whoever he was) you have – or whether you can even read Greek - but take a closer look at the mangled Greek words contained within the mangled Greek texts of the 2nd canonical Greek gospel that have been handed down from antiquity of ‘Mark’ chapter 8:22 ff – most MSS clearly state that (albeit a Greek-speaking) Iesous SPIT INTO THE MAN’s EYES – no saliva mud pies here….
From ‘Canonical Greek Mark’
8: 22 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς βηθσαϊδάν. καὶ φέρουσιν αὐτῶ τυφλὸν καὶ παρακαλοῦσιν αὐτὸν ἵνα αὐτοῦ ἅψηται.
23 καὶ ἐπιλαβόμενος τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ τυφλοῦ ἐξήνεγκεν αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς κώμης, καὶ πτύσας εἰς τὰ ὄμματα αὐτοῦ, ἐπιθεὶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶ, ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν, εἴ τι βλέπεις;
24 καὶ ἀναβλέψας ἔλεγεν, βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περιπατοῦντας.
25 εἶτα πάλιν ἐπέθηκεν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ, καὶ διέβλεψεν, καὶ ἀπεκατέστη, καὶ ἐνέβλεπεν τηλαυγῶς ἅπαντα.


“And they come to Bethsaida, and some people are bringing a blind man to him and they beg that Iesous touch him – and [Iesous] takes the blind man by the hand and leads him outside of the village [and] when he had spit INTO the man’s eyes, he lays his hands on him, Iesous asks asked, “Can you see anything at all?” and the man looked up and says to him, “I see people; but they look like walking tree stumps…” So again Iesous lays his hands upon the man’s eyes and immediately his eyes were opened, his sight was restored.”

So where are you getting all the saliva mud pie healing methodology from this verse. Why would you add DIRT to this passage, which contains no dirt at all in the Greek?

Are you just making stuff up, or what?

And of course the story is MORE complicated than I have outlined - there is only so much one post can contain without boring people to sobs on these threads - and if more detail is to your taste, I can give you a veritable Feast !!!

reply to post by Sigismundus
I am sorry. I was thinking of Johns account of a case where Jesus used spit and mud.

Jhn 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay......

You could have simply corrected me there without the rant considering your vast wealth of knowlege on the subject.

Although I am correct about there being no connection made with sickness or conditions with demon possesion. Being clearly stated (if not then show me one).

The spitting thing goes back to the law for the Jews not really to a form of the heathen exorcism rites. However they are probably in both cases to show contempt.

Lev 15:8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even.

Deu 25:9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.

Anyway spiting is a statement of disgust. In the first case (Lev 15:8) however Christ spitting on a blind man to heal him has suggestions toward Marks recordings. Christ could spit and heal whereas man can only spit to show contempt and seperation and if a sick man spits on someone that is not sick, the person who is not sick must wash himself and seperate himself as unclean for the rest of the day. Even if Christ was showing contempt for the sickness it had a healing effect.

In cases of demon possession it is not recorded that Jesus spit on anyone. He spoke to demons.

reply to post by Logarock

Hi LogaRock -

The linkage of illnesses which we would medically recognise under the heading of e.g. mute-deafness (or 'Aphasia') etc. were all in the minds of among 1st century Palestinian Jews as 'daemon possession' which could be cured by a kind of Rabiinic Shaman who would speak 'words of Magick; and or use a magical talisman etc. to drive out the illness, much like many primitive societies in antiquity (seen even today in remote parts of Africa and Asia etc.)

According to the 3 canonical Greek Synoptic Gospels (‘according to Matthew, Mark, Luke’ whoever they were) Jesus performed many ‘exorcisms by magical words’ of ‘those possessed by kako-daemons (i.e. evil spirits). Curiously perhaps, these daemon excorcism-incidents (“pericopes” complete with beginnings, middles and endings to them) are missing altogether from the 4th canonical Greek Gospel of 'John', whoever he was...

For the Messianic Covenanters of Roman Occupied Palestine in the 1st century (especially c. 36 CE at the 100th anniversary of the invasion of Pompey in 63 BCE) followers of one Messiah figure or another pointed to the alleged ‘ability’ of their own Messianic heroes (e.g. a Greek speaking Iesous in the synoptic Gospels, to give one example) to cast out demons is a ‘sign’ of Messiahship – in the case of the gospels, a Greek Speaking Iesous also empowered his own disciples to do the same as a sign of the Last Days – i.e. in fulfilment of Messianic prophecy

see Proto-Isaiah 35:4-6 –
In that Day the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy !”

Proto-Isaiah 29:17-18 –
And in that Day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll,
and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see clearly !

Deutero-Isaiah chapter 53: 1-5 -
Surely he took up our pains to bear our suffering & by his wounds we are healed…

In the Talmud see Sanhedrin 98b – ‘The Lepers in the House of study is his Name, as it is said, Amen he has borne our diseases and our pains - he carried them and we thought him stricken, smitten of EL and afflicted.”

Nachmanides (R. Moshe ben Nachman) (13th c.) “The right view respecting this Parasha is to suppose that by the phrase ‘my servant’ the whole of Israel is meant... but by the Midrash which refers to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered by his enemies. …'And by his stripes we are healed' - because the stripes by which he is distressed will heal us; The Blessed One of Yisro'el will pardon us for his righteousness & we shall be healed both from our own and from the iniquities of our Fathers.” (S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, ed., Isaiah 53 According to the Jewish Interpretation, Klav, 1969, p. 78 f.)

The 7 Exorcisms in the 3 Greek Synoptic Gospels were placed there as ‘Messianic Proof texts’ to show that their Greek speaking Iesous is the Messiah or Christ who was supposed to do these things...at least according to the Hebrew scriptures.

Exorcising the SyroPhoencian (gentile) woman's daughter of a ‘bleeder demon’ appears in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30 is only reluctantly performed by a very zionist-racist Greek Speaking Iesous

(‘Lady the Bar-Enasha (son of man) was ONLY sent to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro’el – & anyway, since when is it right to take the bread of the children out of their mouths & throw it away on the DOGS (i.e. gentiles) under the Table?')

In this primitive pericope (see ‘Matthew’ chaper 15), where the inherent racist zionism of the very earliest Nazorean Palestinian Jewish-Christians is still part of the narrative the ideas of ‘healing’ and ‘excorcism’ amount to the same thing – the lady is cured by ‘magical words at a distance’ in other words by a Magician like Appolyonius of Tyana who was popular excorcist-magician around the time that the canonical Greek gospels were circulating c. 80 CE i.e. after the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE)

We see the same kind of LINKAGE of daemonic possession and illness in the Exorcising of a blind and mute man in ‘Matthew’ chapter 12:22-32, and in ‘Luke’ 11:14-23 and also in ‘Mark’ 3:20-30 where their own Greek Speaking Iesous figures are shown to heal a demon-possessed man who was both blind & mute, so that after the excorsim he could both talk & see - the point of these pericopes is in the reaction of the people : ‘and they were astonished and said, "Could this possibly be the [Messiah, the] Son of David?"

See Matt 9:32-34 – where a guy possessed by a Deaf-Mute Daemon was brought to Jesus for ‘excorcism’. And when the Kako-Daemon was 'driven out by magical words' by ‘Iesous’ the mute purportedly spoke !

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by Logarock

Hi LogaRock -

The linkage of illnesses which we would medically recognise under the heading of e.g. mute-deafness (or 'Aphasia') etc. were all in the minds of among 1st century Palestinian Jews as 'daemon possession' which could be cured by a kind of Rabiinic Shaman who would speak 'words of Magick; and or use a magical talisman etc. to drive out the illness, much like many primitive societies in antiquity (seen even today in remote parts of Africa and Asia etc.)

According to the 3 canonical Greek Synoptic Gospels (‘according to Matthew, Mark, Luke’ whoever they were) Jesus performed many ‘exorcisms by magical words’ of ‘those possessed by kako-daemons (i.e. evil spirits). Curiously perhaps, these daemon excorcism-incidents (“pericopes” complete with beginnings, middles and endings to them) are missing altogether from the 4th canonical Greek Gospel of 'John', whoever he was...


See Matt 9:32-34 – where a guy possessed by a Deaf-Mute Daemon was brought to Jesus for ‘excorcism’. And when the Kako-Daemon was 'driven out by magical words' by ‘Iesous’ the mute purportedly spoke !

There is no indication that Jesus used anything other than His authority, that the demons understood, to drive the demons out. He didnt do the magical mystery tour on these spirits.

You make a point here with the deaf and dumb demon but Jesus told him to leave whereas in the case of the blind and tougue tied Jesus put hands on him but no majic is indicated. As well although we may be tempted to draw comparisons there is no indication that this guy was demon possesed. The indication is he had a physical condition, organic, where as the other guy had a demon controling him that was deaf and mute.

Thats why Jesus spoke to demons rather than lay hands on thier victims. By law He couldnt touch anything unclean as in unclean spirit, a spirit of the dead, not that He would have wanted to anyway.

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by Logarock

Exorcising the SyroPhoencian (gentile) woman's daughter of a ‘bleeder demon’ appears in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30 is only reluctantly performed by a very zionist-racist Greek Speaking Iesous

(‘Lady the Bar-Enasha (son of man) was ONLY sent to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro’el – & anyway, since when is it right to take the bread of the children out of their mouths & throw it away on the DOGS (i.e. gentiles) under the Table?')

In this primitive pericope (see ‘Matthew’ chaper 15), where the inherent racist zionism of the very earliest Nazorean Palestinian Jewish-Christians is still part of the narrative the ideas of ‘healing’ and ‘excorcism’ amount to the same thing – the lady is cured by ‘magical words at a distance’ in other words by a Magician like Appolyonius of Tyana who was popular excorcist-magician around the time that the canonical Greek gospels were circulating c. 80 CE i.e. after the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE)

There is no indication that Jesus used magic here.

As far as the racist part, the SyroPhoencian were racist against the Israelites and had a long history with these folks. They almost overthrew the leadership of both Israel and Judah buy way of Jezable and her daughter who were married into the lines from outside do to relations both nations had politically. In fact her daughter killed off all the royal line of the King of Judah, save for one that escaped, and set hereself as Queen. This woman and her mother were witches and their dad was a warlock. All this murder and intrigue was clearly an attempt to overthrow the line so that Christ would not be born in the line. So Jesus as King of the Jews and member of the House of David is certainly going to have a problem with this lady.....to make a point anyway. So he made her show a little humility toward His people before He healed her. But he did heal her.

And as "synchronicity" would have it she wanted her daughter healed i.e. like the daughter of Jezable. And it was Jezables daughter that butcherd the Jewish Kings sons. This is what is being addressed here and His willingness not to take wrath out on this woman speaks to His forgivness capacity. To heal the daughter of an historic and important national and tribal enemy. And who knows this woman may have even been a descendant fo that Phoencian line that gave birth to Jezable.

reply to post by windword


Interesting thoughts op but I would like to point out a few misconceptions in your opening. First, the council was not there to make the canon. From your own source link we find:

"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all."

Second, this is not the birth of christianity. Constantine did want a unification of the church. It would seem sort of add to unify something that did not exist wouldn't you agree? The purpose of the council was to resolve issues from the various sects around the empire.

they frown one one line post but No he was never tempted.
I am not saying the devil didnt offer him the world to rule im saying he wasnt tempted by it.
To be tempted by any thing is like walking in the bank seeing the piles of money there and taht fealing comes over you think what if i stole it. Not saying you would accutly follow through but the flash that last a second money woman , drugs what ever it is we are faced with these things and because were are week have to stop our self from doing it.
So to imply Jesus accutly was tempted means he thought about accutly doing it thuse being none perfect after all even thinking about sex with another person out side marriage is a sin . The bible doesnt differ between what you think of as a sin and accutly committing that sin .
But for all the people taht will say this isnt true when you think how you want to kill that person but dont taht is as much of a sin in gods eyes as doing it .
he makes no distinction from a kid stealing a penny candy and hitler if you read the bible you know this is true

Originally posted by drivers1492
reply to post by windword

 

Interesting thoughts op but I would like to point out a few misconceptions in your opening. First, the council was not there to make the canon. From your own source link we find:

"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all."

Second, this is not the birth of christianity. Constantine did want a unification of the church. It would seem sort of add to unify something that did not exist wouldn't you agree? The purpose of the council was to resolve issues from the various sects around the empire.

I am no authority on what went down during the First Council of Niceae, however, your idea of homogenation of the gospel makes sense to me. They wanted everyone reading and translating the same thing the same way. Funny, it didn't work.

My question arose not from my scholarly abilities but from a logical confusion. The poster just above, expresses my opinion on the matter of Jesus' temptation. As far as early greek, hebrew or latin translation there seen to be a few experts here in this thread that I'll defer to.

reply to post by Logarock

Hi Loga -

Can you REALLY (with a straight face) claim that this is NOT zionist-racism flat out and in your face, considering the context of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (looking over what he considered to be the northern border of the Euprates river as it passes into Lebanon - as a Messianic Pretender Figure 'in the last Days' bfore the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome) who is SPECIFICALLY addressing a SyroPhonecian Gentile woman ('dog'' in the current parlance of zionist racists of the time), who are the SAME race of ancient Syro-Phonecian people (you know the guys who invented the Aleph Beth which the benei Yisroel, illiterates all, stole as their own PaleoHebrew script !) who were ALSO the same ones who had the know-how to construct the 1st Yahweh-Temple ('the socalled Temple of Solomon' - after all, the bene Yisro'el were tent-makers, not temple builders, and would not know where to start when it came to sophisticated permanent buildings) and whose currency (the Tyrian Shekel) was for many centuries the Jerusalemite 'official' ritual-temple currency even down to the time of the Herods ?

Here is the zionist-racist quotation still preserved by a Greek speaking Iesous in the 1st canonical Gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was) when the syroPhonecian gentile woman, even calling him 'Son of David', pleaded to him to 'exorsise the bleeder daemon from my daughter...' - i.e. by magical words/spells - i.e. the work of a Magus or Magician alla Appolonius of Tyana who also 'healed at a distance by spells'

Here is the charming zionist reply of the good Rebbe : (‘Lady the Bar-Enasha (son of man) was ONLY sent to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro’el – & anyway, since when is it right to take the bread of the children out of their mouths & throw it away on the DOGS (i.e. goyim non Jews or 'gentiles') under the Table?')

But back to 1st century Galilean Magicians & Messianic pretenders...(can you say, 'Honi the Circle Drawer'?)

The fact that 'gullible' Judaeans and Galileans in those days really DID believe that someone like the Greek speaking Iesous of the canonical gospels could really 'cast out daemons' by a magical word certainly SOUNDS like the work of a Magician/ Sorcerer to me -- and also can account for the later accusations preserved in the so-called Babylonian Talmud echoed by the earlier Judaean authorities of the time that 'he practiced Sorcery and Witchcraft, and led many the sons of Yisro'el astray by his vile practices...'

I say 'gullible people in those days' quoting the un-expanded Josephus who wrote (below, here is the text minus the later Christian whitewashing found within the so-called 'Testimonium Flavianum' which forms part of his book 'The Antiquities of the Jews see: Book 18.Chapter 3.Verse 3 - which appeared fully translated into polished late 1st century Koine Greek in Flavian Rome some time in the 90's CE, annd based on his own Aramaic original, alas now lost)

QUOTE (based on the Arabic Christian Bishop, Agapius of Hierapolis 'un-expanded' version of the Testimonium)

"Now at this time came one Iesous, a Wisdom Teacher whose cult was always looked for miracles every-where and who had attached not only Judaeans but also god-fearers to him - and who regarded him as their Messiah and always citing sundry prophecies about him - but also his devoted followers (when at the instigation of many of the highest in authority among us had handed him over to Pilate who condemned him to be crucified [i.e. for armed sedition], were still so ardent in their devotion to him that they never quite abandoned his memory, but continued to honour him even long after his death - and this Tribe, known as Christians. has not quite died out, even to this day…’

Notice the phrase : lit. ‘whose devotees were always gleefully on the lookout for Miracles…’and whose followers linked his Messiahship to Prophecies’ - which explains why the canonical Greek Gospels are so full of these Midrashic expansions of Aramaic Targums relating to the ‘Miracles' [even of a Greek Speaking Messiah !] whose literary sources can be found among the Hebrew scriptures…which we to-day would ALSO categorise as ‘a product of the gullibility of the unwashed and illiterate Masses’…

This is the same process of 'magical workings' which is [present in those canonical gospel 'pericopes' having to do with the driving out of ‘daemons’ (i.e. = Exorcisms by a magical word at a distance) as well as those which required other magical workings e.g. physically spitting into the eyes of a person suffering from some affliction of the body, which ‘pre-scientific’ 1st century Jews superstitiously (i.e. gullibly) blamed on ‘ritual sin’ and/or ‘daemon possession’ in other words, hardly what we to-day would call ‘germ theory’ or even a genetic pre-disposition to one disease or another !

Much of the Bible has been traced down to fact by historians and the linking of all documents of the time. The Bible is of religious nature, and therefore contains ideals that may or may not have been lived out. Much of Christian religion requires not a perfect life, but faith. Faith is the belief in something that is unverifiable. Therefore trying to put any context of truth or falsity on any religious text that is not directly tied to world history or geography is a waste of time.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by Logarock


See Matt 9:32-34 – where a guy possessed by a Deaf-Mute Daemon was brought to Jesus for ‘excorcism’. And when the Kako-Daemon was 'driven out by magical words' by ‘Iesous’ the mute purportedly spoke !

You make a point here with the deaf and dumb demon but Jesus told him to leave whereas in the case of the blind and tougue tied Jesus put hands on him but no majic is indicated. As well although we may be tempted to draw comparisons there is no indication that this guy was demon possesed. The indication is he had a physical condition, organic, where as the other guy had a demon controling him that was deaf and mute.

Thats why Jesus spoke to demons rather than lay hands on thier victims. By law He couldnt touch anything unclean as in unclean spirit, a spirit of the dead, not that He would have wanted to anyway.

I need to correct this or at lest give it a * as there was a case of a woman that Chirst put hands on that was said to have a "spirit of infirmity". Christ even said satan had bound her. However the term "unclean" is not used here.

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by Logarock

Hi Loga -

Can you REALLY (with a straight face) claim that this is NOT zionist-racism flat out and in your face, considering the context of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (looking over what he considered to be the northern border of the Euprates river as it passes into Lebanon - as a Messianic Pretender Figure 'in the last Days' bfore the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome) who is SPECIFICALLY addressing a SyroPhonecian Gentile woman ('dog'' in the current parlance of zionist racists of the time), who are the SAME race of ancient Syro-Phonecian people (you know the guys who invented the Aleph Beth which the benei Yisroel, illiterates all, stole as their own PaleoHebrew script !) who were ALSO the same ones who had the know-how to construct the 1st Yahweh-Temple ('the socalled Temple of Solomon' - after all, the bene Yisro'el were tent-makers, not temple builders, and would not know where to start when it came to sophisticated permanent buildings) and whose currency (the Tyrian Shekel) was for many centuries the Jerusalemite 'official' ritual-temple currency even down to the time of the Herods ?

Here is the zionist-racist quotation still preserved by a Greek speaking Iesous in the 1st canonical Gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was) when the gentile woman, even calling him 'Son of David', pleaded to him to 'exorsise the bleeder daemon from my daughter...' - i.e. by magical words/spells - i.e. the work of a Magus or Magician alla Appolonius of Tyana who also 'healed at a distance by spells'

Here is the charming zionist reply of the good Rebbe : (‘Lady the Bar-Enasha (son of man) was ONLY sent to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro’el – & anyway, since when is it right to take the bread of the children out of their mouths & throw it away on the DOGS (i.e. goyim non Jews or 'gentiles') under the Table?')

Well its not like the "relatives" of the Jews that lived around them were not racists themselves toward the Jews. Yes Jesus use of the word dog is harsh but the end result wasnt. So logic would ask what point was Jesus trying to make in this apparent contradiction. Why would He call her a dog in effect and then turn around and commend her for her saying "yes but even the dogs eat crumbs from under the table". He seemed rather impressed. She didnt let the race issue cloud her understanding of how salvation came from the Jews through the house of David.

As far as the rest of what you say Jesus addresses these charges Himself as he was accused by some basically of sorcery. He warned that this was very dangers ground they were treading. Dangerous to the point if condemning their souls and that without recourse.

Jesus also addressed charges of being a nationalist zealot before Pilate when He said that "if my kingdom were of this world my followers would have fought to prevent me being taken prisoner. He was certainly not a zealot after the order of Maccabeus brothers. Jesus never lead and armed revolt against Rome nor did His followers. The Jewish wars were wholy a product of jewish nationalism and had zip to do with the christains. Jesus was fully aware of the fact that Rome, as was Babylon, in its day an ordained power kingdom with the right to occupy Israel.

In fact to further blow up your postulation that Christ was a zealot warlord of some measure note that in one passage He is told that some think He was Jeremiah born anew. Why is this? Primarily because Jeremaih was famous for telling the Jews to submit to the Baybonian yoke and not fight back. Jesus was well know as a friend of the Romans and other gentiles as opposed to the traditional mindset of strict seperation that most Jews were said to practice. Hard core zionist types roundly condemned Jesus and any other jews for that matter ( in the case of Jews taking money form a well placed Roman to build a synagogue) that had any sympathies for non Jewish folks. And here whatever we can say about Christ use of terms for the syroPhonecian he did do her justice whereas many would not even if they could.

Originally posted by LetterFromAThief
Much of the Bible has been traced down to fact by historians and the linking of all documents of the time. The Bible is of religious nature, and therefore contains ideals that may or may not have been lived out. Much of Christian religion requires not a perfect life, but faith. Faith is the belief in something that is unverifiable. Therefore trying to put any context of truth or falsity on any religious text that is not directly tied to world history or geography is a waste of time.

is this a straw man argument ?

Does anyone know what FASTING IS? Does anyone know what it's like to go a few days, without eating? Probably not, since most people stuff their face, at the 1st sound of their stomach's growl.

Well, the point of fasting is to become LESS CARNAL...and more spiritual.

Having said that, my theory regarding this story, is more spiritually based. Basically, God sent Jesus to the wilderness to fast...so that Jesus could get CLOSER to God spiritually, by DENYING HIMself. When Satan came to Jesus....Jesus was probably REALLY, REALLY hungry. So, Satan, in Jesus' MIND...was playing TRICKS on HIM, because HE was STARVING, hence, turning the rock into bread. And i'm SURE, Jesus probably battled SUICIDE during his hallucinations from hunger.

See, what people FAIL to realize in these biblical "stories" is the fact that Satan is in YOUR MIND. The battlefield is in YOUR MIND. The will to do right and wrong is in YOUR MIND.

Jesus had to CONQUOR HIS MIND, in order to come into FULL POWER....to make it through future events! I SERIOUSLY DOUBT, Jesus could have endured the beatings, and the cross...without having gone through this TEST. It was a precursor for things to come, to make Jesus STRONGER, spiritually! I'm sure it also CONVINCED Jesus that God was real; having gone 40 days with no food.

Do you people honestly believe Jesus walked around, thinking HE was God; eventhough HE KNEW HE was special??? Do you think Jesus didn't have HIS own devils and demons to fight off? Or, do you think that God showed favortism because Jesus was HIS Son? ahhaahahah Do you not know...that it PLEASED God, to see HIS Son take that beating, for YOU? "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise (crush) Him; HE has put HIM to grief." (Isa 53:10)

Daaaaaaaaang....what a MEAN GOD....to put HIS only begotten Son, through all that.....for YOUR sake. Jesus didn't die for HIMself....HE DIED FOR YOU. He faught the 'system' for you...and paid the ULTIMATE price. Little did 'they' know, 'they' were fulfilling prophecy. Well, actually they KNEW, but they didn't BELIEVE!

Again, people need to STUDY God's word...and stop thinking you 'know it all' because you've "read" it. It's not a "book".......it's a TESTIMONY...or should i say.......A WILL...and can hardly be read like a Tom Clancy novel. It is the BREAD of LIFE....which is really what your INNER-MAN/WOMAN needs! It doesn't need Mickey D's, it needs BREAD AND WATER!!!

Now, if you want your inheritance.....it behooves you to find out, by STUDYING, what God left you, in HIS last WILL AND TESTAMENT; and stop being so RELIGIOUS. Or, you could continue living your messed up life....because you didn't know any better. And people wonder why they're broke, busted, disgusted AND sick???? Really??? You want to be made well....or do you want to stay religious?

Here's another piece of YOUR inheritance....that you REFUSE to claim:

"Surely HE has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: Yet we esteemed HIM stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But HE was WOUNDED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, HE was bruised for OUR iniquities; the chastisement for OUR peace was upon HIM, AND BY HIS STRIPES WE ARE HEALED." (Isa. 53:4-5)

EAT YOUR BREAD, AND DRINK YOUR WATER....before you SURELY, DIE!

Forgot to mention: Death or dying, in the B.I.B.L.E. means to be "separated from God". It has NOTHING to do with your physical death...and everything to do with your SPIRITUAL death! You, as in: Your FLESH aka the carnal man, wants nothing to do with HIM....but your SPIRIT man/woman....longs and cries out, for that relationship. That is the sound you hear, when you're lying in bed at night. Your SPIRIT misses HIM!!! BELIEVE THAT!

reply to post by Logarock

Hi Loga --

You wrote: “Jesus …was certainly not a Zealot after the order of the Maccabees - Jesus never lead and armed revolt against Rome nor did His followers. The Jewish wars were wholy a product of jewish nationalism and had zip to do with Christains. Jesus was fully aware of the fact that Rome, as was Babylon, in its day an ordained power kingdom with the right to occupy Israel…”

This is nonsense - especially considering the fact that many of his own ‘disciples’ had Zealot names attached to them (‘Sons of Thunder’, ‘The Rock’, Simon Zelotes, etc.)

Don’t forget: the Passover of AD 36 (‘see the 2dn canonical gospel ‘Mark’ at the end of 15:6 ‘Bar Abbas who was under arrest during the Insurrection…’ mentioned just as if Mark’s audience (whoever they were) knew all about THE Insurrection - ) was in fact the 200th anniversary of the Macabbean Revolt in 163 BC and the 100th anniversary of the Roman invasion of Pompey in 63 BCE) and goes in stark contradiction to many uncomfortable words (‘the times of the Amorites is fulfilled, repent and believe the good news of the kingdom of Heaven…’ in other words, the times of the Romans is over – time to take back the Holy Land for the ‘chosen people’ see Genesis 15 for the phrase used) which are placed into the mouth of a Greek speaking Iesous in the 4 canonical council approved Gospels,

And the Titulus hanging over the Cross shows armed Sedition was the legal cause for his crucifixion in Roman eye - Breach of Lex Maiestatis (‘no king but Caesar’ law, - Crucifixioin being the specific penalty for the Act of Sedition against Rome…) – there is no way around it.

Also: see the ‘armed warrior’ Messiah language which is buried into the text of the canonical Greek gospels (whose language was softened when it was brought into Greek from the originally harsher Aramaic)

e.g. the 1st Greek gospel ‘acccording to Matthew’ chapter 10:35 & 3rd canonical Greek gospel ‘according to Luke’ in chapter 12:53ff

e.g. ‘Do you imagine the Bar Enasha (‘son of man’) was sent to bring Peace upon the land of Yisro’el? Far from it: for the Bar Enasha (‘son of man’ see Aramaic Daniel 7:13-14) was sent NOT to bring Peace upon the land of Yisro’el, BUT A SWORD; yea, the son of man was sent NOT to bring Harmony, but rather, DIVISION – as it is written, ‘so that he might set a Father against his own son, and a son against his own father, to pit a daughter against her mother and a daughter in law against her own mother in law, so that a man’s enemies are those within his own household !”

--evidently a kind of a Fulfilment End of Days Midrash from the Aramaic Targum of the prophet Micah –

see Aram. Targ. Micah 7: 6 – “For in that Day will a Son dishonor his own father, and a Daughter shall rise up against her own Mother – yea, a Daughter-in-law shall be pitted against her own Mother-in-law in that Day—so that a man’s worst Enemies shall be found tabernaceling within his own household !”

Also take a look at the text of the Greek MSS of the 3rd canonical Greek gospel ‘Luke’ (whoever he was) in chapter 22:35 (NB this passage is full of weird Greek grammar betraying an Aramaic original which was ‘cut down’ when in transmission after AD 70 (when the Jews lost the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome in 72 CE) from evidently a longer more ‘politically subversive’ Aramaic original story)

"Then Iesous asked them, “When I sent you forth without any Purse, or begging bag or sandals, did you lack for anything?” And they said to him, ‘Rabbi, [we lacked] nothing,.

Then he said to them, “But now – let he who has sword, take it [from its sheath]- and he who does NOT have a sword, let him take his Money Purse or his Begging Bag and buy them immediately - and he who does not have a begging bag or a cash-purse on him to buy [a sword], let him sell his outer Tunic tonight [on a cold night, too!!) and purchase one immediately…then the disciples returned saying, “Look, Rabbi, here are two Swords [that we purchased] and he said to them, Do you really think 2 will be enough ? (the Greek texts pre-suppose a question mark)…

Or do you imagine that the Slave of the high priest’s ear was 'cut off with a butter knife' left over from the last supper?

These disciples were ARMED (‘& they ask him, Rabbi, shall we strike, now? And he said, thou hast spoken well; [in other words, yes, ! ) then one took his sword and immediately cut off the ear of the high priest’s slave…”

So we have evidence of an Armed insurrection in 36 CE, at the 100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion (cf: ‘the times of the Amorites are over !’) – & exactly 100 years later in 136 CE another armed Messianic pretender by the name of Bar-Kosiba (or ‘Bar Kokhba’ i.e. ‘son of the Star’ of Yakkov –see Numbers 24:17)

And these few passages are only a few of many more in the gospels !!

reply to post by zerbot565


I'm not familiar with that? Please inform.

Update: Yes that was my point, on a basic sense

reply to post by Sigismundus


The lists of temple prostitutes et al did not become the worlds most published book in History for starters.

Jesus derided Peter for trying to stop him being arrested by violent means... (Matthew 26:52-54) . . .“Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword"...His "Kingdom (or Government) was no part of this world", which is why early Christians took no part in politics and refused military service.

However I will not debate with someone who fails to answer points and deflects their discussion by patronising and deriding another poster.

Didn't Caiphus and the Jewish hierarchy look down on the message that Jesus and his disciples were bringing dismissing them as simple Galileans.... country bumpkins.... the Amharets... "men unlettered and ordinary" (Acts 4:13)..whilst decrying their "outspokenness"?

In just the same manner it is not right that in the 21st Century, someone put themselves above others to say that unless someone is schooled in Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic to a higher degree, they cannot understand the Bible

Men like William Tyndale died fighting the Church in Rome in the middle ages to bring the Word of God to ordinary people. It was the Church who fought a losing battle trying to stop the Holy Scriptures being translated to the common languages of the day. The church instead wished to keep it in Latin so that ONLY the Priestly class would have access to those "inspired words".... They did not succeed.

reply to post by JB1234

Hey JB1234

I think it is YOU who are not answering the basic questions here - I mean, you DID say ALL Scriptures (Gk. Graphe) were 'god-breathed' therefore a list of Male Temple Prostitutes in a pagan temple must ALSO (by your Rule) be 'god breathed too.

You cannot have it both ways - either EVERYTHING WRITTEN DOWN is god breathed (=your jejune opinion) or it is not; and if it is NOT, then your mis-translation is not even being believed by YOU !

The correct translation for 2 Timothy 3:16 (a letter with more than 37% of its vocabulary being non-pauline, beeing stuffed to the rafters with non-Pauline Greekl Hapax Legomena) is: 'Every Scripture WHICH IS god-breathed is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting & training for [a life of] Righteousness' - which presupposes the idea that all-scripture is NOT god-breathed (i.e. inspired holy scripture, or as the 1st century Judaeans would say, 'is so holy it defiles the hands...')

Also, stop mis-quoting texts you cannot even read in their originals - it's getting very annoying trying to get you up to speed on these matters that are eluding you because of your lack of education - but there is an obvious remedy - take a basic Greek class (and while you're at it, also a paleoHebrew and a Galilean Aramaic class) so you can read the basic 'scriptural' texts for yourself and not have to parrot other mis-guided persons 'of faith' - who are just as much in the dark about these matters as you seem to be !

Let's take a look at what you wrote in your last post to me:

QUOTE: "Jesus derided Peter for trying to stop him being arrested by violent means... (Matthew 26:52-54) . .

“Return your sword to its place,
for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword"...

His "Kingdom (or Government) was no part of this world", which is why early Christians took no part in politics and refused military service" UNQUOTE

A correct translation of this ancient Greek Aphorism is actually quite-different from your own warped understanding of the text : viz.

"Whoever is to live by the sword shall live by the sword
and whoever is to die by the sword will die by the sword'

see Rev. 13:10
which preserves the more original rendition of the same Greek axiom

"If anyone is destined to go into the Captivity, into the Captivity he shall go:
And if anyone is destined to be killed with the Sword, with the sword he shall be killed..."

meaning basically, 'Que sera, sera" whatever will be, shall be...is in fact a common axiom in the 1st century CE...in other words, when you hear related axioms like

e.g. 'The son of mankind (Aram. bar enasha (='any son of adam' or 'all men/mankind', as with the expression 'has no place to rest his head') shall live (lit. 'walk') according to what has already been set down [in advance] regarding him;' (sometimes mis-translated and grossly mis-interpreted as : for The Son of Man goeth as it is written of him' ...) - which is basically the very Messianic (see the Dead Sea Scroll material) idea in Palestine in the 1st century CE that 'all is pre-ordained to happen the way it must happen, will happen (cf: 'Not a feather from a bird shall fall to the ground without the fore-knowledge of my Father in heaven...'

This has NOTHING to do with any imaginary 'Pacifist Greek Speaking Iesous' at all - the axiomatic phrase was placed into his mouth LONG AFTER his embarrassing failure to overthrow the Romans in 36 CE (100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion, aka The Insurrection, see 'Mark' chapter 15:5-8)

But let's back up a bit, since you clearly do not have the necessary linguistic or historical background to handle an informed discussion about these matters - and you are certainly not alone on these threads in that regard !

For one thing, you knew, didn't you, that many of the common proverbs placed into the mouth of the Greek Speaking Iesous in the Gospels (and sometimes in the so-called Book of Revelation) are often re-worked and mangled beyond recognition by the time they were hand copied into the Greek 'canonical' gospel hand copied manuscripts over time (We have at our disposal at least 5446 hand-copied/mangled Greek MSS for the New Testament alone, and NOT TWO Manuscripts are exactly alike!!)? The scribes who copied such aphorisms out over time (after a while) were not sure what was said exactly - e.g. Mark 9:40 where a Greek speaking Iesous quotes Julius Caesar (of all people !!) when these words are placed into his Greek-speaking mouth

'For he who is not AGAINST us is FOR us ..."

Whereas see the 1st canonical Gospel ('according to Matthew' ) where the following words are placed into the mouth of HIS own version of his Greek speaking Iesous in his 'gospel' has the saying as:

"He who is NOT WITH ME is AGAINST me..."

Which is quite different altogther...please read around your subject !!